What are you thoughts on pornography, Revleft?

[durhamleft]

I suspect this is an issue you'll disagree with each other on.

On the one hand, if a consenting woman and consenting man want to have sex, and film it then I have no problem with it. It seems clear from what I've seen that some women actively enjoy being involved in it- they think sex is entirely natural and it seems they want to share it.

The fact some couples choose to have sex on webcams online for no money proves that for many people, there is something appealing about having sex knowing others will get pleasure from it.

But at the same time- many women who are in pornography you can't help but feel have only ended up there because they have few other options, and some seem to be picked up on the street as they're drug addicts.

Also, what do you think about pornography in this context. A highly paid female and male pornstar who both enjoy their work, however the shoot they are doing involves a 'roleplay' act of oppression, eg. a female prisoner having sex with the male prison officer. It's clearly staged, and not real, but surely it promotes sexism?

The vast majority of pornography is pretty grotty and presents women as objects of meat who are to be 'abused' by men.

Does it glorfy rape?



Talking to feminists this is an area many can't agree on. Some think all pornography is sexist and puts down women, some argue it's a liberating experience. What do you think?


Personally I'd put pornography alongside strip clubs and prostitution. I don't like them, and I actually think they're pretty disgusting. But I don't think I'd make them illegal, partially because I think ultimately people should be allowed to make their own choices, and partially because you'd just push it underground and it wouldn't be as well regulated. Eg. if all porn was illegal I think it would be more likely minors would end up in it as their wouldn't be the records of age that are currently legally required.

[fabian]

Exploitative, oppressive, humiliative, degrading, decadent.

Consent? Consenting employer and employee don't make capitalism right. A lot of people here confuse volutaryist principles with leftist ones.

[durhamleft]

Exploitative, oppressive, humiliative, degrading, decadent.

Consent? Consenting employer and employee don't make capitalism right. A lot of people here confuse volutaryist principles with leftist ones.

What about couples who enjoy having sex on webcam as they enjoy people watching them having sex?

There are websites where people upload videos of them having sex because they enjoy people watching them, telling them what they like etc.


How is that any of the things you said?

[fabian]

What about couples who enjoy having sex on webcam as they enjoy people watching them having sex?

There are websites where people upload videos of them having sex because they enjoy people watching them, telling them what they like etc.

How is that any of the things you said?
That's only degrading and decadent, but is also potentially humiliative towards the females because many of the sexual perversities (that are becoming more and more wide-spread trough pornography) are based purely on the humiliation of women.

[teflon_john]

there's a dozen of these threads every month and the consensus is that: you're reactionary, bruh bruh.

[durhamleft]

there's a dozen of these threads every month and the consensus is that: you're reactionary, bruh bruh.

If you support pornography or if you oppose it? Or both? :cool:

[Revolution starts with U]

What porno with who doing what?

Webcams? That's cool with me. Social interaction, on a sexual level. It's really quite enthralling, which our friend Fabian would know if he had ever watched them.
There's no "bangbus" webcam, I can assure you.

[durhamleft]

What porno with who doing what?

Webcams? That's cool with me. Social interaction, on a sexual level. It's really quite enthralling, which our friend Fabian would know if he had ever watched them.
There's no "bangbus" webcam, I can assure you.

What do you think about pornography which involved paid actors who aren't being exploited but who are pretending to be involved in a scene where the male actor is abusing the female actor.

Eg "Officer, I'll do anything if you don't arrest me!"

All the people involved are consenting adults who are happy to do it and enjoy their work, but what about the wider social consequence of the video? Eg it portrays the image that vulnerable women should be taken advantage of.


Playing devils advocate a touch here as I'm not sure myself.

[Revolution starts with U]

Not my kind of thing, personally. And it reinforces sexual domination in the psyche, imo. I'm no fan of such abusive porno.

[Zav]

Porn is great. The anti-porn people are prudes. End of story.

I think that porn that roleplays rape is also good, because it relieves the tension of those who have rape fantasies, thus making it less likely that they will actually rape someone.

[#FF0000]

That's only degrading and decadent

Says you. And the Church, I guess.

There's nothing inherently wrong with pornography other than, of course, the employer-employee relationship, and of course the situations that might put people into a situation where they're practically going into it against their will.

And I extend the 'there's nothing wrong with pornography' bit to content as well, so long as it's involving adults who consent and are capable of consent.


I think that porn that roleplays rape is also good, because it relieves the tension of those who have rape fantasies, thus making it less likely that they will actually rape someone.

Ehhhh I don't know about that. I'd have to see some evidence before making that kind of claim. Though I do agree with you in that I see nothing wrong with simulated rape, as shocking as that kind of thing is (to me and to people in general, I'm sure)

[durhamleft]

Porn is great. The anti-porn people are prudes. End of story.

I think that porn that roleplays rape is also good, because it relieves the tension of those who have rape fantasies, thus making it less likely that they will actually rape someone.

I'm not convinced by that argument.

Do you not think that in reality violent pornography actually increases the likelihood of people being dragged into committing rape?

I've never seen any evidence to suggest violent pornography reduces the likelihood of a person committing rape, or for that matter any evidence to suggest that child pornography reduces the likelihood of a person offending against children.

I am under the belief that the consensus was that the visual stimulus can actually exacerbate the desire to commit the crime in real life.

[durhamleft]

Not my kind of thing, personally. And it reinforces sexual domination in the psyche, imo. I'm no fan of such abusive porno.

Should it be illegal though?

[#FF0000]

I am under the belief that the consensus was that the visual stimulus can actually exacerbate the desire to commit the crime in real life.

Wait, what? I was under the impression that the exact opposite was basically the consensus. I mean, obviously the media people consume can send messages and influence them in vague ways -- but I don't think an adult who watches simulated rape is any more likely to commit an actual rape than anyone else, unless that adult's already got some serious and deep-seated issues.

[fabian]

The anti-porn people are prudes
You say it like that's something bad in itself. It is when it's based on traditional superstition and coupled with bigotry and aggressiveness, but is such attitudes are based on rationalism, virtue ethics and some form of asceticism (whether platonic, stoic or epicurean) I don't see what could be wrong with that, on the contrary.


I think that porn that roleplays rape is also good, because it relieves the tension of those who have rape fantasies
Psychological research confirmes what ancient, medieval and modern ascetics (whether strong stoic, or the mild epicurean ones) knew and know by personal experience- voluntary, willpower based, supression of urges, impulses, emotions puts them under control, whereas indulging just strengthens them.

"The term catharsis has also been adopted by modern psychotherapy, particularly Freudian psychoanalysis, to describe the act of expressing, or more accurately, experiencing the deep emotions often associated with events in the individual's past which had originally been repressed or ignored, and had never been adequately addressed or experienced. Modern psychological opinion is clear on the usefulness of physical non goal-fulfilling cathartic aggression in anger management. "Blowing off steam" may reduce physiological stress in the short term, but this reduction may act as a reward mechanism, reinforcing the behavior and promoting future outbursts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis#Therapeutic_uses


Says you. And the Church, I guess.

There's nothing inherently wrong with pornography other than
Other than, as I said, being degrading, as sexuality in general is. Humans are rational being and should thus act accordingly, to act not according reason (called today moral rationalism or intellectualism) but according to one's impulses and emotions is to humiliate and degrade yourself, as both Stoics and Epicureans noticed long time ago.


And I extend the 'there's nothing wrong with pornography' bit to content as well, so long as it's involving adults who consent and are capable of consent.
And you thus contradict your statement that emploer-employee relationship is wrong, being that it's consentual.

[#FF0000]

Sounds to me that the jury is still out on the whole 'catharsis' thing, tbh.


Other than, as I said, being degrading, as sexuality in general is. Humans are rational being and should thus act accordingly, to act not according reason (called today moral rationalism or intellectualism) but according to one's impulses and emotions is to humiliate and degrade yourself, as both Stoics and Epicureans noticed long time ago.

I don't think you can tell someone what is degrading to them and what is not!


And you thus contradict your statement that emploer-employee relationship is wrong, being that it's consentual.

Nope!

[durhamleft]

Wait, what? I was under the impression that the exact opposite was basically the consensus. I mean, obviously the media people consume can send messages and influence them in vague ways -- but I don't think an adult who watches simulated rape is any more likely to commit an actual rape than anyone else, unless that adult's already got some serious and deep-seated issues.

My understanding was this.


If I watch a rape scene as someone who does not have a predisposition to fantasise over rape, then it will not increase the likelihood of me committing a rape.

However if I am someone who has a predisposition to the idea that raping a woman is arousing, then watching rape scenes will increase the % chance of me acting upon my urges, rather than if I never had access to them.

FYI, I don't support criminalisation of violent pornography, I was just under the belief that the 'it stops the person committing the crime as they can think about it so dont act upon it' has been pretty comprehensively disproven.


Also, I would add the following.


Even if in individual cases the pornography doesn't increase the likelihood of a woman being raped, do you not think that it helps to normalise rape (or the subjection of women) and thus it's effect on societies views of women may deteriorate?

I find it hard to believe someone can watch a scene that portrays a woman being sexually assaulted, for pleasure, without some sort of belief that this would be a mint idea or that women deserve it.


Not exactly my area of expertise though!

[Prometeo liberado]

fabian,if I pick up all of your liberal-reformist-christian morality and fold it up nicely, leaving it at the door would you please pick it up and go? I get it already, you the alternative voice to the communist left. And with that comes all the baggage. Imposing your sexual morality on others because you feel it's correct is no less than a liberal version of the moral majority nonsense. We on the left seek to destroy traditional morality and eventualy all laws of involving victimless crimes. We are not the Taliban, making revolution to impose outdated and destructive morals. I only hope that you learn something here and share it at bible study with the others.

[Revolution starts with U]

Should it be illegal though?

I'm not qualified to answer that.

[durhamleft]

I'm not qualified to answer that.

What information would you want in deciding the case for or against criminalisation?

[#FF0000]

If I watch a rape scene as someone who does not have a predisposition to fantasise over rape, then it will not increase the likelihood of me committing a rape.

However if I am someone who has a predisposition to the idea that raping a woman is arousing, then watching rape scenes will increase the % chance of me acting upon my urges, rather than if I never had access to them.

That's more or less what I'm saying except I have no idea if watching a simulated scene of rape would make one more likely to go out and commit a rape. Even so, I don't know if criminalizing violent porn would even be the right way of going about things, then.


I find it hard to believe someone can watch a scene that portrays a woman being sexually assaulted, for pleasure, without some sort of belief that this would be a mint idea or that women deserve it.

I don't think that's necessarily true, nor do I think it necessarily means that society's views on women will deteriorate because of violent porn. I mean, for me, I've met more women than men who are into the really rough and violent stuff -- and I thought it was pretty disturbing that women had fantasies of rape.

But the thing is, it's simulation, and as long as a person is capable of telling the difference between fantasy and real life, then I don't think it's an issue.

I mean, let's look at a less shocking example. When it comes to movies and books and all sorts of media, I love all things horror. However, if I were to ever find myself faced with something like The Colour Out Of Space or were dropped into the world of Resident Evil, I'd probably just make things easy and kill myself. Finding something exciting or exhilarating in fantasy -- in a controlled environment and from a safe distance -- doesn't mean one will be so fond of the real thing

[durhamleft]

fabian,if I pick up all of your liberal-reformist-christian morality and fold it up nicely, leaving it at the door would you please pick it up and go? I get it already, you the alternative voice to the communist left. And with that comes all the baggage. Imposing your sexual morality on others because you feel it's correct is no less than a liberal version of the moral majority nonsense. We on the left seek to destroy traditional morality and eventualy all laws of involving victimless crimes. We are not the Taliban, making revolution to impose outdated and destructive morals. I only hope that you learn something here and share it at bible study with the others.

Would you not agree that Marxists impose morality on others because they feel it's correct? Eg. regarding the 'evils' of the capitalist system?

In fact do you not think almost all ideologies impose their ideas of what's morally correct ?

[Revolution starts with U]

Community consensus basically.

It's like this. I wouldn't ban it, just as I wouldn't ban drugs because some people become addicts. Others don't, so obviously it's not the drugs, (and if the data is the same, it's not the porn). But, if the community as a whole wanted to get rid of it... I won't be able to stop them anyway.

[Prometeo liberado]

Would you not agree that Marxists impose morality on others because they feel it's correct? Eg. regarding the 'evils' of the capitalist system?

In fact do you not think almost all ideologies impose their ideas of what's morally correct ?

You confuse Science with Religion. Truth with Superstition.

[#FF0000]

Community consensus basically.

It's like this. I wouldn't ban it, just as I wouldn't ban drugs because some people become addicts. Others don't, so obviously it's not the drugs, (and if the data is the same, it's not the porn). But, if the community as a whole wanted to get rid of it... I won't be able to stop them anyway.

Yeah the problem here is that the people who'd do that, I feel, are likely to be the same sorts of people who infantilize people (and women in particular) and treat people who are into kinks like bdsm like damaged goods.

[Dani Phantom]

Imo porn instills the idea that women are sex objects,and if patriarchy is to abolished pornography needs to be done away with;morals have nothing to do with why I'm anti-porn.Women needn't be exploited just because some nerd can't get a girlfriend:thumbdown:

[durhamleft]

That's more or less what I'm saying except I have no idea if watching a simulated scene of rape would make one more likely to go out and commit a rape. Even so, I don't know if criminalizing violent porn would even be the right way of going about things, then.



I don't think that's necessarily true, nor do I think it necessarily means that society's views on women will deteriorate because of violent porn. I mean, for me, I've met more women than men who are into the really rough and violent stuff -- and I thought it was pretty disturbing that women had fantasies of rape.

But the thing is, it's simulation, and as long as a person is capable of telling the difference between fantasy and real life, then I don't think it's an issue.

I mean, let's look at a less shocking example. When it comes to movies and books and all sorts of media, I love all things horror. However, if I were to ever find myself faced with something like The Colour Out Of Space or were dropped into the world of Resident Evil, I'd probably just make things easy and kill myself. Finding something exciting or exhilarating in fantasy -- in a controlled environment and from a safe distance -- doesn't mean one will be so fond of the real thing

(1) I agree that criminalisation is wrong, and counterproductive. I was just saying I don't really think a lot of the stuff on the internet is healthy. But is that enough to ban it all? No, imo.

(2) I think there's a difference between the two.

Because I think you enjoy watching horror movies or playing horror games because you enjoy the game in itself, and have no pretence that it's real.

However, a lot of people who enjoy watching violent pornography, I would suggest watch it because believing it's real is what turns them of- hence the rise in more and more extreme forms of porno.

It's hard to articulate quite what I'm trying to say, but I think there are some fundamental differences between the satisfaction derived from playing a simulated computer game and the sexual satisfaction derived from watching violent pornography, in relation to how people would place them in the real world.

[durhamleft]

You confuse Science with Religion. Truth with Superstition.

No I don't.

[Offbeat]

Would you not agree that Marxists impose morality on others because they feel it's correct? Eg. regarding the 'evils' of the capitalist system?

Marxism has no concept of morality. 'Good' and 'evil' are entirely subjective - it's easy for us to think of capitalism as 'evil', but to the capitalists themselves it's entirely the opposite. Marxism is about class-interest, which is essentially self-interest. I want to advance the interests of my class at the expense of the class which is currently predominant, not because the current system is 'evil' according to some moral code.

On the issue of pornography, those on the left who oppose it seem to assume that all pornography is exploitive and objectifies women, ignoring for example amateur porn. With the end of the capitalist mode of production, this would largely stop the production of exploitive pornography, as it would end most exploitation in general.

[Tim Cornelis]

Would you not agree that Marxists impose morality on others because they feel it's correct? Eg. regarding the 'evils' of the capitalist system?

In fact do you not think almost all ideologies impose their ideas of what's morally correct ?

Marxism doesn't have a morality. It does not say that capitalism is evil, it says capitalism can be both progressive and regressive in terms of advancing towards a next stage.

Marxism doesn't say that capitalism is bad, it says capitalism has internal contradictions which makes it a crisis-prone system which will ultimately allow for the establishment of a new mode of production.

Marxism does not say this new mode of production is better or worse, that's for the individual to decide, not Marxism. It merely says that with the developments we witness throughout history (class consciousness, productive forces), such a new mode of production is highly likely.

[Zav]

You say it like that's something bad in itself. It is when it's based on traditional superstition and coupled with bigotry and aggressiveness, but is such attitudes are based on rationalism, virtue ethics and some form of asceticism (whether platonic, stoic or epicurean) I don't see what could be wrong with that, on the contrary.
That is your opinion. It is my opinion that being prudish is bad, and I do not accept philosophies that say otherwise.



Psychological research confirmes what ancient, medieval and modern ascetics (whether strong stoic, or the mild epicurean ones) knew and know by personal experience- voluntary, willpower based, supression of urges, impulses, emotions puts them under control, whereas indulging just strengthens them.
I don't suppose you have this research offhand, then. Suppressing your emotions is not healthy.



"The term catharsis has also been adopted by modern psychotherapy, particularly Freudian psychoanalysis, to describe the act of expressing, or more accurately, experiencing the deep emotions often associated with events in the individual's past which had originally been repressed or ignored, and had never been adequately addressed or experienced. Modern psychological opinion is clear on the usefulness of physical non goal-fulfilling cathartic aggression in anger management. "Blowing off steam" may reduce physiological stress in the short term, but this reduction may act as a reward mechanism, reinforcing the behavior and promoting future outbursts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis#Therapeutic_uses

Hasn't Freudian psychoanalysis been debunked?



Other than, as I said, being degrading, as sexuality in general is. Humans are rational being and should thus act accordingly, to act not according reason (called today moral rationalism or intellectualism) but according to one's impulses and emotions is to humiliate and degrade yourself, as both Stoics and Epicureans noticed long time ago.

Sexuality is liberating, not degrading. If you don't want sex, don't have any, but recognize that most people do, and your boring philosophy of suppression is not a very appealing answer to any great questions. Humans are rational beings, and their emotions and impulses are ways of processing and dealing with the world, and thus are also rational. I see no reason to emulate the monk-like ways of the Stoics and their philosophical cousins. There is no point in denying pleasure and emotion to yourself in the one life you have, so long as you aren't harming anyone, of course.

[#FF0000]

Because I think you enjoy watching horror movies or playing horror games because you enjoy the game in itself, and have no pretence that it's real.

However, a lot of people who enjoy watching violent pornography, I would suggest watch it because believing it's real is what turns them of- hence the rise in more and more extreme forms of porno.

Well actually, I think the same is true of video games in particular, actually -- a medium in which "immersion" is the goal. But either way, no matter how realistic or immersive a piece of media is or how good one is at suspending disbelief, I think that people are still aware, somewhere in the back of their minds, that it's fake, you know?

I mean, I'm sure the depiction of rape in this stuff is way off base to begin with, relying on old tropes about rape that are already common in the public imagination -- about the violence of it, about the perpetrators, etc. etc. etc.


It's hard to articulate quite what I'm trying to say, but I think there are some fundamental differences between the satisfaction derived from playing a simulated computer game and the sexual satisfaction derived from watching violent pornography, in relation to how people would place them in the real world.I think I know what you mean, and you may very well be right -- but I'd argue that there's also a fundamental difference between anything simulated, and the real thing.

EDIT: Maybe this thread should have a trigger warning or something.

[durhamleft]

Marxism has no concept of morality. 'Good' and 'evil' are entirely subjective - it's easy for us to think of capitalism as 'evil', but to the capitalists themselves it's entirely the opposite. Marxism is about class-interest, which is essentially self-interest. I want to advance the interests of my class at the expense of the class which is currently predominant, not because the current system is 'evil' according to some moral code.

On the issue of pornography, those on the left who oppose it seem to assume that all pornography is exploitive and objectifies women, ignoring for example amateur porn. With the end of the capitalist mode of production, this would largely stop the production of exploitive pornography, as it would end most exploitation in general.

Fair enough.

But a large % of Marxists argue for communism based on morality: "Isn't it disgusting that bankers get paid £XXX while we have homeless people" etc.

So a lot of Marxists use morality as the basis for Marxism.

Also, a lot of Marx's writing was based on a moral critique of capitalism, and you can almost split early Marx and later Marx into two separate writers. One wrote scientifically for Marxism, that the revolution was inevitable and a stage of history, the other was much more ethical in his critique of capitalism.

[Magón]

If a couple or group of people, want to record themselves having sex and upload it to the internet, or webcam it, then that's their business, and anyone else who's interested in it. You can't say it's morally wrong, or perverse, or whatever you want to try and call it, because morality and perversions are all subjective to each individual. Even if in a group of people, they say one thing, like people having sex and uploading it to the internet for everyone interested, to watch, that doesn't mean they uphold that opinion in the privacy of their own homes. There are plenty of examples of people saying one thing in public, and another in the privacy of their own homes.

As for the porn industry, there are many reasons why people do it. Men, women, whoever, there are reasons that aren't so narrow minded and cut n' paste like, "Oh they have a drug problem," or "They were molested/raped by their stepfather." Shit like that just goes to show how ignorant some people are about why people do what they do. Not just in porn, but elsewhere in people's lives too.

And for people who think porn is just about women being degraded and abused, I ask you to stop and look up another form of porn. Maybe then you won't be so narrow minded and ignorant, to what's actually out there in the porn industry. There's more to the industry, than women being slapped around, or "raped" in porn. There are plenty of kinks porn expresses, and women being abused or "raped" is just one of them, not the entire thing. And there are plenty of reasons why some women in porn, agree to be abused, it's not another cut n' paste, answer. Some women like a little abuse, some don't, some do it because they're interested in it, some just have no reason why they do it. Whatever the reason, it's theirs, and theirs alone.

So there's my rant on porn.

[Drosophila]

Fair enough.

But a large % of Marxists argue for communism based on morality: "Isn't it disgusting that bankers get paid £XXX while we have homeless people" etc.

So a lot of Marxists use morality as the basis for Marxism.

How do you know that? Marx's writings were not moralistic at all.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

In my opinion, for the most part it's fine, but there needs to be less "abuse" porn. Theres also some femdom porn which is degrading to men. There should be better treatment of actors. Some of the porn industry is pretty sick, but not all of it.:sneaky:

[durhamleft]

How do you know that? Marx's writings were not moralistic at all.

1) Marx's early works were pretty moralistic to be honest, and the whole 'Marxist Humanism' is in line with what I'd call moralistic critiques of capitalism.

2) Even much of Marx's later work was moralistic. He talked about bougeoise as robbers and to be honest any theory which argues one class oppresses another will at some point end up arguing that exploitation is morally wrong.


Marx made a big hoo-har about how he wasn't moralistic but was scientific, but in reality there's more of a case for Marxism on moral grounds than anything and I think most Marxists now in retrospect looking at all his work would realise that he does end up using moral arguments throughout his work, though he tries his best to avoid it.


Nowadays moral Marxism is what's mainly used. You look at ALL the main left parties and their headlines will be "AUSTERITY- Working class suffers as bosses salaries boost'. "Workfare- jobless exploited with slave labour". Rather than "Capitalism- soon we will inevitably develop into a socialist state as the forces of history swirl".

Also, if Marx was scientific he's pretty fucked as many of his major predictions didn't come true.

[#FF0000]

Also, if Marx was scientific he's pretty fucked as many of his major predictions didn't come true.

Eh, this is kind of off topic but I don't think that's an accurate statement and I don't think Marx was especially big on making predictions. His critiques of capitalism are what's most important in his work, imo, and anyone looking for predictions is fucking up from the get-go.

[Rafiq]

Like what? What predictions didn't come true? Workers revolution?

If I predict the I take a shit tommarow, and it hasn't happened yet, is my prediction wrong? He said it would happen eventually. He didn't say "It will happen on may 23 of 1967

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

Fair enough.

But a large % of Marxists argue for communism based on morality: "Isn't it disgusting that bankers get paid £XXX while we have homeless people" etc.

So a lot of Marxists use morality as the basis for Marxism.

Also, a lot of Marx's writing was based on a moral critique of capitalism, and you can almost split early Marx and later Marx into two separate writers. One wrote scientifically for Marxism, that the revolution was inevitable and a stage of history, the other was much more ethical in his critique of capitalism.

You can't base morality as a basis for your Marxism. That's wht you're not a Marxist.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[durhamleft]

Eh, this is kind of off topic but I don't think that's an accurate statement and I don't think Marx was especially big on making predictions. His critiques of capitalism are what's most important in his work, imo, and anyone looking for predictions is fucking up from the get-go.

(1) The first revolutions will occur in Western capitalist economies first eg the UK Germany. - Ended up in Russia

(2) The incomes of the working class will deteriorate over time. - While you can argue that workers are oppressed by their bosses still- you can hardly argue that standards of living for the workers is less now than it was in the 1800s.

FYI, I don't blame Marx for making these mistakes, but when posters quote him like God as if his writings are the be all and end all of everything written ever I think they forget his writings were written in a totally different era and while he made some valuable contributions and made some salient points, there is also large sections of his writing which is more or less redundant in the 21st century.

[durhamleft]

You can't base morality as a basis for your Marxism. That's wht you're not a Marxist.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

1) Much of Marx's writings did.

2) Many Marxists today use morality to try and argue against the capitalist system.


Do you disagree with either of these points?

[#FF0000]

(1) The first revolutions will occur in Western capitalist economies first eg the UK Germany. - Ended up in Russia

(2) The incomes of the working class will deteriorate over time. - While you can argue that workers are oppressed by their bosses still- you can hardly argue that standards of living for the workers is less now than it was in the 1800s.

Oh well if those are the predictions you're talking about then yeah lol. A lot of people totally underestimated capitalism's adaptability.

Either way this is hella off topic so

[durhamleft]

Oh well if those are the predictions you're talking about then yeah lol. A lot of people totally underestimated capitalism's adaptability.

Either way this is hella off topic so

Since I'm restricted to this sub-forum most my thread end up off topic. I'm surprised this one lasted as long as it did to be honest.

[Rafiq]

1) Much of Marx's writings did.

Early Marx doesn't define Marxists. It's the likes of Bourgeois-Marxists (Jean Paul Sartre) who disregarded Engels and favored young Marx's unrelenting humanism.

Older Marx disregarded it.


2) Many Marxists today use morality to try and argue against the capitalist system.


Even these, though, make a clear distinction between Bourgeois Morality and Proletarian Morality. And none the less, I've yet to meet a Marxist who thinks morals are the building blocks of society, or can change society in one way or another.

A real Marxists, or, should I say, a strong Marxist doesn't resort to moral attacks. Marxism is strictly scientific, with no moral framework.


Do you disagree with either of these points?


In a way.

[Rafiq]

(1) The first revolutions will occur in Western capitalist economies first eg the UK Germany. - Ended up in Russia

Show me where he said that.

I'm tired of idiots misreading Marx in this regards. He said that a revolution must exist in an industrialized country like the UK or Germany in order to be successful.

Later in his life, though, he clearly remarked about how the Peasants of Russia are capable of skipping industrialization, so long as the revolution spreads.

Hardly a false prediction.

(
2) The incomes of the working class will deteriorate over time. - While you can argue that workers are oppressed by their bosses still- you can hardly argue that standards of living for the workers is less now than it was in the 1800s.

You need to source that. Marx never said living conditions for the proletariat will get worse. Are you just talking out of your ass? Marx, I believe even said conditions will get better.


FYI, I don't blame Marx for making these mistakes,

:laugh:

What mistakes?


but when posters quote him like God

Unlike you, when Marx asserted something, he had a lot to back it up. That's why a lot of us hold him up.


as if his writings are the be all and end all of everything written ever I think they forget his writings were written in a totally different era

Marxism isn't just "Marx". Marxism is Engels, Kautsky, and a various range of thinkers who've added and contributed to the theoretical skeleton Marx and Engels left for us. Marxism is indeed everything to Marxists.


and while he made some valuable contributions and made some salient points,

"Yeah, Marx was right sometimes, but in theory, it didn't work".

He was wrong on quite a few things. What you have mentioned isn't among them.


there is also large sections of his writing which is more or less redundant in the 21st century.


Marx is all the more relevant to the 21st century. All we need is Marxists with concrete analysis, we don't need to abandon the theoretical skeleton he left behind. Even Marx acknowledged things change.

[durhamleft]

Early Marx doesn't define Marxists. It's the likes of Bourgeois-Marxists (Jean Paul Sartre) who disregarded Engels and favored young Marx's unrelenting humanism.

Older Marx disregarded it.



Even these, though, make a clear distinction between Bourgeois Morality and Proletarian Morality. And none the less, I've yet to meet a Marxist who thinks morals are the building blocks of society, or can change society in one way or another.

A real Marxists, or, should I say, a strong Marxist doesn't resort to moral attacks. Marxism is strictly scientific, with no moral framework.



In a way.

1) Do you not think there's something strange about saying "Marxists don't believe in morality having any influence on issues of politics" while years of Marx's writings were in effect, a moral critique of capitalism?

On a side note, do you not think it's the later Marx, who made bold claims about having a scientific method to analyse history, and make bold claims about how society will definitely develop who has been made to look somewhat foolish? Whereas the Marx who analysed the alienation of labour and the nature of relationship between worker and employer has more relevance now?

2)

Do you not think, when you see Marxists using rhetoric such as 'CUTS KILL DISABLED PEOPLE", they are not promoting their ideology on the ideas of later Marx, but are using pure morality to try and push their agenda.

[durhamleft]

Show me where he said that.

I'm tired of idiots misreading Marx in this regards. He said that a revolution must exist in an industrialized country like the UK or Germany in order to be successful.

Later in his life, though, he clearly remarked about how the Peasants of Russia are capable of skipping industrialization, so long as the revolution spreads.

Hardly a false prediction.

(

You need to source that. Marx never said living conditions for the proletariat will get worse. Are you just talking out of your ass? Marx, I believe even said conditions will get better.



:laugh:

What mistakes?



Unlike you, when Marx asserted something, he had a lot to back it up. That's why a lot of us hold him up.



Marxism isn't just "Marx". Marxism is Engels, Kautsky, and a various range of thinkers who've added and contributed to the theoretical skeleton Marx and Engels left for us. Marxism is indeed everything to Marxists.



"Yeah, Marx was right sometimes, but in theory, it didn't work".

He was wrong on quite a few things. What you have mentioned isn't among them.



Marx is all the more relevant to the 21st century. All we need is Marxists with concrete analysis, we don't need to abandon the theoretical skeleton he left behind. Even Marx acknowledged things change.

Dunno what to say pal except you're wrong.

I know Marxism like the back of my hand.

1) Marx did predict that revolutions would occur in Western economies first. Not getting the books out the garage to pull out quotes but he did- and unless you provide a quote to suggest otherwise I'm not budging. Most Marxists accept this, as did Lenin, which is why he had to adapt Marxism to 'telescope the revolution'. :rolleyes:

2) Yes he did say standards of living would fall. Again, cba to get the books out but here's a Marxist professor. "First, it predicted that the proletariat would both increase as a percentage of the population and become poorer: as capitalist competition progressed, more and more people would be forced to sell their labor; and as the supply of those selling their labor increased, the wages they could demand would necessarily decrease."


You're just wrong. Pretty much every neo-Maxist accepts that Marx's predictions haven't come true. Every uni professor I had who was Marxist accepted his predictions didn't come true. The job of neo Marxists is proving how sneaky capitalism that it's avoided what Marx said would happen.

[Drosophila]

1) Marx's early works were pretty moralistic to be honest, and the whole 'Marxist Humanism' is in line with what I'd call moralistic critiques of capitalism.

But morality clearly isn't a goal of Marxism. The core of Marxism is non-moralistic.


2) Even much of Marx's later work was moralistic. He talked about bougeoise as robbers and to be honest any theory which argues one class oppresses another will at some point end up arguing that exploitation is morally wrong.I don't recall him ever speaking on the morality of capitalism. Sure, people can interpret it that way, but it doesn't seem apparent to me.



Nowadays moral Marxism is what's mainly used. You look at ALL the main left parties and their headlines will be "AUSTERITY- Working class suffers as bosses salaries boost'. "Workfare- jobless exploited with slave labour". Rather than "Capitalism- soon we will inevitably develop into a socialist state as the forces of history swirl".Arguing against exploitation isn't necessarily moralistic.


Also, if Marx was scientific he's pretty fucked as many of his major predictions didn't come true.That's not what's meant by scientific socialism.

[Caj]

(1) The first revolutions will occur in Western capitalist economies first eg the UK Germany. - Ended up in Russia

(2) The incomes of the working class will deteriorate over time. - While you can argue that workers are oppressed by their bosses still- you can hardly argue that standards of living for the workers is less now than it was in the 1800s.

Marx never said either of those things. In fact, on the latter point, Marx said in Wage Labour and Capital that the accumulation of capital would lead to an absolute increase in living standards among the working class and a decrease in living standards only in relation to that of the bourgeoisie.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

But at the same time- many women who are in pornography you can't help but feel have only ended up there because they have few other options, and some seem to be picked up on the street as they're drug addicts.

While, there is some truth in the above, I feel it rests on the assumption that by having sex, filming it and making money at it, it's somehow degrading or they were forced into when in reality, they could have very well sought out to act in films. In fact, I've thought about getting into the porn industry myself but have yet to take the time to actually get the ball rolling. I would love it, you get to fuck and make money, what's better than that? I do however recognize (as with basically anything) that pornography as it exists today, does need to be revamped and overhauled. But past that, I love porn, not even in a strictly sensual way, I actually like watching some movies just for the humor and so on. My thing is, am I poor? Fuck yes, was that the only factor that led me to sex work? No, I genuinely love fucking. It's different for everyone.

[Rafiq]

1) Do you not think there's something strange about saying "Marxists don't believe in morality having any influence on issues of politics" while years of Marx's writings were in effect, a moral critique of capitalism?

Shut the fuck up. Where is the moral framework behind mathematics? There isn't any. Marxism is a science, not an ideology.

I reckon most Marxists adhere to the Communist moral framework. That doesn't negate the fact that Marxism is inherently amoral.


On a side note, do you not think it's the later Marx, who made bold claims about having a scientific method to analyse history, and make bold claims about how society will definitely develop who has been made to look somewhat foolish?

Marx never went in depth about any society "definitely" developing.

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things


- Karl Marx

It is foolish for people to attempt that. Kautsky said that we aren't here to make recipes for future kitchens, and he was right.

Stop talking out of your ass.



Whereas the Marx who analysed the alienation of labour

Young Marx.


and the nature of relationship between worker and employer

Old Marx.


has more relevance now?


You're whole assertion was an ecclectic clusterfuck to begin with.



Do you not think, when you see Marxists using rhetoric such as 'CUTS KILL DISABLED PEOPLE"

They are doing it as Socialists, not Marxists.


, they are not promoting their ideology on the ideas of later Marx,

Marx, along with Freud were among the first to formulate a concrete criticism of Ideology.

Marxism is not an ideology, will never be, has never been, and can never be one.



but are using pure morality to try and push their agenda.

They're opportunists whose interests are not in correlation with that of the proletariat (I.e. Their rhetoric is dated to the 20th century, has not adjusted, is not organic, and so on).

[#FF0000]

well this got boring

[#FF0000]

While, there is some truth in the above, I feel it rests on the assumption that by having sex, filming it and making money at it, it's somehow degrading or they were forced into when in reality, they could have very well sought out to act in films. In fact, I've thought about getting into the porn industry myself but have yet to take the time to actually get the ball rolling. I would love it, you get to fuck and make money, what's better than that? I do however recognize (as with basically anything) that pornography as it exists today, does need to be revamped and overhauled. But past that, I love porn, not even in a strictly sensual way, I actually like watching some movies just for the humor and so on. My thing is, am I poor? Fuck yes, was that the only factor that led me to sex work? No, I genuinely love fucking. It's different for everyone.

To bring this back to "fun discussion" territory I think I'm gonna point out that there's actually a lot of women from comfortable backgrounds that get involved with sex work.

[Drosophila]

well this got boring

More boring than the biweekly porn threads on revleft?

[#FF0000]

More boring than the biweekly porn threads on revleft?

by virtue of them being porn threads, yes.

[Rafiq]

Dunno what to say pal except you're wrong.

Good job.


I know Marxism like the back of my hand.


Yeah, that's because yours eyes, of that of which are on your head, never have seen the back of your hand...

Because you're head is up your ass.


1) Marx did predict that revolutions would occur in Western economies first.

He later elaborated on the possibility of it occuring in a Peasant demographic majority country. Ironically, he specifically mentioned Russia.

N
ot getting the books out the garage to pull out quotes but he did-

How convienient! We can just go about asserting things without linking a credible source, of which could confirm the assertion!

Your words are empty and baseless. You're a moralist scum and not a word out of your mouth is to be believed unless you have a credible source to confirm it up (Link something from Marx which confirms it).


and unless you provide a quote to suggest otherwise I'm not budging.

If you don't provide me evidence that God doesn't exist, I'm not budging!


Even though your logic is completely fucking flawed, here you go:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm



Most Marxists accept this, as did Lenin,

Most Marxist acknowledged Revolution in Imperialist nations was necessary for any other revolution to survive. I can link that of you want, too.


which is why he had to adapt Marxism to 'telescope the revolution'

You're a fucking moron. Everything you've said comes straight up from your ass.


. :rolleyes:


1. Asserts something out of his ass, on the spot

2. Acts like an arrogant shitbag, thinks people are stupid when they don't adhere to it.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Never have I spoken with someon-.... Never mind.


2) Yes he did say standards of living would fall. Again, cba to get the books out but here's a Marxist professor

Marxist professor =/= Marx himself or the embodiment of Marxism.


. "First, it predicted that the proletariat would both increase as a percentage of the population

Valid, so far.


and become poorer

Wrong.


: as capitalist competition progressed, more and more people would be forced to sell their labor; and as the supply of those selling their labor increased, the wages they could demand would necessarily decrease."

:confused:

Isn't that exactly what happened starting twenty years ago? Living Standards for workers only increased through debt. The true face has revealed itself.


You're just wrong.

Good job. Great point.


Pretty much every neo-Maxist accepts that Marx's predictions haven't come true.

Virtually almost all of them have. Including the prediction of the Long depression.


Every uni professor I had who was Marxist accepted his predictions didn't come true.

What predictions? Can you be more specific?


The job of neo Marxists is proving how sneaky capitalism that it's avoided what Marx said would happen.

Be specific you shit.

Virtually all of his predictions in regards to capitalism came true. He didn't fucking predict exactly what would happen in a hundred year timespan, if that's what you are implying.

[Rafiq]

duramleft: HUR YOUR ZO STUPID! LIEK< EVERYTHING I AM SAYING IS OUT OF MY ASS, HOW CUD U NOT BELEIVZ ME ??? ? ? ? ? ////

[rylasasin]

My thoughts on pornography can be summed up in three words:

Fap Fap Fap.

PS: I find it funny that this subject is always brought up, but it's drawn counterpart (Hentai, other drawn porn, etc) never is. I'd like to know people's thoughts on that.

Because truth be told, I'm much more into the drawn stuff than I am the real deal. But maybe that's just me.

[Prometeo liberado]

To bring this back to "fun discussion" territory I think I'm gonna point out that there's actually a lot of women from comfortable backgrounds that get involved with sex work.

I've posted this before in another thread, porn star and activist Nina Hartley, who is a communist, has no problem letting people know that so called morals have no place in a communist discussion.

[Os Cangaceiros]

My opinion:

There are porn stars in eastern Europe who basically fuck to eat (check out the documentary "Made in Serbia" for example). There are prostitutes who are trafficked in the same general region who are beaten and tortured if they don't do what their pimps tell them to do. Their lives are a living hell.

There are porn stars in the USA who make a lot of money, and generally exist in an industry that imposes controls related to the medical hazards inherent in the type of work (specifically HIV/AIDS). I don't really feel sorry for them, honestly, anymore than any other worker, although there is a taboo around the work. There are also prostitutes who make a lot of money and are not abused. In "A Renegades History of the United States" by Thadeus Russell, he mentions that the average prostitute in the American West in the late 19th century earned far more than most workers, even quite a bit more than skilled unionized workers. Yet the moralists ultimately succeeded in waging war on the profession, closing the red light districts and driving the prostitutes out into the street.

So no, I don't think there's anything inherently degrading in the work, although there are definitely environments where it is highly oppressive, not due to the nature of the work itself though. In addition, I refuse to make moral value judgements on the voluntary sex lives and preferences of consenting adults, regardless of whether they like the same sex or tentacle porn or BDSM or whatever.

[xREDNECKx]

I've posted this before in another thread, porn star and activist Nina Hartley, who is a communist, has no problem letting people know that so called morals have no place in a communist discussion.

Morals have nothing to do with it;pornography is wrong because it promotes patriarchy.Why is this so goddamn hard to understand?

[durhamleft]

My opinion:

There are porn stars in eastern Europe who basically fuck to eat (check out the documentary "Made in Serbia" for example). There are prostitutes who are trafficked in the same general region who are beaten and tortured if they don't do what their pimps tell them to do. Their lives are a living hell.

There are porn stars in the USA who make a lot of money, and generally exist in an industry that imposes controls related to the medical hazards inherent in the type of work (specifically HIV/AIDS). I don't really feel sorry for them, honestly, anymore than any other worker, although there is a taboo around the work. There are also prostitutes who make a lot of money and are not abused. In "A Renegades History of the United States" by Thadeus Russell, he mentions that the average prostitute in the American West in the late 19th century earned far more than most workers, even quite a bit more than skilled unionized workers. Yet the moralists ultimately succeeded in waging war on the profession, closing the red light districts and driving the prostitutes out into the street.

So no, I don't think there's anything inherently degrading in the work, although there are definitely environments where it is highly oppressive, not due to the nature of the work itself though. In addition, I refuse to make moral value judgements on the voluntary sex lives and preferences of consenting adults, regardless of whether they like the same sex or tentacle porn or BDSM or whatever.

Re. prostitutes who are very well played, where I live at least, high paid escorts are the exception to the rule.

[fabian]

fabian,if I pick up all of your liberal-reformist-christian morality
Don't see what's wrong with liking liberty, neither do I see anything reformist and christian or liberal in the modern sense of the word about morality.


Imposing your sexual morality on others
Imposing? I'm pretty sure I cannot force anyone into anything on a internet forum. And I wouldn't want to, being that only defensive force is legitimate.


We on the left seek to destroy traditional morality
Great, I'm against tradition, all superstitions and appeals to tradition should be abandoned.


and eventualy all laws of involving victimless crimes.
Are you a voluntaryst or a leftist? Cause if you're a voluntaryist who thinks that things like drug use don't have victims and that everythings ok as long as it's consentual, you should also aprove of capitalism.


That is your opinion. It is my opinion that being prudish is bad, and I do not accept philosophies that say otherwise.
Diference being that my views are based on rationalist philosophies of stoicism and epicureanism, wheareas yours are based on "I like it that way".


Suppressing your emotions is not healthy.
It is very healthy both for you, and the people that surrond you.


Hasn't Freudian psychoanalysis been debunked?
Exactly. Freudianism advocated catharsis, and has been debunked.



Sexuality is liberating
Nothing could be further from the truth. Only ascetism in liberating, endulging your impulses is enslaving oneself to them. As Rousseau said- being controled by one's impulses is slavery, behaving according to ethic rules that we establish for our selves is liberty; stoics had a similar saying- control your habits so that they don't contol you.


If you don't want sex, don't have any, but recognize that most people do, and your boring philosophy of suppression is not a very appealing
Appeal to majority is a fallacy.


Humans are rational beings, and their emotions and impulses are ways of processing and dealing with the world, and thus are also rational.
Emotions and impulses are animalistic and an antithesis to rationality.


There is no point in denying pleasure
Exactlty, and the mental pleasures are the only real pleasures. As Mill said: "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."

[Zav]

Diference being that my views are based on rationalist philosophies of stoicism and epicureanism, wheareas yours are based on "I like it that way".
By using 'ism's to describe your philosophies and an inarticulate statement to describe mine, you seem to intend to demean me. I can do the same. My views are based on the philosophies of the Libertines, whereas (you spelled that wrong, by the way) yours are based on "Pleasure is bad."


It is very healthy both for you, and the people that surrond you.
No. It is common knowledge that suppressing emotions is unhealthy. I demand a credible source to say otherwise.


Exactly. Freudianism advocated catharsis, and has been debunked.
Catharsis may exist without Freudianism. I have not heard that the former has been debunked, but rather only the latter.



Nothing could be further from the truth. Only ascetism in liberating, endulging your impulses is enslaving oneself to them. As Rousseau said- being controled by one's impulses is slavery, behaving according to ethic rules that we establish for our selves is liberty; stoics had a similar saying- control your habits so that they don't contol you.
Apparently we have differing ideas of what freedom is, as is to be expected between members of extremely opposing politics. I find that suppressing such things is like putting on one's own shackles, whereas doing as one wills to do is like breaking them.



Appeal to majority is a fallacy.
I meant that the goal of philosophy is to find an answer to humanity's problems, and that I found it unlikely that your philosophies were correct only partially based on the judgment of the populus (moreso on my own).



Emotions and impulses are animalistic and an antithesis to rationality.

Humans are animals, nothing more. Deal with it. I disagree. If one feels happy, it is the body's way of telling the brain to keep doing whatever is being done. The opposite is true for sadness, fear tells us to escape, anger and frustration tell us to solve a problem, and so on. These are old methods of dealing with the world to be sure, but they work as well as ever, and are quite logical.



Exactlty, and the mental pleasures are the only real pleasures. As Mill said: "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."
Mental pleasures are pleasurable as are physical ones. They are not mutually exclusive. You offer no evidence apart from quotes that physical pleasures are bad.

[fabian]

My views are based on the philosophies of the Libertines
Libertinism is not a philosophy. The only hedonistic philosophy is Cyrenaicism, and I've yet to find out about someone being a Cyrenaic, being that praticing that philosophy requires a will power of an ascetic. Maybe Bentham could have passed as a Cyrenaic.


No. It is common knowledge that suppressing emotions is unhealthy.
Another appeal to majority.


I demand a credible source to say otherwise.
Every volutary ascetic in history, from the religious ones like christian, hindu or buddhist to rationalist ones like the stoics, epicureans, and the modern intellectualists (moral rationalists).


I have not heard that the former has been debunked, but rather only the latter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis#Therapeutic_uses References are in the footnotes.


whereas doing as one wills to do is like breaking them.
I totally agree, only I take into consideration that libertines don't act as -they- will, but as their -impulses- will. The more people indulge in impulses, the more difficult it becomes to control oneself, and that's pretty much the deffinition of addiction and depence. It's like drugs. People may say that it is in accordance with liberty to be "free to do drugs" but a lot of drugs make people dependant, and I don't see where are the liberty and freedom in that. It's like saying- I'm for liberty, and everyone should be "free to sell themselves in slavery".

When people espouse anti-capitalist views they contradict themselves in that regard, and that's why I see ascetism as a moral manifestation of leftism, and leftism as a political manifestation of ascetism, because they both center on achieving liberty, not on "having the liberty to surrender your liberty", which is in ethical sphere called libertinism, and in the political either voluntaryism or right-libertartarianism, and that of the Nozick-style, because it not only justifies capitalism, but also the nonsensical concept of "volutary slavery".


Humans are animals, nothing more.
If you see no mental diffence between youself and animals such as cattle or insects, I'd say that something you have to deal with, leave me out of that.


If one feels happy, it is the body's way of telling the brain to keep doing whatever is being done. The opposite is true for sadness, fear tells us to escape, anger and frustration tell us to solve a problem, and so on. These are old methods of dealing with the world to be sure, but they work as well as ever, and are quite logical.
They are. And being rational creatures we can see that almost all indulging in physical pleasures gives us not only enjoyment and happiness, but also has as it's consequences also pain and unsatisfaction. You should read some Epicurus.

http://www.epicurus.net/

[Zav]

Libertinism is not a philosophy. The only hedonistic philosophy is Cyrenaicism, and I've yet to find out about someone being a Cyrenaic, being that praticing that philosophy requires a will power of an ascetic. Maybe Bentham could have passed as a Cyrenaic.
Who gets to decide what philosophy is and is not? You? Does it have to originate in ancient Greece to be valid by your measure? Besides I said the philosophies of the Libertines, not Libertinism. The semantics are very different.


Another appeal to majority.
By that logic so is saying that we are held to the Earth by a force called gravity.


Every volutary ascetic in history, from the religious ones like christian, hindu or buddhist to rationalist ones like the stoics, epicureans, and the modern intellectualists (moral rationalists).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis#Therapeutic_uses References are in the footnotes.
Philosophers, especially religious ones, are not valid sources for information on biology and psychology. Give me science!
According to the article, the consensus is on the use of non goal fulfilling catharsis in anger management, which is vastly different from sexual gratification, which was the original point. Neither the article nor the sources seem to debunk catharsis itself.

I totally agree, I take into consideration that libertines don't act as -they- will, but as their -impulses- will, the more people indulge in impulses, the more difficult it becomes to control oneself, and that's pretty much the definition of addiction and depence. It's like drugs. People may say that it is in accordance with liberty to be "free to do drugs" but a lot of drugs make people dependant, and I don't see where are the liberty and freedom in that. It's like saying, I'm for liberty- everyone should be "free to sell themselves in slavery".
When people espouse anti-capitalist views they contradict themselves in that regard, and that's why I see ascetism as a moral manifestation of leftism, and leftism as a political manifestation of ascetism, because they both center on achieving liberty, not on "having the liberty to surrender your liberty", which is in ethical sphere called libertinism, and in the political either voluntaryism or right-libertartarianism, and that of the Nozick-style, because it not only justifies capitalism, but also the nonsensical concept of "volutary slavery".
People are not above their impulses. Impulses are hard-wired in the brain like emotion, reason, and the capacity for invention, and are a part of the self. People should be free to become addicted to drugs or sell themselves into slavery if that is what they wish to do. They have the right.


If you see no mental diffence between youself and animals such as cattle or insects, I'd say that something you have to deal with, leave me out of that.
Indeed humans have different capacities, drives, functions, etcetera than other species (hence are not cats, or flys, or whales). These differences do not separate humans from other animals in any manner other than that they are genetically incompatible.


They are. And being rational creatures we can see that almost all indulging in physical pleasures gives us not only enjoyment and happiness, but also has as it's consequences pain and unsatisfaction.

http://www.epicurus.net/
If something brings pain and dissatisfaction, then you're either doing it wrong, too much, not enough, or it isn't pleasurable to you, and you should do something else.
I disagree with Epicurus. I think we should seek as much pleasure as possible.

[wsg1991]

Freud psychoanalysis is still widely used today , it was a part of philosophy studying in high school . In psychology , and psychiatry . i don't if it's Freudian psychoanalysis exactly , but very similar elements are present in 2012 Psychiatry text book for medical student ( me )

[fabian]

People should be free to become addicted to drugs or sell themselves into slavery if that is what they wish to do. They have the right.
So, you support capitalism?


I disagree with Epicurus. I think we should seek as much pleasure as possible.
Those are contradicting statements, the basis of Epicureanism is that one should seek as much pleasure as possible, it just explainst that being libertine is incompatible with that quest.

[Zav]

So, you support capitalism?
Indeed not. In Capitalism a person is often forced into selling their labor, or given very limited choices. I do not think that one should be allowed to own slaves, however one should not be prohibited from trying to sell oneself. Capitalism is wrong for many other reasons.


Those are contradicting statements, the basis of Epicureanism is that one should seek as much pleasure as possible, it just explainst that being libertine is incompatible with that quest.
How interesting. I was under the impression that Epicurus advocated moderation of pleasure. I seem to have been incorrect in that regard, however if his ideals are incompatible with Libertine ideals as you say, I shall likely find that I still disagree with his philosophy.

Now, have you responses to the rest of my last post or have we finished?

[fabian]

In Capitalism a person is often forced into selling their labor, or given very limited choices.
So, if there would be many communes and worker cooperatives, so that people would not be "forced" (with quotation marks because no one directly forces us work for a capitalist) to sell their labor, but would have availange alternatives, then capitalism would be fine?


Capitalism is wrong for many other reasons.
But as long something is "voluntary" and "consentual", it is not wrong, that's the principle that people here seme to be espousing.


How interesting. I was under the impression that Epicurus advocated moderation of pleasure.
Epicurean life is very much buddhist-like, life of passive ascetism (as opposed to the stoic active kind) of mental pleasures, where pleasure is achieved the only way that true pleasure (as opposed to one that is accompanied by pain and disatisfaction) can be achieved- by emilinating desires and negative emotions.


however if his ideals are incompatible with Libertine ideals as you say, I shall likely find that I still disagree with his philosophy.
Maybe you should read the little of his word that are extant before disagreeing with him, being that you must know what someone is saying in order to disagree.


Now, have you responses to the rest of my last post or have we finished?
We're not finished, I'd like to see how much of capitalism you support.

[#FF0000]

But as long something is "voluntary" and "consentual", it is not wrong, that's the principle that people here seme to be espousing.

Except capitalism is neither of those things

[durhamleft]

Except capitalism is neither of those things

It's more of those things than socialism is.

[Goblin]

Two adults fucking in front of a camera. I couldnt care any less.

They should wear rubbers though.

[hatzel]

It's more of those things than socialism is.

Are you sure that's the case, or are you just substituting what you want socialism to be for the sake of your argument in place of the accurate image of socialism necessary for your argument to be legitimate?

[fabian]

Except capitalism is neither of those things
Using heroin can be voluntary, but capitalism cannot?

[durhamleft]

Are you sure that's the case, or are you just substituting what you want socialism to be for the sake of your argument in place of the accurate image of socialism necessary for your argument to be legitimate?

No, I'm sure.

[#FF0000]

Using heroin can be voluntary, but capitalism cannot?

Yup. Using heroin is a matter of one person making a decision for his or herself. Capitalism is forcing others to work for a wage.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Using heroin can be voluntary, but capitalism cannot?

I think there are enough differences between a drug and a socioeconomic system to justify treating them differently.

[Leftsolidarity]

Fabian- How do you feel about 2 males that decide to make porn together then?

Since it seems that as long as it involves a female, it is oppressive/exploitive/blah blah blah blah, to you.

What about 2 men? Is that any different?

[fabian]

Using heroin is a matter of one person making a decision for his or herself.
Selling one's labor is a metter of one person making a decision for oneself.


Capitalism is forcing others to work for a wage.
So being that I work in a firm that is not a coop, it has an owner that my surplus value- according to your new definition of capitalism- it's not capitalism because I am not forced? And I am not forced- there no one with a gun or a knife or anyone threatening me with anything if I don't work for a boss.


I think there are enough differences between a drug and a socioeconomic system to justify treating them differently.
Using drugs and working for someone are personal actions. Drug trade is a socioeconomic system as much as capitalism, and is necessary to exist in order for people to use drugs, same as capitalism is a socioeconomic system that is necessary to exist in order for people to work for someone, and as long as it's "voluntary" and "consentual" (whether it's working for someone or using drugs) it's not wrong.

[#FF0000]

Selling one's labor is a metter of one person making a decision for oneself.

It is not, though, because there is no choice under capitalism. You either sell your labor or you suffer poverty, unless you're privileged enough to be an owner. Class society itself is based on forcing people to give up access to what people rightfully had access to, e.g. the natural wealth of the earth and the fruits of their own labor.



So being that I work in a firm that is not a coop, it has an owner that my surplus value- according to your new definition of capitalism- it's not capitalism because I am not forced? And I am not forced- there no one with a gun or a knife or anyone threatening me with anything if I don't work for a boss.I never re-defined capitalism. I simply stated what should be obvious who has ever had to support themselves that one must sell their time and labor or else suffer poverty. The boss doesn't hold a gun to your head when he hires you, but the threat of poverty hangs over all workers. And what keeps people poor? The forced expropriation inherent in the wage system, where workers are given a scrap of the value they created while the lion's share goes to the boss and the factory.


Using drugs and working for someone are personal actions.1) Not entirely. 2) No, it is not simply a personal action. It's a social relation.


Drug trade is a socioeconomic system as much as capitalism, and is necessary to exist in order for people to use drugsFalse. People can grow their own drugs.


same as capitalism is a socioeconomic system that is necessary to exist in order for people to work for someoneIt is not necessary in order for people to work for others.


and as long as it's "voluntary" and "consentual" (whether it's working for someone or using drugs) it's not wrong.Capitalism isn't voluntary and consensual though, for the millionth time. People are forced to give up the lion's share of the value they create, threatened with poverty, and cannot take what is rightfully theirs because of the police, the military, etc.

[fabian]

It is not, though, because there is no choice under capitalism.
Self-sufficiency, joining a commune, being self-employed (an artisan), working in a coop. So, there are options besides working for an employer.


2) No, it is not simply a personal action. It's a social relation.
So is the drug industry.


I never re-defined capitalism.
You said that in capitalism you are forced to work for a capitalist. But you are not. At least I'm not, and I don't know of anyone who is. Is there anyone forcing you to work for him? You should call the cops, that's illegal.

The stuff about capitalism being forced is false, I've enumerated four alternatives to working for a capitalist. And we're not talking if something is "diffucult" or not, but if is wrong or not. According to the principle that it's all right as long it's voluntary- working for someone is not wrong.

[#FF0000]

Self-sufficiency, joining a commune, being self-employed (an artisan), working in a coop. So, there are options besides working for an employer.

But those aren't an escape from capitalism by any means. Self-sufficiency is exceedingly difficult if not totally impossible. Communes, co-ops, and artisans do not exist outside of capitalism. Nor is it possible for everyone to simply join a commune or a co-op or become an artisan. Capitalism requires a working class that relies on wage labor.



So is the drug industry.But then the problem is not the drugs themselves -- it is the drug industry, and the conditions in which drug use occurs.


You said that in capitalism you are forced to work for a capitalist. But you are not. At least I'm not, and I don't know of anyone who is. Is there anyone forcing you to work for him? You should call the cops, that's illegal.The boss doesn't hold a gun to your head when he hires you, but the threat of poverty hangs over all workers. And what keeps people poor? The forced expropriation inherent in the wage system, where workers are given a scrap of the value they created while the lion's share goes to the boss and the factory.


The stuff about capitalism being forced is false, I've enumerated four alternatives to working for a capitalist. And we're not talking if something is "diffucult" or not, but if is wrong or not.If something isn't feasible then it can't be considered an alternative, can it? Is it possible for people to go out in the woods and just live off the land? Sure, kind of. The land is already all owned but I guess if you evade the law you should be fine. Tell me, where do I find a co-op or a commune to join? Where can I find someone to train as an apprentice under? And when I finish that apprenticeship, what do I do as an artisan? Start my own shop? If that's the case, then you've basically told me "You don't have to work -- you can just become an owner".

EDIT: That's actually what all of your suggestions were -- co-ops and communes have to buy the land from someone!


According to the principle that it's all right as long it's voluntary- working for someone is not wrong.I am pretty sure I explained numerous times now that working for a boss is not voluntary. It is the only choice for billions of people under capitalism.

[fabian]

Communes, co-ops, and artisans do not exist outside of capitalism
Ok, but they don't work for anyone.


But then the problem is not the drugs themselves -- it is the drug industry, and the conditions in which drug use occurs.
So the problem is not in working for someone in itself but in capitalism. Which would mean that working for someone (where the employer reaps the "surplus value" and thus exploits the employee) isn't wrong, as long as it "voluntary" and "consentual".


If something isn't feasible then it can't be considered an alternative, can it?
Yes it can and should. Difficult =/= impossible. Expecting everything to be easy is just being lazy and not an exuse.


"You don't have to work -- you can just become an owner"
I've said- you don't have to work for someone, you can always become self-sufficient, join a commune, become self-employed, work in a coop, go illegalist, or go freegan. Those are all alternatives to working for someone.


I am pretty sure I explained numerous times now that working for a boss is not voluntary.
You are either don't know how to think or how to talk. First thing, no one is forced to work for a boss, thus it is voluntary. Secondly, even if we accept your "scared of poverty" clause into redefinition of voluntaryism, you're still wrong. I personally know people that like working for someone and want to work for a boss, and when I mention socialism they say they don't support that because they want to be employees (reasons are irrelevant, the point they are not either forced nor "scared by poverty" into working for a boss but WANT to work for a boss). Their working for a boss is voluntary beyond any doubt and therefore shows conclusively that working for a boss can be voluntary.

Therefore, if "voluntaryism" is the criterion of right and wrong- working for a boss (getting one's "surplus value" taken- exploatation) in itself is not wrong.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well this discussion quickly went downhill....

I just want to say, if you are working FOR someone, it cannot be voluntary and consensual. If it were voluntary and consensual you would be working WITH someone.

[nazi125]

In my opinion pornography is just drinking your own blood ...

[l'Enfermé]

(1) The first revolutions will occur in Western capitalist economies first eg the UK Germany. - Ended up in Russia

Yeah? The October Revolution occurred in Petrograd and Moscow(the revolution was basically brought to the rest of the Russian Empire by the Civil War), were these not advanced capitalist economies? By the end of Marx's life, though, both Marx and Engels began to acknowledge that the Russian Empire and the young, still vigorous Russian proletariat, are at the forefront of the Revolutionary struggle in Europe.

And how can consenting to become a wage-slave be genuinely voluntarily and consensual if you're threatened with poverty, starvation, homelessness and other nasty things if you refuse? Consent under such heavy pressure is absolutely worthless in my eyes, and in the eyes of my fellow communists. When you write that wage-slavery

Anyhow, the sex industry(prostitution, pornography, stripping, human trafficking, etc) is even more exploitative and degrading than any other industry. Notice I said "industry", amateur pornography I couldn't care less about, a couple posting a video of themselves making love is as objectionable to me as a teenager posting a video of themselves singing on YouTube.

[durhamleft]

Well this discussion quickly went downhill....

I just want to say, if you are working FOR someone, it cannot be voluntary and consensual. If it were voluntary and consensual you would be working WITH someone.

Really? I have no qualms about working for people, or companies.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Using drugs and working for someone are personal actions. Drug trade is a socioeconomic system as much as capitalism,

The drug trade is a subset of capitalism. The drug trade supplies a pre-existing demand - evidence of drug use goes back thousands of years.

The negative social consequences of the trade and use of drugs are mostly down to their prohibition, which does nothing to address demand and drives the trade into the black market.


and is necessary to exist in order for people to use drugs, same as capitalism is a socioeconomic system that is necessary to exist in order for people to work for someone, and as long as it's "voluntary" and "consentual" (whether it's working for someone or using drugs) it's not wrong.

If someone genuinely feels better as a single cog in a greater machine, they don't have to sell their labour to do it. But I'd rather that people have the opportunity to choose first, which they don't have under capitalism. On what basis do you expect billions of people to be able to "become self-sufficient, join a commune, become self-employed, work in a coop, go illegalist, or go freegan"?

[#FF0000]

Ok, but they don't work for anyone.

But they exist within capitalism. One could be an artisan in an ancient slave society as well -- that doesn't mean the artisan isn't a part of that society, nor does that


So the problem is not in working for someone in itself but in capitalism. Which would mean that working for someone (where the employer reaps the "surplus value" and thus exploits the employee) isn't wrong, as long as it "voluntary" and "consentual".



Yes it can and should. Difficult =/= impossible. Expecting everything to be easy is just being lazy and not an exuse. I've said- you don't have to work for someone, you can always become self-sufficient, join a commune, become self-employed, work in a coop, go illegalist, or go freegan. Those are all alternatives to working for someone.


No, because these things aren't just a matter of will -- people have to have the opportunity to make a living that way. I mean, shit, one of the first things that happened during the industrial revolution, with the rise of urban centers and of capitalism itself is that peasants and farmers were forced to leave their land and their self-sufficient way of life to go find work in the mills in the city. It might be possible to go out and become an independent craftsman nowadays, but that's because the way society and the economy is organized discourages that, and it gets harder and harder the more an economy develops.

There's a reason the number of 'self employed' in the United States is only around 8% or so while it can reach upwards of 50% in underveloped nations.


You are either don't know how to think or how to talk.

Someone's gettin mad


First thing, no one is forced to work for a boss, thus it is voluntary.

Nope. If you want to participate in society, there's hardly any other choice but to work or starve. A lucky few might be able to get a job in a co-op but that simply isn't available to everyone.


Secondly, even if we accept your "scared of poverty" clause into redefinition of voluntaryism, you're still wrong. I personally know people that like working for someone and want to work for a boss, and when I mention socialism they say they don't support that because they want to be employees (reasons are irrelevant, the point they are not either forced nor "scared by poverty" into working for a boss but WANT to work for a boss). Their working for a boss is voluntary beyond any doubt and therefore shows conclusively that working for a boss can be voluntary.

Could be, if the person doesn't see the employee-boss relationship as something exploitative. That doesn't mean they're right, though. There were slaves who liked their masters too -- doesn't mean slavery's voluntary just because they don't want to leave the plantation.

[Leftsolidarity]

Really? I have no qualms about working for people, or companies.

Maybe that's why you're restricted...

[#FF0000]

On what basis do you expect billions of people to be able to "become self-sufficient, join a commune, become self-employed, work in a coop, go illegalist, or go freegan"?

Yeah, see this was pretty much my point that I labored to make for some reason.

It is possible, maybe, for some people to find an alternative to working, but it is literally impossible for everyone to avoid the employer-employee relationship. They are, effectively, forced into selling their labor because there is no other feasible option.

[Tim Finnegan]

pornography is wrong because it promotes patriarchy.
Explain to me how two butch lesbians fucking promotes patriarchy. I mean, you get pornography like that, do you not?

[durhamleft]

Maybe that's why you're restricted...

I'm restricted because I believe in capitalism. ;-)

[MustCrushCapitalism]

There's nothing wrong with porn, but there's a lot wrong with the porn industry as it stands.

[Revolution starts with U]

Really? I have no qualms about working for people, or companies.

Can you make your own schedule, do you have a say in your pay rate, if you leave will you not be subject to poverty, can you actively and publicly criticize the company and/or its management?

If not all of these are true, how can you possibly say it is voluntary and consensual? And I mean all of them (and more really).
It may be chosen and accepted... but that's a far cry from voluntary and consensual. Fuckin philosophers and their butchering of language...

[Zav]

So, if there would be many communes and worker cooperatives, so that people would not be "forced" (with quotation marks because no one directly forces us work for a capitalist) to sell their labor, but would have availange alternatives, then capitalism would be fine?
If there were many communes that were in full Communist operation, what Capitalist areas that remain would be little police states, and I doubt anyone would be allowed to leave. They would simply be regular Capitalist systems confined to a small area. Thus there would be wage slavery and apparatuses to prevent those who don't work from living, like in every other Capitalist country. Capitalism is coercion, and can never be voluntary.


But as long something is "voluntary" and "consentual", it is not wrong, that's the principle that people here seme to be espousing.
Indeed that is the case. If people agreed to sell their labor because they wanted to, not because the present system forced them to, then there is nothing inherently wrong with that.


Epicurean life is very much buddhist-like, life of passive ascetism (as opposed to the stoic active kind) of mental pleasures, where pleasure is achieved the only way that true pleasure (as opposed to one that is accompanied by pain and disatisfaction) can be achieved- by emilinating desires and negative emotions.
Well then I agree with it less. I do not believe in 'true pleasure' as opposed to any other pleasure, nor do I believe that eliminating desire is beneficial.


Maybe you should read the little of his word that are extant before disagreeing with him, being that you must know what someone is saying in order to disagree.
Epicurus is now on my reading list, for the pleasure of satisfying curiosity. If you have summarized his philosophy well enough, then I should be able to have an inkling of my future opinion of it.


We're not finished, I'd like to see how much of capitalism you support.
I have what I think is a Marxist view on this. I support Capitalism only when it's compared to Feudalism, which the former is far better than, however I do not support it when we have it and there is a far better alternative in Anarchism and Communism.

[Rafiq]

It's more of those things than socialism is.

Sure, if you adhere to the bullshit that is "Free Will".

They're both as "consensual". You cannot consent to being coerced into the dominant mode of production, of which surrounds you.. Be it capitalism or socialism.

[Rafiq]

Yup. Using heroin is a matter of one person making a decision for his or herself. Capitalism is forcing others to work for a wage.

I would go even farther: Using heroin is something which, in one way or another, is heavily influenced by your surroundings.

Like I said, Free Will and the myth of "Individual responsibility" are horse shit.

[Rafiq]

Really? I have no qualms about working for people, or companies.

And there were many slaves who adhered to the same logic. We called them Uncle Tom.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Morals have nothing to do with it;pornography is wrong because it promotes patriarchy.Why is this so goddamn hard to understand?

Why is it so God damn difficult for you to understand, if you change the current socio-economic system and thus destroy patriarchal oppression all together, then you're changing everything, the porn industry will change and revamp like anything else?

[#FF0000]

Morals have nothing to do with it;pornography is wrong because it promotes patriarchy.Why is this so goddamn hard to understand?

How

[Qavvik]

.

[l'Enfermé]

The vast majority of professional porn is heterosexual. But no, I wouldn't say that porn in general promotes patriarchy(porn doesn't only degrade and exploit women that star in it, but also men), and if it did, that wouldn't even be the worst thing about it. An interesting fact is that porn is one of the very few industries in the world where women get paid several times better than men

[Zav]

An interesting fact is that porn is one of the very few industries in the world where women get paid several times better than men
Nurses, secretaries, babysitters, and maids are the other ones.

[#FF0000]

Nurses, secretaries, babysitters, and maids are the other ones.

1) Source
2) These jobs pay far less than other male-dominated jobs in the first place.

Not to mention that, if true, it's a result of patriarchy the sexist idea of women's work which, uh, feminists would seek to dismantle in the first place. What I'm saying is that it is dumb and pointless to call oneself a masculinist. Just your daily reminder.

[l'Enfermé]

Those professions are hardly comparable to porn. Most maids, secretaries, babysitters and maids are women, men are barely present in those fields. Porn on the other hand, is half men and half women(disregarding the directors, producers, etc, I'm talking about the actors/actresses in the films themselves)

Also, here's an interesting article from Forbes about the few fields in the US where women get paid more than men. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/03/14/jobs-where-women-earn-more-than-men/)

[NGNM85]

Pornography is simply inevitable. Moreover; I don't see anything inherently wrong with it. There's no law of physics that requires that it be exploitive, or degrading. The porn industry, on the other hand, is a totally different ball of wax. There's clearly a serious epidemic of exploitation, and misogyny, there. However; this is just a manifestation of a deeper problem, in a word; capitalism. As long as long as education remains prohibitively expensive, as long as unemployment exists, in short; as long as capitalism exists, the resultant inequalities will produce a never-ending supply of young women for the industry to prey upon.

[smk]

Pornography is simply inevitable. Moreover; I don't see anything inherently wrong with it. There's no law of physics that requires that it be exploitive, or degrading. The porn industry, on the other hand, is a totally different ball of wax. There's clearly a serious epidemic of exploitation, and misogyny, there. However; this is just a manifestation of a deeper problem, in a word; capitalism. As long as long as education remains prohibitively expensive, as long as unemployment exists, in short; as long as capitalism exists, the resultant inequalities will produce a never-ending supply of young women for the industry to prey upon.

Pornography inherently leads to a distorted idea of intimacy. Unfortunately, there aren't porn virtual reality simulators which require the same emotional investment as real life.

Beyond that, you're right, the vast majority of porn is exploitative, degrading, sexist, etc.

[Leftsolidarity]

Pornography inherently leads to a distorted idea of intimacy.

How so? How is it "inherent" and how is it "distorted"?

I've been watching porn for many years and I don't feel that I have a "distorted" view of intimacy. So either, it's not inherent or I do somehow have a "distorted" view of intimacy. But seeing as that it is all up to the people that that intimacy involves, it's really no one else's ability to judge whether their views are distorted or not. Unless you're a moralist who wants to tell people how to have sex.

[NGNM85]

Pornography inherently leads to a distorted idea of intimacy.

Not necessarily.


Unfortunately, there aren't porn virtual reality simulators which require the same emotional investment as real life.

Unfortunately, there aren't porn virtual reality simulators which are indistinguishable from real life.


Beyond that, you're right, the vast majority of porn is exploitative, degrading, sexist, etc.

That's not exactly what I said...

[#FF0000]

Not necessarily.

I think a lot of the professionally produced stuff could definitely give one a distorted view of things. Maybe.


Beyond that, you're right, the vast majority of porn is exploitative, degrading, sexist, etc.

how

[Tim Finnegan]

Pornography inherently leads to a distorted idea of intimacy. Unfortunately, there aren't porn virtual reality simulators which require the same emotional investment as real life.
Well, presumably that also applies to the entire genre of romantic fiction, which similarly constitutes a portrayal of intimacy requiring far less of an emotional investment than real life. And if that applies to romance, then why not to other fictional portrayals of experience? Horror, for example, should be similarly expected to give a person a distorted idea of fear. So your problem doesn't seem to be with porn but with fiction as such, and I really do wonder if you're willing to take your critique to those ends.

I mean, I don't doubt that the majority of mainstream porn could encourage a distorted idea of intimacy, but that's because it's misogynistic, capitalistic, and basically just shitty, not because it's porn. You'd get a lot of the same problems if your only exposure to sexual intimacy was big budget romcoms, and at least FuckJizzTitBoobs.com has the decency not cloak it behind all that putrid sentimentality.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Free porn for every man, woman, child and manchild.

[Igor]

Free porn for every man, woman, child and manchild.

womanchild discrimination

[Azraella]

I'll just say that I am an anti-porn feminist and leave it at that.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

womanchild discrimination

False, them too.

[fabian]

If people agreed to sell their labor because they wanted to, not because the present system forced them to, then there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
All I wanted to hear.

[RedCloud]

Well, as rape RP was mentioned... I have to agree that it will not relieve the tensions and make rape less likely- I believe it would likely draw people to it if it looks appealing to them on a screen.

I think the "hardcore porn" is degrading, the porn where people are being choked, spit on, gagged, etc. is pretty sick, IMO. I can't remember the exact figure, but someone else can search for it; I recall a study a few years back where teens were watching something like 30+ hours of hardcore porn per week. It's excessive, that is to the point where it is potentially damaging.

Recreational once-in-a-while porn, nothing wrong with it. I was 14 once, I've been there. :D

TL;DR
I think sometimes people get too in to it and have a warped view on what sex and women really are.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'll just say that I am an anti-porn feminist and leave it at that.

What's the point in having a socio-political position on something if one is unable to advocate or defend it in public?

[Leftsolidarity]

I think the "hardcore porn" is degrading, the porn where people are being choked, spit on, gagged, etc. is pretty sick, IMO.



Some people are into that kind of thing. That's pretty much all there is too it. Don't like it, don't do it.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think the "hardcore porn" is degrading, the porn where people are being choked, spit on, gagged, etc. is pretty sick, IMO.

Don't hate just appreciate, I'm into a slap and tickle. Pleasure follows pain.

[Goblin]

I think the "hardcore porn" is degrading, the porn where people are being choked, spit on, gagged, etc. is pretty sick, IMO.

"What one person sees as degrading and disgusting and bad for women might make some women feel empowered and beautiful and strong." - Sasha Grey

[RedCloud]

Don't hate just appreciate, I'm into a slap and tickle. Pleasure follows pain.

Ha, I guess that is a good way to put it... Just to clear up what I meant; doing is one thing. But people doing it on camera just seems degrading. I mean, I bet if women didn't want to do the 'hardcore' scenes like that, no doubt someone would replace them and then that person would be out of a job- because they didn't want to degrade themselves.

On the other hand some pornstars do enjoy their work, so that is up to them I guess.

[l'Enfermé]

The fact that women(and men) have to sell their bodies and become prostitutes for the pleasures of strangers they have never even met in order to earn a living wage is not degrading, right, it's degrading only when they perform the more "hardcore" acts? Really?

[Goblin]

The fact that women(and men) have to sell their bodies and become prostitutes for the pleasures of strangers they have never even met in order to earn a living wage is not degrading, right, it's degrading only when they perform the more "hardcore" acts? Really?
They dont have to "sell their bodies", they choose to.

[Igor]

The fact that women(and men) have to sell their bodies and become prostitutes for the pleasures of strangers they have never even met in order to earn a living wage is not degrading, right, it's degrading only when they perform the more "hardcore" acts? Really?

We're not talking about commercial pornography here, or the pornography business. We're talking about pornography here. If we focused on how something's wrong because you have to do it under this current economy, then we'd have a problem with most things. Capitalism forces us to work as cashiers, janitors, and even pornographic actors.

But because this is a thread about pornography, not the very basic nature of capitalism, all that is irrelevant. In a post-capitalist society, such coercion wouldn't exist and you can't really use the argument that people have to sell their bodies and become "prostitues for the pleasures of strangers". People who like to take pictures and other material of themselves, their partners and both of them fucking will do it without economic coercion and are actually doing it right now, under this economy. And now where's the problem with that?

Why does every single porn argument turn into arguments about porn business? Debating how porn business is fucked up is kind of pointless because it's really the business part what's wrong, not the pornography part. Pornography predates capitalism, and it will outlive capitalism, and all you "anti-porn feminists" and other such folks can't really do jack shit about it.

[l'Enfermé]

They dont have to "sell their bodies", they choose to.
Yes, and all other types of workers aren't compelled to become wage-slaves, they choose to! So everything is fine and dandy in capitalism, because everyone chooses to be exploited! I have no idea what you're doing on RevLeft you support exploitation of workers in capitalist societies so much...


We're not talking about commercial pornography here, or the pornography business. We're talking about pornography here. If we focused on how something's wrong because you have to do it under this current economy, then we'd have a problem with most things. Capitalism forces us to work as cashiers, janitors, and even pornographic actors.
The OP quite clearly talks about commercial/professional pornography, not amateur.


But because this is a thread about pornography, not the very basic nature of capitalism, all that is irrelevant. In a post-capitalist society, such coercion wouldn't exist and you can't really use the argument that people have to sell their bodies and become "prostitues for the pleasures of strangers". People who like to take pictures and other material of themselves, their partners and both of them fucking will do it without economic coercion and are actually doing it right now, under this economy. And now where's the problem with that?
I have voiced my opinion on the matter and stated that I couldn't care less about amateur porn.
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2460668&postcount=88)


Why does every single porn argument turn into arguments about porn business? Debating how porn business is fucked up is kind of pointless because it's really the business part what's wrong, not the pornography part.
Because pornography for the most part is a for-profit multi-billion dollar bussiness.



Pornography predates capitalism, and it will outlive capitalism, and all you "anti-porn feminists" and other such folks can't really do jack shit about it.
Sure, but don't associate me with "anti-porn feminists", I'm a staunch opponent of bourgeois feminism and other forms of bourgeois ideologies. Such nonsense is incompatible with a proletarian outlook.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Ha, I guess that is a good way to put it... Just to clear up what I meant; doing is one thing. But people doing it on camera just seems degrading. I mean, I bet if women didn't want to do the 'hardcore' scenes like that, no doubt someone would replace them and then that person would be out of a job- because they didn't want to degrade themselves.

On the other hand some pornstars do enjoy their work, so that is up to them I guess.

I just don't see it as degrading, that's a rather subjective term considering, as I said, I love what some people may find to be "degrading."

As for being on camera is concerned, I love the idea, if I did what I do now on camera and get paid for it, I would feel ten times better considering, people will buy it to get off, I'm giving a big middle finger to social conservatives, and so on. I'm actually about ready to go into porn is why I'm so passionate. What the outsider my find to be degrading is actually just acting to us, it's just acting and it's empowering in the sense of, we're having an amazing time, doing something not everyone does, we get money and we get fame too.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I generally don't like it and it also serves no purpose for me, being an asexual.

I feel that often it does lead to objectification. Rather than viewing people as people it seems to more so focus on them purely as genitalia. Of course there's also the cases of non-consentual porn, child porn, etc.

One thing I find a bit ironic and hypocritical though is that prostitution is illegal in most places while porn is legal. They're both essentially the same thing except that porn is a sexual service provided on camera.

[Azraella]

What's the point in having a socio-political position on something if one is unable to advocate or defend it in public?

I don't feel particularly motivated to defend it and it always ends in pissy privileged dudes screaming at me. Not interested in that, today. Not really. I just expressed an opinion and decided to leave it at that.

[#FF0000]

I don't feel particularly motivated to defend it and it always ends in pissy privileged dudes screaming at me. Not interested in that, today. Not really. I just expressed an opinion and decided to leave it at that.

yo if you're not going to defend what you say then why say it

[NGNM85]

I think a lot of the professionally produced stuff could definitely give one a distorted view of things. Maybe.

I think it's dependent on the circumstances. I mean, if you take a socially isolated 10, or 11-year-old, and subject them to a stady diet of gonzo porn, for an extended period of time, they might develop some problems. However; I think that for most psychologically healthy individuals, relatively speaking, viewing a moderate amount of pornography, on a regular, or semi-regular basis, probably won't lead to the development of neurosis.

Also; if you're going to quote multiple users, in the same post, please attribute each quote, so it can be clear as to who said what.

[Zukunftsmusik]

They dont have to "sell their bodies", they choose to.

only to the same extent that "normal" workers choose to sell their labour power. This argument is pretty much scissored out of the libertarian ABC

[doesn't even make sense]

snip

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Let's simplify this, it's just cinema, take it or leave it.

[Dullum]

I don't have any problem with pornography in general. What bothers me is that, pornography like any other industry in a capitalist society is that it pushes the poor lower classes into it, mostly because they don't have any other options.

So: Am I against pornography in general? No people should be free to choose for themselves. If somebody watches somebody fuck on camera, what harm does they inflict on others?

But, then again; Do I have a problem with the capitalized porn industry? Sure yes.

[individualist]

It's fine really, there is no reason to censor or restrict porn in any way, exept if it involves unconsensual activity.

[individualist]

Imo porn instills the idea that women are sex objects,and if patriarchy is to abolished pornography needs to be done away with;morals have nothing to do with why I'm anti-porn.Women needn't be exploited just because some nerd can't get a girlfriend:thumbdown:

What about forms of porn that dont involve women, like gay porn or hentai?

[Comrades Unite!]

Porn is a genre of film,like any other.
The people in the film,regardless of content are still actors
Therefore if we say women are portrayed as Sex Objects(As are the men)then we are critiquing a film or a part of the film.

Pro-Porn!!!

[bcbm]

a lot of it is fucked up and i try not to watch it; there is some seriously questionable shit in a lot of porn

[Comrades Unite!]

I have to admit, When on a site such as ''Youjizz'' I noticed in some of the video clip images that the girls looked alot younger than 18.

I don't watch Porn(anymore,It seriously messes you up when you want to go pull and none of the girls meet your expectations as they have been set waaay too high from Porn)That being said,I think a person should have the right and responsibility to watch Porn.

[bcbm]

its not just age. i think the issues of consent in a lot of internet porn are very blurry (do they know this is on the internet? did they agree to all the filmed acts or was there coercion? were they paid fair rates? are these paid professionals or trafficked humans? etc)

[o well this is ok I guess]

Since everything can be shared freely and widely on the internet, everything that was ever shitty can now have easy exposure. This is especially so of porn.

[Comrades Unite!]

That all of course comes into concern.

I wonder, Do porn sites have somebody watch a video before it is uploaded to make sure it's not breaking any laws.It's easy to tell if someone is not enjoying it, and may have been forced into it.

[bcbm]

as long as nothing can be proven in court (which is pretty easy with this kind of stuff) i really doubt they care

[Ostrinski]

I try to stay away from it in general. Too much grey area and potential slippery slopes to worry about.

[Comrade Jandar]

These are all great points. (Un)fortunately none of them cross my mind when I'm actually viewing it.

[Ostrinski]

I've actually tried to view porn once in the last couple years, and couldn't enjoy any of it at all in consequence of being incessantly pounded by the thought of "what would revleft think?"

[Art Vandelay]

I've actually tried to view porn once in the last couple years, and couldn't enjoy any of it at all in consequence of being incessantly pounded by the thought of "what would revleft think?"

That gave me a chuckle, but I really hope your not serious.

[Comrade Jandar]

WWRLD = What would revleft do?

[Ostrinski]

That gave me a chuckle, but I really hope your not serious.I actually am serious lol

[Althusser]

What about female domination porn? Just curious.

[Comrade Jandar]

What about female domination porn? Just curious.

I've seen some but it wasn't for me. It was just some women yelling at a guy about how small his prick was.

[Princess Luna]

What about female domination porn? Just curious.
the best kind

[Comrade Samuel]

WWRLD = What would revleft do?

This needs to become a thing.

Just curious why is pornography so frequently discussed around here? it really seems like a bit of a....(wait for it)... Hot topic!

But in all seriousness why?

[Art Vandelay]

This needs to become a thing.

Just curious why is pornography so frequently discussed around here? it really seems like a bit of a....(wait for it)... Hot topic!

But in all seriousness why?

I suspect it is because of either 2 reasons:

a) Revleft is dominated by "white knights" as it was put in another thread who seem to love beating the metaphorical dead horse which is these progressive issues.

b) Revleft is filled, for the most part, with awkward teenage boys incapable of finding sexual partners in real life who, being full of ragging hormones, frequently have raging hard ons; so basically the topic is always on their minds.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I've actually tried to view porn once in the last couple years, and couldn't enjoy any of it at all in consequence of being incessantly pounded by the thought of "what would revleft think?" Oh god I'm not alone

[DasFapital]

I only watch porn that glorifies the great proletarian revolution

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

What if a woman wants to be dominated? For example, bondage porn. If a woman wants to get all tied up, heck even abused to any degree, why is that wrong? I'm confused. Thoughts?

[Igor]

I actually am serious lol

this is the point where you go nicely to the admins and ask for a ban.

[¿Que?]

Wow, a lot of dumb shit being said on this thread. My personal favorite, was when somebody (I will not name names) espousing the virtues of rational thinking made the blanket statement that "no one is forced to work for a boss, thus it is voluntary." What a crock of shit. In fact, a lot of human trafficking involves coercion of individuals into work situations that by the time they realize what is happening, they have basically two options - work or be killed. By some absolute abstract argument, you could argue that the individual still has the option not to work, since they still have the alternative option to be murdered or starved to death, but that's not really a meaningful choice and thus the labor is compulsory. To reiterate, forced labor happens all the time in capitalism.

Which leads me to the subject of pornography, or sex work more generally. As we are still talking about a form of labor or work, we would expect to see, to a greater or lesser degree, some of the same social phenomenon occurring. And indeed we do. A lot of human trafficking is sex trafficking and people are often forced to work in the sex industry.

And in both cases what we are really talking about is the worst forms of exploitation in a capitalist system. In the broader analysis, what we come to find is varying degrees of coercion, through social status, life chances and opportunities, economic conditions such as the availability of jobs and capital etc etc. Some people, those with access to capital (not merely economic but social and human as well) and money, have less need to actually work (for a boss), whereas others pretty much have no choice, and still others are forcefully coerced into doing so regardless of their access to capital, such as through abductions, kidnappings and whatnot.

On the issue of the effects of pornography on its viewers, I am disconcerted by the amount of speculation being thrown about in this thread. Only one person actually made reference to an empirical study, which I commend, although with the caveat that one study cannot confirm or deny anything really. What people need to do is familiarize themselves with as much (mostly empirical) literature on the subject as possible. I simple JSTOR search and cursory scanning of abstracts should probably suffice for this thread. I've actually done that before. My conclusion is that the effects of viewing pornography can not conclusively be said to promote or discourage any behavior. I noticed a couple of things though. Most studies seemed to confirm the presumptions of the researchers. Thus, if a researcher hypothesized porn to be harmful (or led to aggressiveness or whatever variable the study was looking at), then the study would confirm it. On the other hand, if a researcher hypothesized that porn reduced aggressiveness (or whatever variable) then the study would confirm that. And all the studies that referenced other studies in the opposite camp had several things to say about the methodological limitations of the other camp. One of these days I might just actually take a really close look and form a conclusive opinion based on evidence, but not tonight.

There are also other studies that looked at different things. Some people argue, for example, that pornography is getting more violent and degrading, constantly pushing the boundaries of decency, respect for individual autonomy etc etc. Other studies could not confirm this (see above).

For those people who say mainstream porn is inherently exploitative, but that there's absolutely nothing wrong with amateur porn, I really have to point out how badly flawed this argument is. Sure, mainstream porn is inherently exploitative, just as working in any major industry is exploitative. But to make the blanket assertion that since it exists outside this industry then it is automatically non exploitative (or degrading for that matter) is ridiculous. As an example, what if some decides to rape someone else, film it, and put it on the internet. This is obviously exploitative and degrading, and yet it exists outside the industry. "But, but, I was talking about strictly consenting adults!!!" I already hear people objecting. Well, even in this case, you can't just say that it's a ok and that it's automatically non exploitative and degrading if it's amateur. It ignores the fact that patriarchy, misogyny and sexism are integral parts of many upon many personal relationships. There are many gray areas to consent. For example, if someone does not want to do something, but they don't clearly say "No" and thus are put in a position where they end up doing that thing, is that consenting? What if someone is emotionally manipulative, and in spite of objections, the constant solicitation by the emotionally manipulative person, causes the other person to "cave in" so to speak, is that consent? What if it turns out the person who caved in, by doing what they initially thought they didn't want to do, simply was confirmed in their suspicions as to why they did not want to do that in the first place, would that qualify as consent? Please don't feel the need to respond specifically to these questions, as that is not the point. The point is simply to argue that gray areas exist, and even outside of mainstream porn, it is possible for legal consent to result in exploitation and/or degradation.

My own opinion of what to do about pornography is problematic. I'm going to be perfectly honest here and say that I watch it pretty much on the regular. I suppose if I had meaningful and satisfying relationships in my life, I probably would have never gotten into it, particularly at that point before I really got into it. When I was in high school, I had a girlfriend, and never watched porn. When we broke up, I had a hard time bouncing back. Eventually, one of my friends starting going to strip clubs a lot, and renting a lot of porn, and I found it comforting given my frustration finding another partner, so it rubbed off on me, and I've been pretty much hooked ever since. I don't think that not being able to get laid is any excuse for reprehensible behavior. On the other hand, I am entitled to my sexuality, sexual being and sexual expression.

Which bring me to what I think is somewhat of a consensus for most people here. Pornography is not inherently exploitative or degrading, just like any type of movie is not inherently exploitative or degrading. However, it just so happens that we live in a capitalist/patriarchal society, which makes damn sure that movies (pornographic or not) will, for the most part, be exploitative or degrading.

Throw into this standards of beauty and objectification and we're getting way deep into this, probably more than is necessary. I'll be brief on these last two. Beauty is for the most part subjective, but there is an element of social construction and conditioning to it. Most people will agree on roughly similar standards of beauty. There are various tendencies that exist in capitalism which challenge these, however, what they do is social not subjective. At best, they could be said to be counter hegemonies, at worst they are simply alternative ones.

On objectification, the argument might be that in a world without objectification there would be no need for pornography, since the basis of pornographic arousal is primarily in the objectification of an "other." This may be true, however, when unpacking the concept of objectification, we see that it is merely a form of denying one's autonomy. It may sound contradictory, but it is possible for an individual to deny their own autonomy for the purpose of assisting someone else, such as doing them a favor. I don't really want to help my friend move on Saturday, I would rather sleep in. However, I may do so out of respect, kindness, love, or simply for some sort of material gain. Perhaps I'm not truly getting (as in understanding) objectification, but it seems something similar might apply here. Someone may agree to be objectified for the same reasons as someone might agree to perform labor they would otherwise not want to do, provided it was temporary and they could bail at any time.

Also, as much as I enjoy discussing the complexities and problematics of sex work, I found the Marxism interpretation debate rather fascinating. Please continue!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wow, a lot of dumb shit being said on this thread. My personal favorite, was when somebody (I will not name names) espousing the virtues of rational thinking made the blanket statement that "no one is forced to work for a boss, thus it is voluntary." What a crock of shit. In fact, a lot of human trafficking involves coercion of individuals into work situations that by the time they realize what is happening, they have basically two options - work or be killed. By some absolute abstract argument, you could argue that the individual still has the option not to work, since they still have the alternative option to be murdered or starved to death, but that's not really a meaningful choice and thus the labor is compulsory. To reiterate, forced labor happens all the time in capitalism.

Which leads me to the subject of pornography, or sex work more generally. As we are still talking about a form of labor or work, we would expect to see, to a greater or lesser degree, some of the same social phenomenon occurring. And indeed we do. A lot of human trafficking is sex trafficking and people are often forced to work in the sex industry.

And in both cases what we are really talking about is the worst forms of exploitation in a capitalist system. In the broader analysis, what we come to find is varying degrees of coercion, through social status, life chances and opportunities, economic conditions such as the availability of jobs and capital etc etc. Some people, those with access to capital (not merely economic but social and human as well) and money, have less need to actually work (for a boss), whereas others pretty much have no choice, and still others are forcefully coerced into doing so regardless of their access to capital, such as through abductions, kidnappings and whatnot.

On the issue of the effects of pornography on its viewers, I am disconcerted by the amount of speculation being thrown about in this thread. Only one person actually made reference to an empirical study, which I commend, although with the caveat that one study cannot confirm or deny anything really. What people need to do is familiarize themselves with as much (mostly empirical) literature on the subject as possible. I simple JSTOR search and cursory scanning of abstracts should probably suffice for this thread. I've actually done that before. My conclusion is that the effects of viewing pornography can not conclusively be said to promote or discourage any behavior. I noticed a couple of things though. Most studies seemed to confirm the presumptions of the researchers. Thus, if a researcher hypothesized porn to be harmful (or led to aggressiveness or whatever variable the study was looking at), then the study would confirm it. On the other hand, if a researcher hypothesized that porn reduced aggressiveness (or whatever variable) then the study would confirm that. And all the studies that referenced other studies in the opposite camp had several things to say about the methodological limitations of the other camp. One of these days I might just actually take a really close look and form a conclusive opinion based on evidence, but not tonight.

There are also other studies that looked at different things. Some people argue, for example, that pornography is getting more violent and degrading, constantly pushing the boundaries of decency, respect for individual autonomy etc etc. Other studies could not confirm this (see above).

For those people who say mainstream porn is inherently exploitative, but that there's absolutely nothing wrong with amateur porn, I really have to point out how badly flawed this argument is. Sure, mainstream porn is inherently exploitative, just as working in any major industry is exploitative. But to make the blanket assertion that since it exists outside this industry then it is automatically non exploitative (or degrading for that matter) is ridiculous. As an example, what if some decides to rape someone else, film it, and put it on the internet. This is obviously exploitative and degrading, and yet it exists outside the industry. "But, but, I was talking about strictly consenting adults!!!" I already hear people objecting. Well, even in this case, you can't just say that it's a ok and that it's automatically non exploitative and degrading if it's amateur. It ignores the fact that patriarchy, misogyny and sexism are integral parts of many upon many personal relationships. There are many gray areas to consent. For example, if someone does not want to do something, but they don't clearly say "No" and thus are put in a position where they end up doing that thing, is that consenting? What if someone is emotionally manipulative, and in spite of objections, the constant solicitation by the emotionally manipulative person, causes the other person to "cave in" so to speak, is that consent? What if it turns out the person who caved in, by doing what they initially thought they didn't want to do, simply was confirmed in their suspicions as to why they did not want to do that in the first place, would that qualify as consent? Please don't feel the need to respond specifically to these questions, as that is not the point. The point is simply to argue that gray areas exist, and even outside of mainstream porn, it is possible for legal consent to result in exploitation and/or degradation.

My own opinion of what to do about pornography is problematic. I'm going to be perfectly honest here and say that I watch it pretty much on the regular. I suppose if I had meaningful and satisfying relationships in my life, I probably would have never gotten into it, particularly at that point before I really got into it. When I was in high school, I had a girlfriend, and never watched porn. When we broke up, I had a hard time bouncing back. Eventually, one of my friends starting going to strip clubs a lot, and renting a lot of porn, and I found it comforting given my frustration finding another partner, so it rubbed off on me, and I've been pretty much hooked ever since. I don't think that not being able to get laid is any excuse for reprehensible behavior. On the other hand, I am entitled to my sexuality, sexual being and sexual expression.

Which bring me to what I think is somewhat of a consensus for most people here. Pornography is not inherently exploitative or degrading, just like any type of movie is not inherently exploitative or degrading. However, it just so happens that we live in a capitalist/patriarchal society, which makes damn sure that movies (pornographic or not) will, for the most part, be exploitative or degrading.

Throw into this standards of beauty and objectification and we're getting way deep into this, probably more than is necessary. I'll be brief on these last two. Beauty is for the most part subjective, but there is an element of social construction and conditioning to it. Most people will agree on roughly similar standards of beauty. There are various tendencies that exist in capitalism which challenge these, however, what they do is social not subjective. At best, they could be said to be counter hegemonies, at worst they are simply alternative ones.

On objectification, the argument might be that in a world without objectification there would be no need for pornography, since the basis of pornographic arousal is primarily in the objectification of an "other." This may be true, however, when unpacking the concept of objectification, we see that it is merely a form of denying one's autonomy. It may sound contradictory, but it is possible for an individual to deny their own autonomy for the purpose of assisting someone else, such as doing them a favor. I don't really want to help my friend move on Saturday, I would rather sleep in. However, I may do so out of respect, kindness, love, or simply for some sort of material gain. Perhaps I'm not truly getting (as in understanding) objectification, but it seems something similar might apply here. Someone may agree to be objectified for the same reasons as someone might agree to perform labor they would otherwise not want to do, provided it was temporary and they could bail at any time.

Also, as much as I enjoy discussing the complexities and problematics of sex work, I found the Marxism interpretation debate rather fascinating. Please continue!


I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and think that this is a pretty thoughtful contribution.

And I think I would add that my previous post is incomplete in that it does not draw the line between consensual amateur sex and other less consensual/explicitly degrading forms of sexual behaviour.

However, you say: ""But, but, I was talking about strictly consenting adults!!!" I already hear people objecting. Well, even in this case, you can't just say that it's a ok and that it's automatically non exploitative and degrading if it's amateur. It ignores the fact that patriarchy, misogyny and sexism are integral parts of many upon many personal relationships."

This is based upon the flawed premise that amateur sex uploaded online = based on relationships; many relationships = patriarchal, misogynistic and sexist; ergo, amateur sex uploaded online = patriarchy, misogyny and sexist (or something along those lines).

However, there are several problems here and, as you do to your credit later say, many grey areas:

a) many personal relationships are not patriarchal, misogynistic and/or sexist. I guess you are right that we should, at this point, (if we wanted to move into a deeper discussion of this specific point) move to a discussion of a more empirical nature.
b) not all amateur sex uploaded online is of people in relationships. I'm guessing that a lot of it is people having casual sex, people at sex parties, people in orgies etc.
c) even if some personal relationships are patriarchal, misogynistic and/or sexist, this doesn't really have much bearing on people watching this stuff online, since
1) we cannot know which sex we are watching is the product of coercion, which is wholly consensual, which is not etc.,
2) since much of this stuff is free-access, greater viewing figures (demand) for any particular video do not necessarily equate to a later increase in the number of videos produced (supply). I'm sure there are many people who post a load of sex videos that have crap viewing figures, and a load of people who post 1 sex video that gets a lot of attention, only for them to never post another video again.

In sum, I would agree with you that this is really a difficult area to analyse, nevermind come up with some sort of conclusion. I think you're on the right track with your ideas on empiricism, but I think that in many ways this is a personal area and should be left as such.

[Ostrinski]

this is the point where you go nicely to the admins and ask for a ban.:confused:

[Comrades Unite!]

I only watch porn that glorifies the great proletarian revolution

Nah I prefer the kind that shows the Bourgeois submit to the proletariat.

[Ostrinski]

I only watch porn that glorifies the great proletarian revolution


Nah I prefer the kind that shows the Bourgeois submit to the proletariat.

Rule 34 I guess

[Althusser]

I've actually tried to view porn once in the last couple years, and couldn't enjoy any of it at all in consequence of being incessantly pounded by the thought of "what would revleft think?"

Comment of the year 2012.

[Art Vandelay]

Rule 34 I guess

I didn't get this :confused:

[¿Que?]

This is based upon the flawed premise that amateur sex uploaded online = based on relationships; many relationships = patriarchal, misogynistic and sexist; ergo, amateur sex uploaded online = patriarchy, misogyny and sexist (or something along those lines).
Well, if you accept the premise that human beings are social animals, then there's really nothing that any person can do that is not based on some sort of relationship with another person or persons. When we are talking about sex between two or more people, then a relationship exists, no matter what. You are objecting to the idea that people who post amateur porn online must necessarily be in a romantic relationship, such as boyfriend, girlfriend, wife, husband etc. And I agree, except this is not what I meant.

But even if I did mean that, the logic doesn't follow because: Many relationships = patriarchal, misogyny, sexist; ergo only some amateur sex uploaded online = patriarchy, misogyny and sexist.

I am not denying the possibility that some amateur sex posted online is not exploitative and degrading, I am denying the thesis that simply because it's amateur (or outside the industry) it automatically makes it safe.

I think several people have made this claim on this thread and others, and this is what I was objecting to.


However, there are several problems here and, as you do to your credit later say, many grey areas:

a) many personal relationships are not patriarchal, misogynistic and/or sexist. I guess you are right that we should, at this point, (if we wanted to move into a deeper discussion of this specific point) move to a discussion of a more empirical nature.
Agreed.


b) not all amateur sex uploaded online is of people in relationships. I'm guessing that a lot of it is people having casual sex, people at sex parties, people in orgies etc.
All sex is based on some sort of relationship between the people engaged in it. Like I said, this is a broader definition of the word relationship, but it is what I meant, and I think it is appropriate usage.


c) even if some personal relationships are patriarchal, misogynistic and/or sexist, this doesn't really have much bearing on people watching this stuff online, since
1) we cannot know which sex we are watching is the product of coercion, which is wholly consensual, which is not etc.,
2) since much of this stuff is free-access, greater viewing figures (demand) for any particular video do not necessarily equate to a later increase in the number of videos produced (supply). I'm sure there are many people who post a load of sex videos that have crap viewing figures, and a load of people who post 1 sex video that gets a lot of attention, only for them to never post another video again.
Well, I appreciate you distinguishing between two different issues. On the one hand, you have people's motivations for viewing pornography and its effects on them, and on the other hand, you have people's motivation for participating in the creation of pornography and its effects on them. I think for analytical purposes, this is a useful distinction, only I would argue that a holistic approach would recognize the interconnectedness of the two, primarily because the existence of each presupposes the other.


In sum, I would agree with you that this is really a difficult area to analyse, nevermind come up with some sort of conclusion. I think you're on the right track with your ideas on empiricism, but I think that in many ways this is a personal area and should be left as such.
The personal is political, bro!

But seriously, you're right about it being personal. A lot of white knights, and even some rad fems, love to second guess the personal decisions of people who choose to engage in sex work and often times a lot of other women's decisions. It is no surprise or mystery that the Marxist term of false consciousness was so readily appropriated within some feminist strains.

[Comrades Unite!]

I didn't get this :confused:

Rule 34 is the idea that every subject can be translated into Porn.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, if you accept the premise that human beings are social animals, then there's really nothing that any person can do that is not based on some sort of relationship with another person or persons. When we are talking about sex between two or more people, then a relationship exists, no matter what. You are objecting to the idea that people who post amateur porn online must necessarily be in a romantic relationship, such as boyfriend, girlfriend, wife, husband etc. And I agree, except this is not what I meant.

But even if I did mean that, the logic doesn't follow because: Many relationships = patriarchal, misogyny, sexist; ergo only some amateur sex uploaded online = patriarchy, misogyny and sexist.

I am not denying the possibility that some amateur sex posted online is not exploitative and degrading, I am denying the thesis that simply because it's amateur (or outside the industry) it automatically makes it safe.

I think several people have made this claim on this thread and others, and this is what I was objecting to.

Agreed.

All sex is based on some sort of relationship between the people engaged in it. Like I said, this is a broader definition of the word relationship, but it is what I meant, and I think it is appropriate usage.

Well, I appreciate you distinguishing between two different issues. On the one hand, you have people's motivations for viewing pornography and its effects on them, and on the other hand, you have people's motivation for participating in the creation of pornography and its effects on them. I think for analytical purposes, this is a useful distinction, only I would argue that a holistic approach would recognize the interconnectedness of the two, primarily because the existence of each presupposes the other.

The personal is political, bro!

But seriously, you're right about it being personal. A lot of white knights, and even some rad fems, love to second guess the personal decisions of people who choose to engage in sex work and often times a lot of other women's decisions. It is no surprise or mystery that the Marxist term of false consciousness was so readily appropriated within some feminist strains.

I disagree that the personal is necessarily the political, though of course in many situations it is. However, even when something is political, this does not give us licence to meddle.

I would argue that, even though relationships exist, often they have little to do with the sort of political relationships that Socialism seeks to deal with. Socialism is not an omni-potent ideology that blueprints every move in our lives.

I'm cutting this post short because i'm fucking tired and can barely keep my eyes open. :(

[Zostrianos]

For those who oppose porn, what would you say to people who watch it because they can't get sex from an actual partner, and need it to gratify themselves?

[Agent Ducky]

Grosses me the fuck right out so I don't think about it too much.
I don't think about it to a point where I can't actually form an opinion on it. Like, it's not my business what other people watch.
Just keep it the fuck away from me.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I try to stay away from it in general. Too much grey area and potential slippery slopes to worry about.

Slippery slope is a fallacy you know...

[bcbm]

For those who oppose porn, what would you say to people who watch it because they can't get sex from an actual partner, and need it to gratify themselves?

get a flesh light and an imagination

[individualist]

get a flesh light and an imagination

Do you want to censor porn?

[l'Enfermé]

A flesh ight is like a sex toy it's basically a rubber vagina in a metal case that looks like a flashlight or whatever, it's an internet meme that came from 4chan or somethingawful.com or one of those sites. I'm not actually sure if it's a real thing.

[Os Cangaceiros]

How will unattractive people get laid under communism? :ohmy:

[Zostrianos]

A flesh ight is like a sex toy it's basically a rubber vagina in a metal case that looks like a flashlight or whatever, it's an internet meme that came from 4chan or somethingawful.com or one of those sites. I'm not actually sure if it's a real thing.

Yeah it's real

[bcbm]

Do you want to censor porn?

no


How will unattractive people get laid under communism?

once class society and patriarchy break down we will be liberated from the bonds that have restrained our sexuality from the birth of property and burst forth into an era of total liberation and socialized relations where sex will be common and constant

[homegrown terror]

just a thought: when you say "porn is bad, it makes people commit rapes and engage in sexually abusive behavior" you're using the exact same train of logic as those "concerned parents" who blamed video games for causing columbine.

[bcbm]

who said that?

[homegrown terror]

who said that?

several posters, though not in so many words.

[¿Que?]

several posters, though not in so many words.
And how would you answer that in either one of your examples, studies have shown a correlation between the consumption of violent media, and aggressive and violent tendencies.

I believe such studies exist, although I am not implying that I agree with them. There is probably plenty to be said on both the methodological and analytical sides. I would just simply like to hear your explanation...

[bcbm]

several posters, though not in so many words.

for example

[Zostrianos]

I read a while back that societies that are more permissive and tolerant with porn have less sexual violence and rape. Porn may have a beneficial effect where individuals who would otherwise go out and rape someone, instead release their urges with porn.

[homegrown terror]

I read a while back that societies that are more permissive and tolerant with porn have less sexual violence and rape. Porn may have a beneficial effect where individuals who would otherwise go out and rape someone, instead release their urges with porn.

and the same for violent video games. i know that i for one kept from getting violent when i was in high school by killing virtual assholes instead of real ones.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Commercial pornography is part of the commodification of sexuality under capitalism. That does not mean it always has to be that way.
Those who say pornography is unnatural and unhealthy are fools. Sexuality has been part of art since we've been doodling on cave walls. I hope one day erotica will no longer serve to to perpetuate sexual commodification, it has that potential.

[Tim Finnegan]

And how would you answer that in either one of your examples, studies have shown a correlation between the consumption of violent media, and aggressive and violent tendencies.
The obvious one would be "correlation =/= causation"; in this case, that it's not clear if consuming violent media makes people aggressive, or if aggressive people are more likely to consume violent media- or perhaps something else altogether.

[Zannarchy]

Whatever happens between consenting individuals is their own business. Not the business of a moral majority. That being said, i think porn these days has lost its artistic flair. I want porn that's as thought provoking as boner provoking. that would be worth watching for sure.

additionally, how is it your business to choose what is degrading for another person. thats their deal. they know what theyre doing.

and wouldnt a rapist be more inclined to rape if he couldnt jack off to some rape porn, and all that sexual frustration built up?

[bcbm]

and wouldnt a rapist be more inclined to rape if he couldnt jack off to some rape porn, and all that sexual frustration built up?

jacking off to vanilla porn never made me less inclined to have vanilla sex

[MaximMK]

Porn is ok let it be it. Claiming it makes people rape is like those stupid claims that video games make kids violent. It exists and will exists. In a stateless society if someone wants to film himself and share let him do it. If porn stops being made we will still have whole stash of millions of clips from now. So it will always be there.

[Leftsolidarity]

jacking off to vanilla porn never made me less inclined to have vanilla sex

Yeah, but jacking off once to fecal porn made me realize I never wanted to do that in real life....

[A Marxist Historian]

I suspect this is an issue you'll disagree with each other on.

On the one hand, if a consenting woman and consenting man want to have sex, and film it then I have no problem with it. It seems clear from what I've seen that some women actively enjoy being involved in it- they think sex is entirely natural and it seems they want to share it.

The fact some couples choose to have sex on webcams online for no money proves that for many people, there is something appealing about having sex knowing others will get pleasure from it.

But at the same time- many women who are in pornography you can't help but feel have only ended up there because they have few other options, and some seem to be picked up on the street as they're drug addicts.

Also, what do you think about pornography in this context. A highly paid female and male pornstar who both enjoy their work, however the shoot they are doing involves a 'roleplay' act of oppression, eg. a female prisoner having sex with the male prison officer. It's clearly staged, and not real, but surely it promotes sexism?

The vast majority of pornography is pretty grotty and presents women as objects of meat who are to be 'abused' by men.

Does it glorfy rape?



Talking to feminists this is an area many can't agree on. Some think all pornography is sexist and puts down women, some argue it's a liberating experience. What do you think?


Personally I'd put pornography alongside strip clubs and prostitution. I don't like them, and I actually think they're pretty disgusting. But I don't think I'd make them illegal, partially because I think ultimately people should be allowed to make their own choices, and partially because you'd just push it underground and it wouldn't be as well regulated. Eg. if all porn was illegal I think it would be more likely minors would end up in it as their wouldn't be the records of age that are currently legally required.

I think in a socialist society, with no more money and therefore no more money/sex nexus, pornography will only be created for the love of it and not for material reward, by people who actually enjoy what they are doing. And it will therefore be much better.

-M.H.-

[Tim Finnegan]

and wouldnt a rapist be more inclined to rape if he couldnt jack off to some rape porn, and all that sexual frustration built up?
Rape is in the greater majority of cases about power, rather than sex; sex is just the medium through which power is exercised. Porn offers at most a vicarious experience of power, which for a serial rapist- the category who commit the majority of rapes- is not going to be satisfactory.

[milkmiku]

To people saying "porn increases rapes, ect ect"

Here is a study on Japans porn and its effects on sex crime, it shows that the availability of porn REDUCED the amount of sexual crimes.

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-pornography-rape-sex-crimes-japan.html

Similer arguments and studies have been made with regards to lolicon materiel as well.

[Raúl Duke]

For those who oppose porn, what would you say to people who watch it because they can't get sex from an actual partner, and need it to gratify themselves?

"IN the glorious socialism pron will not exist and those degenaretes will be re-educated !!!1111"

This is a good question, those who oppose porn...how will a socialist society handle the issue in practical terms? Will it be censored?

[Zav]

"IN the glorious socialism pron will not exist and those degenaretes will be re-educated !!!1111"

This is a good question, those who oppose porn...how will a socialist society handle the issue in practical terms? Will it be censored?
It is impossible. They would need control over the entire Internet, which would only be possible in a Statist society.

In a Communist world, there would be a computer for every person on the planet. The Internet would at least triple in size. I assume networks would be structured a-centrally for the most part, like certain torrenting services and cloud computing, so the questions I ask the anti-porn people are these:

Why would porn disappear in a Communist society? People get horny when no one is around to fuck, and masturbation is also safer.
How will you censor it? You would need every person in the world to cooperate, and if RevLeft is any indication, that isn't happening.
Will you re-educate people to be puritanical ascetics like Fabian? That isn't ethical.
Would you really have a society where the only sexual gratification comes from sex and toying/no-porn fapping? The latter, literally involving only genitalia, would seem far more objectifying by your logic than porn, and the former would lead to overpopulation and rampant STDs, and all their problems.

[hatzel]

In a Communist world, there would be a computer for every person on the planet. The Internet would at least triple in size.

Interesting claims you're making here...where did you get your crystal ball, exactly?

[Zav]

Interesting claims you're making here...where did you get your crystal ball, exactly?
The material conditions will change so that there is enough of everything for all due to the elimination of profit, so I would assume computers would be readily available. There will soon be two billion computers in the world, so since there are seven billion people, it's close enough to one computer for every three people. If there are three times as many computers, the Internet will grow accordingly.

[Leftsolidarity]

Lol I didn't know we were in the business of fortune telling

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think it's fairly safe to assume that the more people in the world there are who have a computer, the bigger the internet is likely to get, especially with stuff like mobile broadband and whatnot. Of course, whether that will happen, and if it does the precise details of that growth, will likely remain a mystery until it's blindingly obvious (i.e. almost happening and therefore not much of a useful prediction).