Originally posted by COMRADE RAF+Jul 10 2004, 06:43 AM--> (COMRADE RAF @ Jul 10 2004, 06:43 AM) As far as I can tell, you are most definitely not taking your morals from a proletarian perspective. [/b]
Well, I am definately on the lower end of the working class, and I certainly didn't grow-up anywhere near the petty-bourgeois. I could be "bourgeois minded" on this subject, certainly this is bourgoeis society and I am as susceptible to bourgeois influence as anyone else; however I don't think I am doing that here. In fact, I think if anyone is being bourgeois here, it is you with your individualism. You seem to put your individual desires before that of others. It doesn't seem to bother you to pay a prostitute for sex, regardless to whether that sex is pleasurable to her or not. I find that in itself to be sadistic and anti-Marxist.
Selective audience porn such as snuff and rape are indeed harmful and should be outlawed.
They have nothing to do with the "vanilla porn market".
Oh, so now you are the authority on what porn is acceptable!
You spent all this time telling me that all exploitation is the same, and the various degrees are irrelevant, but now you agree that some porn is not acceptable?
So it is ok to watch porn depicting women having sex - because they are getting paid - just so long as it doesn't depict violence or rape? You contradicted yourself...
I - however - have been saying all along that there are differing degrees of exploitation and different aspects of porn, some which should be considered unacceptable.
Lines should be drawn. Especially by those claiming to be Marxist!
This has nothing to do with the porn market.
On the contrary Comrade, it has everything to do with it, as it is a very prominent part of it, whether you like it or not.
This is a problem caused by capitalism, not by pornography.
This is a cheap scapegoat. If you recognize it is a problem then you should not be an active part of it.
Human sexuality puts women atop the porn market. With or without the existence of patriarchist ideas, the porn market will exist.
That's bullshit. Any Marxist knows that "human sexuality" or any type of "human behaviour" for that matter is a result of the environment that people are in, a result of society and culture. You remind me of the capitalists that use the "human nature" argument to try and argue that people are inherently greedy, and currupted.
As I argued previously; Socialist society would change gender relations and patriarchy, therefore change all apsects of male dominion, including the sex trade. For one thing there would be no profit making industry.
But I think you agree with me already, as you previously wrote:
Communists are adamantely against social and sexual regression. Pornography included.
If a woman or man decided to be involved in pornography in a communist society than so be it, I can think of less meaningful jobs that people will inevitably want to do.
I agree with you, so what are we even debating about?
Men and women receive sexual gratification from viewing pronography. (mostly men) The produt itself is not harmful in any way, (those that equate pornography with increased amounts of rape are very misguided)......
I think it is safe to say that voyeurism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Voyeurism) turns a lot of people on. I think it is simple: If you see other people engaged in the act of sex, you yourself may want to have it. It is similiar to thinking about sex (arousal).
More on Voyeurism. (http://www.nvsh.nl/Website_Engels/Texts/Sexual_Information/Lovemaking/Variants/Variants_3.htm#voyeurisme)
However, I think it would be a sweeping assumption to say that this is true with all people, and even more so to say this about all people and pornography.
Depending on certain people's upbringing, culture, experiences, etc. they will have different reactions to pornography. Some people may even be shocked or disgusted by it. Others may only be aroused by certain images.
For example:
Originally posted by Sexual behaviour: From sex with
[email protected] to transgender and transsexuality, voyeurism
Pornography shows us the surface of sex, the mechanics of its acts, the facial expressions and the sounds, the sighing and groaning, and the spasmic pleasure of orgasm and ejaculation. The spectator who wants to experience pleasure and uses pornography as an aid becomes sexually aroused and masturbates. In other situations, the spectator may respond with anger and disgust, which may well be expressed in an unemotional way. The kind of reaction depends on time and place, the presence of other spectators, the purpose of the viewing, or the level of experience of the spectator. A police inspector whose job it is to watch pornographic material all day in order to judge its legal status, will not become as aroused by the pictures as when he first used similar images as an aid in masturbation. A 15-year-old girl who has been raised in a strictly religious and protective environment, may be shocked and sick when seeing explicit images of sex, even though she may be familiar with masturbation, and at a later time may become sexually aroused by the recollection of these images.
Source (http://www.nvsh.nl/Website_Engels/Texts/Sexual_Information/Lovemaking/Variants/Variants_2.htm#pornografie)
I agree with you that it has not been proven conclusively that porn aggravates rapists. I guess there is two schools of thought in bourgeois psychology. On one hand, some think that pornographic images and even stories can incite sexual predators, well others think it can actually give them temporary sastisfaction and be "therapeutic". Personally, I have not studied this nor have I studied psychology in depth enough to have an definate opinion on this, but I do think that any types of images have profound effects on human thought and behaviour, otherwise capitalists wouldn't spend so much time and money marketing them.
I used to have closer views to yours until I met my current girlfriend. She was engaged to a porn producer for many years.
This is relevant to the discussion in what way?
You would be surprised as to how much control women actually have in the industry.
I doubt it would surprise me anymore then reading about Jews who helped exterminate and clean up the bodies of their own families and friends in NAZI death camps. Desperate people do desperate things, right? That doesn't do much for your argument.
You would also be surprised as to how many women enjoy what they do.
That is easy for anyone to say. How many working class people say that they "enjoy working hard and liek where they are" yet they are horribly exploited? Just because they pretend that everything is fine to create some sort of "pride" for themselves doens't mean it really is a great situation. I have to smile and be polite to costumers at work. So does my sister in-law at McDonalds.
I take it by your use of "queer men" that you are not fond of homosexuals.
That's odd for a Marxist.
That's a sweeping and rude assumption. Listen "Comrade", the next time you make accusations like that, you better back them up. I appologize if anyone is uncomfortable with the term "queer", but in the Gay community here in Toronto it is not a negative term.
Also, you don't really know what my sexuality could be, do you?
The Bolshevik party up until 1953 was the closest thing to actual Marxism in practise to date.
Agreed.
There is no such thing as the "Party of Stalin".
You don't have to be a jackass. Stalin was obviously Gensec of the Party, was he not? By saying the "Party of the bolsheviks and Stalin" I ment "The Bolshevik party up until 1953", OK?
Of course it's nonsense! That's the point.
:huh:
I absolutely agree. It's what is referred to as a "selective market" and it is most definitely treated with malice by the standard porn industry and should not be included in a discussion about porn.
It's like equating all germans with the Nazi party.
No, it would be like equating the Nazi party with fascism, as it is all part of the sex trade.
As the capitalist platform relies solely on the exploitation of third world labour to maintain domestic surplus value, I highly doubt you can by a pair of shoes anywhere that have not been put together by either a third world labourer or a an exploited domestic labourer.
Someone in a shoe factory in Canada is less likely to be making 50 cents per day than someone in a sweetshop in Taiwan.
Does the source of the exploitation actually matter?
Ok, this is of course not possible currently, but for instance would you buy a product from a fascist country?
I think the source does matter in some ways, at the very least ethically and some ways materially.
Regardless, if you purchase anything in a capitalist society you are contributing to wage exploitation. We obviously cannot stop purchasing things now can we?
This is not the same as exploiting people for sex. You can not compare a pregnant women purchasing baby food in a super market with an old petty-bourgeois man purchasing porn depicting pregnant women, or a 20 year old student from the U.S.A. paying a 13 year old - or any aged - prostitute in Latin America $10 for a blow job. The type of exploitation is just not the same, nor is the degree of it.
As a marxist I know one thing, prostitution is to be treated like any other profession. It is not correct to attack the manifestations of a disease, it is correct to attack the virus.
I agree with you. I am not attacking the prostitutes or the sex trade workers. I am not even attacking every single product of the sex trade (i.e. certain types of porn) I am saying that a Marxist should obviously not support and take part in such exploitation.
You talk about a certain percentage of the prostitution industry that is forced to endure some possible emotional trauma performing their profession yet you ignore the emotional trauma endured by 18 hour a day back-breaking labour in a sweat shop.
"Picking and choosing" our battles so selectively will accomplish nothing.
First off all, you are putting words in my mouth. I fully understand exploitation and the various degrees of it. If anyone doesn't seem to understand this, it is you who seem to think that a football player with a $2,000,000 salary, big house and a yacht can be equated with a 3rd world prostitute or a WalMart employee, you said yourself that there is no difference.
You think there is no women in the sex trade who are forced to work 18 hours (or longer)?
How many women are forced to have sex with their bosses to keep their jobs?
How many sex trade workers don't have any other choice it comes to "carreer oppertunities"?
That's absolute nonsense. How can you logically compare having sex with a hooker to "undermining socialism" in Cuba?
Because Cuba spends resources trying to produce generic brand medications that combat HIV (and almost got sued by the WTO for copyright violation because of it), they build resting homes for people HIV/AIDs to be cared for, they launch massive programs to try and stop prostitution and get people into programs and schools, they work hard to provide housing and schooling for youth and young women, because the Cuban people deserve much more dignity than to have their women treated as pleasure toys by western visitors, because they put their lives on the line for a better society!
I disagree.
That's obvious. But for who's pleasure?
What makes it patriarchal? You have a tendency to toss out that word way to often.
Well, I am assuming that you live in a 1st world country. I am assuming you are a male, and we are talking about a young woman in a 3rd world country. You figure out the rest "Comrade".
You gave an extreme question and I gave you an appropriate response.
There wasn't anything appropriate about it IMO.
As far as being exploitive, you're absolutely right. It's just as exploitive as purchasing fast food and contributing to the exploitation of that individual's labour.
I can not believe that someone who claims to be a Marxist can write something so simply equating a woman's body with a hamburger or a piece of pizza in one sentence. Just a "piece of ass", eh? :angry: If you really don't see the difference, than you are a sociopathic sadistic piece of shit and certainly no Marxist.
I suppose you never sonsidered the fact that these women could be using your body to get what they want have you?
Oh, yeah, that's how it works now. The poor rich guy being used for his money, robbed by some sly woman. Give me a break. I could maybe forgive you (but would still laugh at you) if you were some 15 year old petty-bourgoeis kid who's dad sent him to Thailand to "become a man", and than got his wallet stolen; but you're not. You are a person claiming to be a Marxist, who knows very well what it means to exploit women.
BTW, your argument kind of reminds me of the "white man's burden".
Pro-polygamy? A very interesting ideology from someone that fires out the word "patriachy" so much.
Polygamy means both sexes can have multipul partners, if desired, and it also doesn't include sex for hire. Big difference.
Indeed, it is monogamy that is patriarchal in capitalist society, as it is usually men who go out and have relations behind their partners back, often by purchasing sex. It is men who are considered the "head of family", and it is men who are allowed the dominant roles.
How will Socialism/Communism change this? Engels already answered this question concisely:
Friedrich
[email protected] 1847
It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occassion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage -- the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.
The Principles of Communism (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)
Once again, there are injustices involved in every aspect of life. Does that mean we outlaw en masse?
I suggested no such thing. I guess you really didn't read what I wrote. I advocate legalization of prostitution and an end to copyrights on porn (music, movies, and other things to). It's sort of like abolishing private property., but not quite.
No, it means we attack the situation that is causing the injustices.
You mean like men purchasing cheap sex from poor woman?
I personally will not be as bold as to say that I can accurately predict how traumatic any profession is to those whom actually perform their profession.
I think anyone capable of examining material conditions can come to these conclusions rationally. I think it is obvious.
Again, perhaps these women are doing what they want with your body.
I don't even think I should dignify this with an answer the second time around. Again, you would have to pretend that male patriarchy doesn't exist, that there are no degrees of exploitation, that western imperialism doesn't economically dominate the 3rd world, etc.
You are confused as to what the Theory of Labour Aristocracy represents.
First of all, theory was penned by Marx and Engels and expouded upon by Lenin.
Since you are talking about Lenin's interpretation, I will inform you that the theory dealt with how the working class conceded to bourgeois concessions in an effort to "quell their revolutionary mood". It dealt with opportunism among the working class, not with any specific "moral code".
It dealt with the same opportunism that concession seeking "communists" look to find in bourgeois elections.
Agreed. Now, from my Maoist prospective I also view that the Labour Aristocracy is a certain section of the working class which is more "privledged", that is oppertunist, and will be willing to sell out other sections (usually the lower sections) of the working class for their own benefit. This can be both on a domestic and International scale. For example, certain things could benefit North American workers off of the backs of the 3rd world, or another example; the acquisition of First Nations Land to build ski resorts visited by upper sections of the mostly white Canadian working class, or the clear cutting of trees on Native land to create well-paid jobs for Quebecois workers, etc.
I am certainly glad that you feel you can be so bold as to actually tell the working class exactly how exploited they should feel.
No, I am describing material conditions, and quite accurately I think.
Talk about a load of shit.
No, a load of shit is justification for exploiting a young woman in Cuba - or another poor country - who is supposed to be your Comrade Sister for sex so that you can bust a quick nut.
Of course it does. A service that requires labour but does not produce a tangible product is a commodification of labour.
A service that produces a tangible product is a commodification of labour and product.
I will repeat: to the capitalist, all labour is a commodity to be purchased just like any other. Marx wrote this in Capital.
I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. Are you saying that labour which renders services makes the human being a commodity? That is obvious, but it doesn't make their body the comodity. It may make the use of (i.e. the persons strenght or abilities) but not the body itself (you are not necessarily touching, being inside, ejaculating on, etc. the persons body) and it certainly isn't comparable to a sexual service.
You can't compare a cab driver, someone who pushes you in a wheelchair, someone who performs a "magic" show, or something of that sort; to someone who performs a sexual act with you, or gives you their body for sexual use and gratification.