Pornography - is it a left issue?

[Trystan]

Many feminists argue that pornography is a left issue. It is exploitive of women and sends out the wrong ideas about sex. Is the first claim true? I mean we all sell ourselves in order to make a buck, why should porn get more attention, is it worse than regular employment? In a post-capitalist world, when wage labor has been abolished, would porn still be a left issue?

Personally, I don't have too much of a problem with it. No more than I do with other jobs.

[Decolonize The Left]

Many feminists argue that pornography is a left issue. It is exploitive of women and sends out the wrong ideas about sex. Is the first claim true? I mean we all sell ourselves in order to make a buck, why should porn get more attention, is it worse than regular employment? In a post-capitalist world, when wage labor has been abolished, would porn still be a left issue?

Personally, I don't have too much of a problem with it. No more than I do with other jobs.

You will need to clarify what you mean by "left issue" a bit more before I can submit a vote. If you could do this I would be very grateful.

Pornography is highly exploitative of women, and does send out the 'wrong' ideas about sex. What I mean by this is that pornography objectifies women and de-personalizes the act of sex itself. It turns women into objects used for sex, and in many cases abused.

Is it worse than regular employment? In terms of what exactly? This is a bit too vague of a question. Clarification here would be helpful as well.

And yes, pornography would be abolished in a post-capitalist world as it is solely a for-profit business and would have no purpose following the collapse and overthrow of capitalism.

- August

[Kami]

Perhaps the pornography industry is a problem, but pornography itself is an integral part of culture (you can even take uni courses on ancient pornography). I can't see any problem with the concept behind depictions of nude people, or people having sex for that matter.


And yes, pornography would be abolished in a post-capitalist world as it is solely a for-profit business and would have no purpose following the collapse and overthrow of capitalism.If you think it's solely a for-profit business, look harder. I'd suggest the keyword "Amatuer" :P More to the point. If people want to record this and distribute it, who are you to say they can't, assuming everyone was consenting.

[Decolonize The Left]

Perhaps the pornography industry is a problem, but pornography itself is an integral part of culture (you can even take uni courses on ancient pornography). I can't see any problem with the concept behind depictions of nude people, or people having sex for that matter.

"Depictions of nude people" are not necessarily pornography. Here's the dictionary.com definition of "pornography":
"obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit."

While this definition is highly contested within feminist theory, as well it should be, it does make clear that say Picasso's Three Women is not a pornography painting.

The real question to be addressed about pornography is, why was the piece of work created? Was it for artistic merit? To creatively depict a scene, or idea? Or to arouse the desire of individuals who will either masturbate or have sex using the work as sexual fodder?

- August

[Yehuda Stern]

In our world, many young, poor women can make a lot of money by selling their bodies and their self respect to pornography producers. The same is not necessarily true of men. So while we can argue about whether or not being humiliated in the porn industry is worse than being humiliated in any other - I believe it is - the worst aspect of pornography is that it especially exploits women, and also serves as anti-woman propaganda in general.

[Raoul_RedRat]

I think it is highly unlikely that under the current societal circumstances any woman (or man for that matter) can indulge in "pornographic" activities, for reasons mentioned by others before me.

Yet I doubt if pornography would be abolished in the post-capitalist world. If 'pornography' would be understood as, "the expression of sexual acts in a non-artistical way and with the sole purpose to arouse it's viewer(s)". But this would be an entirely private matter between consenting adults.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yet I doubt if pornography would be abolished in the post-capitalist world. If 'pornography' would be understood as, "the expression of sexual acts in a non-artistical way and with the sole purpose to arouse it's viewer(s)". But this would be an entirely private matter between consenting adults.

The stronger arguments against pornography are not concerned with consent. We all understand that it's 'better' to have consenting adults have sex and video tape it than have folks forced into the situation. This is obvious.

But the real objections have nothing to do with this. They have to do with the reality that pornography, whether or not those involved are consenting, involves the blatant objectification of those involved - primarily women. This is problematic as the objectification of an individual easily leads to the abuse of said individual for they have been de-humanized.

- August

[Raoul_RedRat]

...
But the real objections have nothing to do with this. They have to do with the reality that pornography, whether or not those involved are consenting, involves the blatant objectification of those involved - primarily women. This is problematic as the objectification of an individual easily leads to the abuse of said individual for they have been de-humanized.

- August

Yes I see, but I somehow see some form of objectification to be inherent in my understanding of human sexuality. Even within an emancipated context there is the self-understanding of being "consumed" or "taken" without resulting into unhealthy forms.

I agree that objectification in sexual expression contains the risk of de-humanization. But 'the risk' doesn't suffice for opposing the objectification in sexual intercourse (in the broadest sense), even if it is not yet fully determined if this objectification itself is part of human sexuality or not.

I hope it is clear what I am trying to say, it's hard to be really precise in a language other than your native.

[Luís Henrique]

This is problematic as the objectification of an individual easily leads to the abuse of said individual for they have been de-humanized.

Any form of wage labour objectifies and de-humanises labourers. What is especially especial about pornography?

Luís Henrique

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes I see, but I somehow see some form of objectification to be inherent in my understanding of human sexuality. Even within an emancipated context there is the self-understanding of being "consumed" or "taken" without resulting into unhealthy forms.

Objectification, being to present as an object/to externalize, is fundamentally destructive to the human being. For people are subjects, they are internalized loci of understanding. They have feelings and emotions. To objectify them is to deny their humanity.

I fail to understand what you mean by your last claim. A subject can be "taken" and "consumed"...


I agree that objectification in sexual expression contains the risk of de-humanization. But 'the risk' doesn't suffice for opposing the objectification in sexual intercourse (in the broadest sense), even if it is not yet fully determined if this objectification itself is part of human sexuality or not.

There is no risk - objectification leads to abuse. There are countless historical examples for this: almost every theory which viewed/views certain races as less-than-human (read: objectification and de-humanization) have led to the subsequent attempts at genocide. It is a simple "not us" situation whereby de-humanizing others makes it easy to disregard their freedom and equality.


I hope it is clear what I am trying to say, it's hard to be really precise in a language other than your native.

It is somewhat clear, but no worries. We will work through whatever language barriers may exist to reach a rational conclusion - that, after all, is the whole purpose of the forum.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Any form of wage labour objectifies and de-humanises labourers. What is especially especial about pornography?

Luís Henrique

Indeed! But the objectification and de-humaization of laborers occurs through economic oppression, while the objectification and de-humanization of women through pornography occurs through gender oppression. And while the abuse which workers receive due to this oppression is brutal and horrible, the abuse which women receive due to gender oppression is personal because it attacks their identification to their sex and body. Worker oppression attacks class identification, an identification which is often ignored.

- August

[Raoul_RedRat]

Objectification, being to present as an object/to externalize, is fundamentally destructive to the human being. For people are subjects, they are internalized loci of understanding. They have feelings and emotions. To objectify them is to deny their humanity.

I fail to understand what you mean by your last claim. A subject can be "taken" and "consumed"...

What I tried to say is that some form of objectification is inherent to human sexuality. Excuse me for the following practical example, but than again don't excuse because it is how it is. Me an my girlfriend can make passionate love with each other but at the same time fuck each others bodies like there is no tomorrow.

To be perfectly clear, I agree with you about the risk sexual objectification creates. And that objectification isolated from any proper social context is destined to revolve into de-humanization. I do not agree with the idea that objectification is an evil in itself, I even think it is part of our humanity. We aesthetically appreciate one another, but this appreciation runs amok if it's not embedded in some consensual and social constraint (or if it is fueled by market forces).

[Decolonize The Left]

What I tried to say is that some form of objectification is inherent to human sexuality. Excuse me for the following practical example, but than again don't excuse because it is how it is. Me an my girlfriend can make passionate love with each other but at the same time fuck each others bodies like there is no tomorrow.

:lol: I have no need to excuse it or not; the simplicity and reality of it made me laugh. Refreshing in a sense as we often get very abstract and theoretical on this board.


To be perfectly clear, I agree with you about the risk sexual objectification creates. And that objectification isolated from any proper social context is destined to revolve into de-humanization. I do not agree with the idea that objectification is an evil in itself, I even think it is part of our humanity. We aesthetically appreciate one another, but this appreciation runs amok if it's not embedded in some consensual and social constraint (or if it is fueled by market forces).

Your point is very well taken. I would only like to take issue with the final thing you wrote, "or if it is fueled by market forces." I do not see how this is similar, synonymous, or analogous to "consensual or social constraint." Could you clarify?

- August

[Raoul_RedRat]

...
Your point is very well taken. I would only like to take issue with the final thing you wrote, "or if it is fueled by market forces." I do not see how this is similar, synonymous, or analogous to "consensual or social constraint." Could you clarify?

- August

Happy to make you laugh. And to clarify I meant "...but this [aesthetic] appreciation runs amok if it's fueled by market forces". Meaning there is no constraint, but only the motive of production.

[Decolonize The Left]

Happy to make you laugh. And to clarify I meant "...but this [aesthetic] appreciation runs amok if it's fueled by market forces". Meaning there is no constraint, but only the motive of production.

This makes perfect sense. Before it seemed as though you were saying that objectification fueled by market forces was as justified as that tempered with "consensual and social constraint." I understand now and appreciate your views on objectification - this has brought to light an aspect which I had previously overlooked.

On a side note, if you are involved with a leftist bookstore in the Netherlands which is lacking in English translations/titles, consider the AK Press here in the US (a large leftist book distributor). Perhaps you can organize some sort of exchange, or purchase, of titles - though I admit that I am not familiar with the book industry and don't understand how these things work. Just a thought.

- August

[Trystan]

]You will need to clarify what you mean by "left issue"

Something that we should fight like racism, fascism, sexism etc. Something that is antagonistic towards left wing principles.


What I mean by this is that pornography objectifies women and de-personalizes the act of sex itself. It turns women into objects used for sex, and in many cases abused.


Maybe. But to censor it would be an act against free expression, no matter how exploitative it is.



Is it worse than regular employment? In terms of what exactly? This is a bit too vague of a question. Clarification here would be helpful as well.

In terms of exploitation.


And yes, pornography would be abolished in a post-capitalist world as it is solely a for-profit business and would have no purpose following the collapse and overthrow of capitalism.


Hmm . . . I disagree. It is not a "solely for profit business". Webster defines it as " the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement" Pornography will not be going anywhere, I think. And why would it? Porn/erotica dates back before capitalism, anyway.

[Decolonize The Left]

Something that we should fight like racism, fascism, sexism etc. Something that is antagonistic towards left wing principles.

Then yes, it is most certainly a left issue.


Maybe. But to censor it would be an act against free expression, no matter how exploitative it is.

I have said nothing about censoring pornography. I have elaborated numerous arguments as to why it is oppressive and dangerous.


Hmm . . . I disagree. It is not a "solely for profit business". Webster defines it as " the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement" Pornography will not be going anywhere, I think. And why would it? Porn/erotica dates back before capitalism, anyway.

It is a business, a capitalist business, and hence it is for-profit. It is not my intention to censure pornography, rather to educate individuals as to the destructive nature of pornography with the hopes that it will die out.

- August

[Trystan]

It is a business, a capitalist business, and hence it is for-profit.



Um, no it isn't. Not intrinsically.

[Decolonize The Left]

Um, no it isn't. Not intrinsically.

Who is talking about anything 'intrinsic?' "Pornography" is both a term used to describe certain things, and a business. The business is involved in the production and sale of those pornography things...

The vast majority of pornography is produced for the purposes of being sold - is a business.

- August

[Trystan]

Who is talking about anything 'intrinsic?' "Pornography" is both a term used to describe certain things, and a business. The business is involved in the production and sale of those pornography things...

The vast majority of pornography is produced for the purposes of being sold - is a business.

- August


Look, pornography is not a business in itself. It is a marketable thing, like everything else. Understand?

[Decolonize The Left]

Look, pornography is not a business in itself. It is a marketable thing, like everything else. Understand?

I do, that's why I said:

"Pornography" is both a term used to describe certain things, and a business.

- August

[comrade stalin guevara]

Porn is all about money under socialisim it will not be needed.

[Kami]

Porn is all about money under socialisim it will not be needed.


Can we have some sort of distinction here between the porn industry and pornography itself? Pornography is about arousal, and far predates capitalism. The porn industry is, like every other industry, motivated by profit. Pornography will never dissapear, ever, but in a post-revolution society, here's hoping the exploitation associated with it will.

[comrade stalin guevara]

If i just thought longer about my post i proberly would of said that to so true kami,
hopefully the money involed will disapear with the exploitation that is the exploitation

[contemptpunk]

Pornography is about arousal, and far predates capitalism. The porn industry is, like every other industry, motivated by profit. Pornography will never dissapear, ever, but in a post-revolution society, here's hoping the exploitation associated with it will.

Just about says it for me. Plenty of amateurs doing it for nothing on the internet if you want to see it I'm sure. So I'm told anyway...:blushing:

[progressive_lefty]

I think its shocking when you see the porn industry is full of girls from poor socio-economic countries in Eastern Europe, South East Asia and South America, who are just trying to earn some money. I'm sick of seeing videos of guys exploiting these girls, when their just doing it to support themselves.

[revolution inaction]

When I read the title I thought by porn you meant the porn industry, so I voted yes, but now i have read the thead I see you mean porn as you said here


Hmm . . . I disagree. It is not a "solely for profit business". Webster defines it as " the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement" Pornography will not be going anywhere, I think. And why would it? Porn/erotica dates back before capitalism, anyway.

and i dont see anything wrong with this, its not inherently sexist or anthing, so next time i will read the thread THEN vote :blushing:

[Glenn Beck]

I think that absolutely yes it is a left-issue, I don't take that to mean that we have to take a stark "for or against!" decision. I don't think pornography is in itself an isolated issue that can be dealt with by itself but it is a visible manifestation of the intersection between the sexist attitudes inherent in our society and the exploitation of labor. I think that consent first of all is a tremendous issue because given that many women (and men!) choose jobs in the various sex industries not because they enjoy expressing their sexuality publically in whatever way (maybe they get sexual excitement or maybe like burlesque dancing hobbyists they enjoy and take pride in their performances or whatever) but because they can make a better wage than in other professions they have access too. I think it's patronizing to deny the agency of people who choose this route and many say sincerely they have no regrets, but nevertheless the unique nature of the work combined with its status as wage labor to me raises serious issues of sexual consent.

I think though that the fundamental issue is the bigotry inherent in society where deviations from very strict norms on gender and sexual expression are treated very harshly. The problem is exacerbated by the powerful taboos that prevent most people from talking or even thinking about the "rules" so powerfully that they come to see them as just objective facts and not arbitrary structures that can be questioned. The word pornography is greek for "writing about whores" and I think the fundamental way the work is defined and looked upon is the main source of the problem. Why is it that the actresses in pornographic films are kept strictly segregated from mainstream popular films whose celebrities are often marketed on sex appeal and whose plots are just as shallow? Why are women encouraged to feel shame and to personally identify themselves with the job they perform in a way they wouldn't in another job that might even be economically more exploitative? Shouldn't the ideology of "free enterprise" reward her for being unafraid to seek her economic betterment through legal means that most others are unwilling to employ?

I think ultimately any efforts made against the sex industry in itself will only end up harming the most vulnerable sex workers themselves, as in the abolition of prostitution removing any protection from pimps and allowing police to take advantage and persecute prostitutes who tend to come from marginalized backgrounds to begin with. The problem can only be solved by ending capitalist exploitation in general and by eradicating the sexist gender norms that make up a large part of the social environment we swim through obliviously like fish.

In the meantime, as socialists, I feel that the main priority is not to pass judgment on pornography and sex work in general which will inevitably bear the marks of the pathological society from which they take root. The well-being of the workers themselves is paramount and we should encourage consciousness and organization among sex workers on their own terms, and support their continued empowerment and struggles for reforms to improve their working conditions (like through mandatory measures to prevent STD spread or prevent discrimination) and combat gross manifestations of sexism.

What to do about pornography in a post-revolutionary society however is not entirely clear, but I think it should be focused on destroying the industry that creates exploitative pornography rather than banning or regulating the final product. It's an open question as to whether a revolutionary society in conditions of prosperity would wish to devote resources to the creation of erotic media for personal consumption and what these media would look like, but I think the members of that society would be better equipped to decide than us.

(sorry for writing a novel :blushing:)

EDIT: In the last part of course I refer to society deciding to create a socialized erotic film/print/telepathic mind stimulator/whatever industry, I don't think it's anyone else's business if people decide on their own to create what we'd call nowadays amateur porn for themselves or others. Considering how saturated the internet is now with amateur porn that people make as a hobby and provide absolutely gratis I can only imagine what networks would exist in a socialist society where access to the internet is universal and sexual taboos are lifted.

[Lost In Translation]

A pornography industry shouldn't be established in a leftist society. However, pornography in itself is up to the people. It's not our business what people do with a video camera.

Yes, it degrades women to the terms of "w**res", "sl*ts" and all that jazz. However, if women consent to this treatment, I don't think anybody can interfere.

However, this still doesn't make it a left issue...

[jake williams]

I am a very pro-porn feminist who recognizes the complexities of the very broad issues involved and that aspects of pornography can be very ugly and have very harmful effects. These are often misrepresented or fabricated though, often for reasons in effect in support of patriarchy.


I don't know how well I can directly approach the question. If you define "left" very narrowly, then that depends on your definition, but I think that given that the issue involves things of moral consequence for people, it should be an "issue" for people interested in acting morally.

[apathy maybe]

When the revolution comes there will be no need for pornography.

Everyone will be forced to walk around naked, have sex in public, and all privacy will be abolished. Communism is about assimilation into the hive mind, we are all one, privacy is a reactionary bourgeois concept.


Oh, and for the prudes, fuck off, you aren't welcome in my utopia.

[Raoul_RedRat]

When the revolution comes there will be no need for pornography.

Everyone will be forced to walk around naked, have sex in public, and all privacy will be abolished. Communism is about assimilation into the hive mind, we are all one, privacy is a reactionary bourgeois concept.


Oh, and for the prudes, fuck off, you aren't welcome in my utopia.

Pics? A/s/l? :lol::laugh:

[Module]

And yes, pornography would be abolished in a post-capitalist world as it is solely a for-profit business and would have no purpose following the collapse and overthrow of capitalism.
The porn industry is in the same way solely for profit as the microwave industry is solely for profit.
Pornography is just one other kind of entertainment, like comedy films, which will have a clear purpose for entertainment following capitalism.
Following capitalism no doubt pornography will change (and change is desirable!), but it won't disappear or become 'obsolete', or anything.
And why should it? What is inherently bad about pornography?

[apathy maybe]

Pics? A/s/l? :lol::laugh:

We are on the Internet, I don't have any pics to show you, and even if I did, I wouldn't show you (despite what I said, I do value my privacy, not to mention that I don't particularly want to make it that much easier for any potential law enforcement scum to know who I am, security culture).

My age doesn't matter (though I'll warrant it's older then you), neither does my gender or location (though I'm probably closer then you expect, and I know I will be in a couple of days).


And yeah, just to keep this on topic (that means don't split it mods), porn isn't a leftist issue. It is an issue for sexual beings. Beings who get off looking at other beings of the same species (or other species) will always want porn. Even if that means drawing it themselves.

If a person is against pornography, then at least that part of them is not leftist. Leftism is about freedom.

[Module]

If a person is against pornography, then at least that part of them is not leftist. Leftism is about freedom.
Just on that,
I think it's easy to look at pornography and see something specifically exploitative about it, in the way that the women are, as you said, dehumanised and often degraded, and pornography depicts a lot of really ugly things; racial, sexual stereotyping etc.
But things like that are not restricted to pornography. Take, for instance, the music industry. It's absolutely rife with homophobia, misogyny and racial stereotyping.
As I talked about here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/I%20was%20going%20to%20go%20to%20bed%20hours%20ago ,%20because%20I%20was%20feeling%20sick%20...%20but %20then%20I%20felt%20better.%20I%20should%20probab ly), that is a reflection upon our socio-economic environment, and the homophobia, sexism and racism within our own culture. (This isn't to say that your opposition to pornography is made of the same stuff as the guy in that thread, at all, but it might give you some thoughts, reading through it, anyway)
Pornography (to answer my own question above) is not inherently exploitative, or sexist, rather it becomes that way by being produced within the context of an exploitative economic system and socially discriminatory culture, and might I add it is, like anything else, the exploitation of the labour of the actors and actresses involved.

[apathy maybe]

Err luv, have 'nother read of that quote.

I support the right to free, non-exploitative porn.

Sure porn can be degrading or offensive (as well as music, and other art), but it isn't inherently offensive (except to freaks and people who don't like sex (wait, most of those people are freaks)).

[communard resolution]

I've participated in virtually the same debate in a different thread some months ago, so I won't be standing in the way here for too long.

Just as a piece of trivia, here's a Wiki link to Nina Hartley, outspoken socialist/feminist porn star:

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

Of course there's other feminists working in the sex industry, there's even such a thing as feminist porn movies (directed by feminists), but Nina is one of the few socialist women I know of who starred in mainstream porn.

Ilona Staller, who was in the Italian Radical Party and who IMO is one of the coolest personalities on the planet, is another one:

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

[BobKKKindle$]

Many feminists argue that pornography is a left issue. It is exploitive of women and sends out the wrong ideas about sexWhat exactly is pornography? It is wrong to speak of pornography as if it is just one homogeneous category with no internal distinctions or variation - there are many different genres of porn, and whereas some may show women in a way which encourages sexist attitudes (for example, videos which simulate women being raped - although there are still some women who enjoy fantasizing about rape, and the women engaged in the production of these videos have given consent) there are also other genres which can show women taking the initiative in sexual relations and asserting the right to enjoy sexual pleasure, which is progressive and fully consistent with feminism. The people who enjoy pornography are also heterogeneous. Pornography is not solely something which is purchased and enjoyed by men who are unable to engage in actual sexual relations with other people because they are socially inept - there are also many women who use pornography for sexual pleasure, and pornography can also be used by couples to discover new sexual positions and stimulate arousal. To assume otherwise and characterize porn as limited to a narrow demographic promotes a view of women as asexual beings who are incapable of feeling sexually aroused or wanting to access explicit material for the purpose of sexual pleasure - this is empirically false and is based on an "innocent" and thus inherently sexist conception of how women behave.


I'm sick of seeing videos of guys exploiting these girls, when their just doing it to support themselves.Would you also be offended by a video which shows a worker producing consumer goods in a factory? The exploitation suffered by women employed in the pornography industry is more direct as it includes the (potentially forced) penetration of a woman's body, but all workers suffer exploitation, as they are not payed the full value of what they produce, and are subject to authoritarian control within the workplace.

[Chapter 24]

To me, as long as the pornographic literature/film/whatever other form of media is between two (or more) consenting legal adults I have nothing against pornography. Or those who view it.

[Dr Mindbender]

The way i see it pornography for profit is the problem, not pornography per se. This cheapens the sexual area and makes it nothing more than something among the vilest extenuations of the free market.

Although certain tenents within the industry should certainly be challenged, such as violence against women depicted in certain hardcore flavours of the genre.

Hopefully the removal of capitalism will create the social and mental conditions for this phenomenon.

[Dr Mindbender]

Porn is all about money under socialisim it will not be needed.

dont be stupid. Porn is all about people who want to watch other people fucking.

Communism will not stop people being voyeurs and exhibitionists. To be frank with you, if i cant watch porn it aint my revolution.

[Glenn Beck]

I've participated in virtually the same debate in a different thread some months ago, so I won't be standing in the way here for too long.

Just as a piece of trivia, here's a Wiki link to Nina Hartley, outspoken socialist/feminist porn star:

Wow, I had no idea Nina Hartley was a socialist as well as a feminist. I had assumed she was a libertarian or a liberal like most of the U.S. pro-porn feminist crowd. That's pretty cool.

[Decolonize The Left]

I have read many of the counter-arguments in this thread, all occupying various positions in support of pornography - some even to the point of declaring it a non-left issue.

To this, it seems I must first argue that pornography involves the exploitation and de-humanization of women. It seems if I can accomplish this, then members should be hard pressed to claim it is not a left issue (unless we have very different views of the left).

These are the following arguments I have read in support of pornography:
- Freedom of expression
- It's consensual and therefore fine
- There's nothing inherently wrong/bad; porn for profit is the problem
- It's not just porn, it's all industry
- It's equivalent to wage labor and therefore pointless to focus on
- There's absolutely nothing wrong with porn; I love it

Here are my responses:
To 'Freedom of Expression': Lame retreat to absolutist position. You most likely wouldn't agree with white supremacists walking around shouting the n-word at every black person they saw. I am not claiming that porn ought to be outlawed, or banned; I am saying it is exploitative and de-humanizing to women! This makes it a left issue, unless women aren't part of the proletariat or something...

To 'Consent makes everything fine': Simply an uneducated position to hold. Firstly, you have no idea if all porn, or most porn, or even some porn is consensual. Secondly, you don't know what each individual means by consent. Does not having enough money to buy food mean consent? What about having a child to support? At what point does an individuals material situation drive them to do things they otherwise might not do? And is this justified by 'consent'? Can this even be called consent? This position is too vague to be held firmly.

To 'there's nothing inherently wrong': Several times members have attempted to justify this with 'how long' porn has been around. Well, slavery has been around a long time too, before capitalism actually... does this make it groovy? My argument does not concern itself with what is 'inherent' in porn, for I am not arguing to ban it or anything. I am claiming that porn is exploitative (yes, just like other jobs - but we'll get to that in a second), and de-humanizing (further arguments at the end). This counter-argument doesn't refute my position in any way.

To 'porn for profit is the problem': This might be the most coherent position out of all. But unfortunately, the vast majority of porn produced is done so for the purposes of gaining money. So theoretically this position may hold, but realistically it doesn't justify the pornography industry - thus making it a left issue.

To 'it's not just porn, but all industry': I thought we were talking about pornography, not the toothbrush factory in Iowa... ;)

To 'porn = wage labor': Poor position, for as I have already mentioned, pornography involves a different type of de-humanization as it revolves around one's gender identity, as opposed to one's class identity (which is largely non-existent). Hence this counter-argument may be applicable in a general sense, in a specific sense (and we are being specific, as we're talking about pornography) it doesn't hold.

To 'there's nothing wrong - I love it': Alright, but I don't care if you enjoy it. I'm talking about the exploitation and de-humanization which is involved in its production and consumption. I like hamburgers, but at least I'm aware of the problems associated with what I'm eating...

Now that I have dealt with the counter-arguments, I will restate my position in an effort for clarity.

Pornography inherently involves the objectification of human beings. Pornography often depicts segments of the human body, removed from the face and or/rest of the body. These segments lead to a fractured representation of the body, thus resulting in the further objectification and de-humanization of individuals. In other words, it engenders and encourages the notion that people (mostly women) are objects, or pieces of objects, for sexual satisfaction. This objectification carries with it the risk of encouraging the abuse of these people as they are not respected.

Therefore my first argument is that pornography involves the exploitation of individuals, and the de-humanization of the human body.

Now, as a fellow member (Raoul_RedRat) has argued coherently, this objectification is not necessarily negative. None-the-less, it carries with it the great risk of turning to abuse. Once an individual has been objectified and de-humanized, they are more prone to be abused as they do not hold the same identification as person would. History is full of examples reinforcing this claim.

Therefore my second argument is that pornography involves the high risk of encouraging the abuse of individuals (mostly women) due to the objectification, and hence de-humanization, of their bodies.

And finally, a more practical argument. Pornography, by exploiting and de-humanizing individuals, does not encourage a culture sympathetic to the goals of Marxism/communism/anarchism.

As leftists, can we claim to support (or ignore) an industry which exploits and de-humanizes individuals? And further, can we claim to support (or ignore) the risks involved with such a practice?

- August

[apathy maybe]

pornography for profit is the problem, not pornography per se. This cheapens the sexual area
Surely it makes it more expensive, especially for those people who actually pay for porn. (I've been lead to believe that anyone who does so is obviously deranged. Consider the amount of free porn on the 'net, now wonder why you would pay for more.)

[Dr Mindbender]

Surely it makes it more expensive, especially for those people who actually pay for porn.
no i meant in the social sense, not the monetary sense. :rolleyes:



(I've been lead to believe that anyone who does so is obviously deranged. Consider the amount of free porn on the 'net, now wonder why you would pay for more.)
some sites offer tiered rates of service for those willing to pay (or so i've been told... yeah right as if anyone will buy that :unsure: :blushing:)

[Mujer Libre]

I agree with Des and AM and all those who are saying that porn is not inherently exploitative and msiogynist, but that the industry is. The case of porn is also a really good example of why leftists must be feminists.

Exploitative and misogynist porn won't disappear just because we abolish capitalism (although that's obviously an important part)- as long as sexism exists, so will exploitative porn, so leftists need to work on both fronts to reate the um... porn we want.

[Module]

Err luv, have 'nother read of that quote.

I support the right to free, non-exploitative porn.

Sure porn can be degrading or offensive (as well as music, and other art), but it isn't inherently offensive (except to freaks and people who don't like sex (wait, most of those people are freaks)).
Sorry, I was talking to AugustWest.

[STI]

I would ask AugustWest to compare the porn industry to, say, the childcare industry.

Both involve presenting one part of an individual (be it sexuality or nurturing/discipline) as the *only* part.

Both involve primarily women, which gives the impression (to children, no less) that women are primarily suited to care for children

Both exploit those involved in the productive process.

Does this excuse the porn industry? No. It just eliminates any reason to pick out the porn industry *in particular*... which seems to be the general thrust [can you handle the pun-ishment?] of this thread.

So porn is a "left issue" as much as toothbrush manufacturing is a left issue and massage therapy is a left issue and so on, but not any moreso.

[BobKKKindle$]

Poor position, for as I have already mentioned, pornography involves a different type of de-humanization as it revolves around one's gender identity, as opposed to one's class identity (which is largely non-existent)


Class is clearly a part of pornography, when pornography is produced and sold to generate profit, as a commodity - the women who participate in the production of pornography as actresses are payed a wage and do not accumulate the profit generated from the sale of the finished product (as they do not have ownership of the means of production, or the property rights of the media) such that they are objectively subject to economic exploitation and are part of the working class.

[Lamanov]

Is pornography a left issue? If by "left issue" you mean "something we should fight" then for fuck's sake no. Pornography (industry) is just like most other entertainment jobs on the planet. Porn (recorded sex) is perfectly normal thing to do and to enjoy.

I think Kami sums it up quite nicely:


Can we have some sort of distinction here between the porn industry and pornography itself? Pornography is about arousal, and far predates capitalism. The porn industry is, like every other industry, motivated by profit. Pornography will never dissapear, ever, but in a post-revolution society, here's hoping the exploitation associated with it will.

[Decolonize The Left]

I would ask AugustWest to compare the porn industry to, say, the childcare industry.

Both involve presenting one part of an individual (be it sexuality or nurturing/discipline) as the *only* part.

Both involve primarily women, which gives the impression (to children, no less) that women are primarily suited to care for children

Both exploit those involved in the productive process.

Does this excuse the porn industry? No. It just eliminates any reason to pick out the porn industry *in particular*... which seems to be the general thrust [can you handle the pun-ishment?] of this thread.

I've got a firm grip on the pun-ishment dealt out here... Furthermore, this thread is about pornography, hence that is the specific issue I was addressing. I am aware that it is merely another part of the capitalist machine which we are committed to fighting, but arguments which say that pornography ought not be singled out have no place in a thread discussing pornography...


So porn is a "left issue" as much as toothbrush manufacturing is a left issue and massage therapy is a left issue and so on, but not any moreso.

I agree. But once again, this is a thread about pornography - hence that is the specific topic to be discussed.


Pornography (industry) is just like most other entertainment jobs on the planet.

In the first case, an industry cannot be 'like most' jobs. They are different things.

Secondly, what are you talking about? How is being paid a wage for having sex on videotape the same as being paid a wage for donning a dinosaur suit on a children's show? In the former you are having your body abused by another person, while in the latter you dance around...

- August

[Dr Mindbender]

Class is clearly a part of pornography, when pornography is produced and sold to generate profit, as a commodity - the women who participate in the production of pornography as actresses are payed a wage and do not accumulate the profit generated from the sale of the finished product (as they do not have ownership of the means of production, or the property rights of the media) such that they are objectively subject to economic exploitation and are part of the working class.

i think this is an important point about class, because you seldomly see higher end well paid actors or actresses appearing in pornography.

I think thats part and parcel of the porn-for-profit industry though.

[Lamanov]

How is being paid a wage for having sex on videotape the same as being paid a wage for donning a dinosaur suit on a children's show? In the former you are having your body abused by another person, while in the latter you dance around...

Dancing around in a dinosaur suit isn't necessarily less abusive then having sex in front of cameras (especially not if you're getting 500 dollars a day average).

[Decolonize The Left]

Dancing around in a dinosaur suit isn't necessarily less abusive then having sex in front of cameras (especially not if you're getting 500 dollars a day average).

Money has nothing to do with this. I'm speaking about the dangers and problems associated with a profession which revolves around the objectification and de-humanization of women.

- August

[Dr Mindbender]

Dancing around in a dinosaur suit isn't necessarily less abusive then having sex in front of cameras (especially not if you're getting 500 dollars a day average).

hmm true but it could be argued that you arent going to get AIDS or syphillis from a dinosaur suit.

[Lamanov]

Oh, boy.

Every worker is dehumanized by alienation of his/her labor!

And money has something to do with it; why is a construction worker less "objectified" with a small pay check and non-regulated hours in crappy conditions then a woman (or man) performing sex acts and getting ridiculously more money for it?


hmm true but it could be argued that you arent going to get AIDS or syphillis from a dinosaur suit.

I believe major porn companies are testing their employees for aids, so that's not really much of an argument.

[Dr Mindbender]

Oh, boy.

Every worker is dehumanized by alienation of his/her labor!

And money has something to do with it; why is a construction worker less "objectified" with a small pay check and non-regulated hours in crappy conditions then a woman (or man) performing sex acts and getting ridiculously more money for it?



I believe major porn companies are testing their employees for aids, so that's not really much of an argument.

not everyone is capable of becoming a highly paid porn worker though. At least not within a capitalist economy.

If you look at the physique or appearance of those portrayed in it, it is generally very elitist in content.

The capitalists attach a high value to percieved risk, or in this case elitist physical crudentials.

[Dr Mindbender]

I believe major porn companies are testing their employees for aids, so that's not really much of an argument.

well it is, because as far as im aware they only test for AIDS because thats the big one that can kill you. It may be ignorance on my part but, not least because theyre harder to detect i dont think theyre so worried about gonnorhea, chlamydia or syphillis despite the fact that they can cause extreme health/fertility problems and in extreme cases also kill you.

Anyway, as this link (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/8002.php) proves the AIDS screening in porn is clearly not failproof.


BTW. I'm not against porn per se, i'm just a little bothered about the indifferent attitude of those who presently make it.

[Lamanov]

Not everyone but in United States average is 500 dollars a work-day (porn scene) for women. For example, creators of Bangbus in Florida offered 700 per scene. That's not a small pay.

And there are standards to be met: it's quite reasonable that pornography is a job for "skilled workers" - you do need to be attractive, willing, healthy and fit; but this is not just an "elitist image" brought on by the capitalists themselves. It is true that supply influences and reshapes demand, but it's also true that people want to see attractive people having sex, without any specific persuasion.


Anyway, as this link (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/8002.php) proves the AIDS screening in porn is clearly not failproof.

Yeah, well, that sucks. But it only proves my point: porn industry has problems just like any other. In pursuit for profit during exploitation there are no safety regulations to protect the workers. In porno films you can get AIDS, on construction sites you can get injured because proper safety equipment is missing, etc.

[Decolonize The Left]

Oh, boy.

Indeed.


Every worker is dehumanized by alienation of his/her labor!

Obvious. The original question was 'is pornography a left issue.' If it does indeed dehumanize workers, and is exploitative, that would make it a left issue, would it not?

That's all I've been arguing...


And money has something to do with it; why is a construction worker less "objectified" with a small pay check and non-regulated hours in crappy conditions then a woman (or man) performing sex acts and getting ridiculously more money for it?

Pornography (read: the sale of one's body and labor) is not the synonymous with the sale of one's labor. Pornography goes above and beyond basic capitalist exploitation because it is a serious gender issue as well as a class issue.

- August

[Raoul_RedRat]

...
Pornography (read: the sale of one's body and labor) is not the synonymous with the sale of one's labor. Pornography goes above and beyond basic capitalist exploitation because it is a serious gender issue as well as a class issue.

- August

May I add to that -since we are seemingly in agreement- that 'pornography' should be a leftist issue even in pre- and post-capitalist society (correct phrasing for pre-capitalist society, would be "should've been a leftist issue"). If there is no "labor" in pornography anymore, there is still the actual risk of dehumanization. Especially if pornography would be available for a broad anonymous public, since than the only social constraint to prevent dehumanization would be the integrity of the viewer. But would the viewer actually be conscious when passing the point at which the naked women has become 'one naked body'?

[Lamanov]

Pornography (read: the sale of one's body and labor) is not the synonymous with the sale of one's labor. Pornography goes above and beyond basic capitalist exploitation because it is a serious gender issue as well as a class issue.

Labor is not detached from the body. When you sell your labor you sell the time you will spend for work, your energy, skills, and you use your body and wits while you work.

How is porn different, and why is it a gender issue? Like men aren't 'used'.

There are porn movies where very beautiful women are fucking men with strap-ons. Is it a "gender issue"? No, it's not. It's just a "kinky issue".

[ChristianV777]

Yeah, I've always found it more of a personal issue, but one that I am personally against.
I think there are Left issues based in the argument about pornography, and there is certainly a feminist issue involved which should always be part of the Left, but besides saying that it "objectifies women", I don't see what other alternative there is for the Left? I don't think we should protest all pornography, especially since many women feel they are making a free choice.
Now, are they? How can we know in a patriarchal society?
After the revolution, I think, is the time to deal with the issue of pornography, because at that point no woman will be forced to have to sell herself into sex slavery (marriage or pornography or prostitution), and since abolishment of the Patriatchal system must be part and parcel to the overthrow of Capitalism or before the establisment of a true Communist society, women will truly be able to make a personal decision about pornography.
Also, looking at pornography, there is more than one issue. For example, consenting couples who decide to tape themselves. This isn't exploitative. I do not oppose this in any way, as it's personal freedom. So, not all pornography is immediately objectification.

I think one area that is missing, pointed out by Raoul Red Rat, is that this is looking at pornography from an economic basis, even though stating it is about objectification. A woman would no longer be given money for putting herself in a sexually explicit position, which eliminates certain negatives, but that doesn't mean that there is no objectification occurring.
But, here's the issue, isn't there always some sort of objectification occurring with sex, between both males and females (of any sexual orientation)? Sex is a physical act involving the human body.
Sure, we hope to have a connection with the person, know them as a human being outside the sex act, but what about with "one night stands" or free love with random partners?
It might become, instead, an issue of equality. Rather than pornography being mainly an issue of objectification of female bodies for the pleasure of males, males would become just as objectified. I'm not sure if I like that, as I'm opposed to objectification of males and females.

Perhaps the idea of free love, since I don't believe in marriage (although two partners choosing to stay together until death is perfectly fine), would eliminate the need for pornography?

[Decolonize The Left]

Labor is not detached from the body. When you sell your labor you sell the time you will spend for work, your energy, skills, and you use your body and wits while you work.

There is a difference between working with one's own body, and penetrating another or being penetrated by another... are you really going to argue on this point?


How is porn different, and why is it a gender issue? Like men aren't 'used'.

Oh get off your men being 'used' pedestal. Seriously. Are you honestly trying to claim that men are equally as oppressed, dehumanized, and exploited as women in the porn industry? When a women is repeatedly, and blatantly objectified by men in a porno, and when this becomes the standard/the norm, then it becomes a gender issue. Why? Because one gender is being oppressed by another.


There are porn movies where very beautiful women are fucking men with strap-ons. Is it a "gender issue"? No, it's not. It's just
a "kinky issue".

This is really a pathetic argument. The percentage of pornography that involved males being penetrated is dwarfed by that of women being penetrated.

And yes, that is a gender issue. It's a time when the man is in the 'receiving' position, rather than the 'giving position.' It's a time when the conventional gender roles are reversed, something which most men take offense to due to the culturally and socially mediated position of power they find themselves in from birth...

- August

[Module]

There is a difference between working with one's own body, and penetrating another or being penetrated by another... are you really going to argue on this point?
Well why isn't that different from being in an action movie where you fight somebody else, or in any movie where you're involved in dialogue with other cast members?



Oh get off your men being 'used' pedestal. Seriously. Are you honestly trying to claim that men are equally as oppressed, dehumanized, and exploited as women in the porn industry? When a women is repeatedly, and blatantly objectified by men in a porno, and when this becomes the standard/the norm, then it becomes a gender issue. Why? Because one gender is being oppressed by another.
But that's not just an issue of pornography.
Social discrimination against women will be present essentially whereever women are present.
And women are 'objectified' in far more places other than just pornography, like I said before, the kind of pornography that is produced nowadays is simply reflective of it's context.
If you take away context then pornography doesn't have to be sexist anymore than sex has to be sexist.


This is really a pathetic argument. The percentage of pornography that involved males being penetrated is dwarfed by that of women being penetrated.
Well, I could give a biological explanation as to why that would be the case :lol:


And yes, that is a gender issue. It's a time when the man is in the 'receiving' position, rather than the 'giving position.' It's a time when the conventional gender roles are reversed, something which most men take offense to due to the culturally and socially mediated position of power they find themselves in from birth...

- August
Obviously the appeal of those kinds of movies is because of what you've just described, but that is more an argument against that particular fetish some men and women have, the reversal of conventional gender roles and those gender roles specifically than it is about them being captured on film.
That same kind of thing is found throughout our entire culture - different types of 'styles', images focused around their relation to gender roles, how they subscribe to or go against them .. it's fashion, art, music, film and pornographic film. But nobody in their right mind would say that makes fashion, art, music or film inherently sexist.
Obviously these kinds of things are products (and informants) of our society and culture as it exists in the present. All of those things, including pornography, have changed over time, individually along with social and cultural change as a whole.

I think it's easy to look at pornography and see something that is specifically a horribly sexist thing that focuses around degrading and exploiting women for the pleasure of men ... but how different is that from any other art form? How many popular movies uphold conventional gender roles through their characters? Through the glorification of the traditional family, the man who goes out and works hard for his family, the woman who stays at home and devotes her life to childrearing, the children who aspire to follow their parents footsteps, etc. etc. you know.
Sexism is part of the 'status quo' and as such you see it everywhere, like so many other horrible things.
But a specific woman in a specific movie doing a specific thing can't be called sexist because there's no reason why that woman should be representative of her entire gender, and I highly doubt that the director of any porn movie specifically thought when they were directing the movie 'I'm going to make the woman do this, because she's a woman and I want to demonstrate that women as a gender are blah blah blah blah blah'.
The individual director probably specifically thought 'This is something that consumers will enjoy'.
And that's the same thing with any other movie, too. As a whole the movie industry perpetuates sexist, racist, homophobic stereotypes as they exist in our current culture. That doesn't say anything about those specific movies, or their directors or their actors except that the specific movie was made in a specific cultural context.
The point is that sexism in relationships between men and women generally is the norm at the moment, and as such it will be demonstrated that way in pornography.
That doesn't mean that there is anything specifically wrong with pornography. Like any other part of our culture, it is informed by and informs our culture.
The only thing we can do is provide alternatives to / criticise generally / bring attention to social discrimination within our culture and work to change it. Focusing on specific parts of culture, like porn, which display the results of social discrimination within our culture is misguided. People like what they like and for the most part they like what they like because of the environment that they exist in, and the environment people exist in is created by individuals themselves, the attitudes that they hold ...
But .. the point I'm trying to make is...

Pick on social attitudes in themselves!
Don't pick on porn. :)

[Black Dagger]

There is a difference between working with one's own body, and penetrating another or being penetrated by another... are you really going to argue on this point?

Not really. I mean obviously having sex is a different way of using your body then brick-laying, but so is playing football or working in a lab somewhere. The only difference is that sex has moral taboos attached to it and brick-laying doesn't.


Oh get off your men being 'used' pedestal

A bit of an over-reaction don't ya think? DJ-TC was not rattling on about how 'hard' it is to be a man or whatever, all he did was mention that the porn industry - like any industry, exploits the labour of men and women - that's a fair point.



Are you honestly trying to claim that men are equally as oppressed, dehumanized, and exploited as women in the porn industry?

He didn't claim anything even remotely similar to that. Furthermore, it is silly to refer to the porn industry in general when referring specifically to the hetero porn industry. There is a huge gay porn industry.



When a women is repeatedly, and blatantly objectified by men in a porno, and when this becomes the standard/the norm, then it becomes a gender issue.

Setting aside the inherent misogyny of some contemporary pornography, sex itself is arguably an act of objectification. Obviously 'sex' and sexual desire are diverse multifaceted concepts but much sexual desire is driven and punctuated by mutual lust for the body of another. When i have sex i'm not staring at the wall or the floor but at my lover (whenever possible at least), at their body, touching it, squeezing it - enjoying it. This is a mutal act of objectification, obviously in a more general sense i may value this person far more than that - say if we are in a committed relationship of some kind vs. a one-night stand - but in the act of sex itself - for that moment - things are a lot simpler.




Why? Because one gender is being oppressed by another.

Well 'Men' aren't oppressing 'women' in pornography - it's not as if every male on the planet lines up for his 'turn' in every blue film produced. Personally speaking, i've never been invited to participate in a film shoot - maybe they just don't have my details? Rather some men or women - not all producers of porngraphy are male - are oppressing women, but how is that different from other industries? The exploitation that exists in the porn industry today- regardless of whether it's hetero or gay porn is fundamentally that of the boss exploiting the worker - the people with capital exploiting the people who must sell their labour.


The percentage of pornography that involved males being penetrated is dwarfed by that of women being penetrated.


Okay, but that's only because hetero porn is the largest section of the porn industry because it serves the largest market (heteros) which = more $$$.

The point DJ-TC is making is a valid one, the anti-porn arguments often posit a very narrow view of the porn industry.

Not all pornography features women (some of the so-called feminist critiques of porn seem to operate on the assumption that gay men don't exist) and porn that does varies in its portrayal of women and men (including the language used by both) - human sexuality is after all a diverse spectrum, and thus the portrayal of it is equally diverse - but hey making generalised arguments is certainly easier.

The problem with most critiques of pornography is that they specifically attack the dominant nature of the most mainstream heterosexual porn (as it exists now) - but instead of admitting this narrow focus the critique is presented as a comment on ALL pornography (which it is not).

[feminist dyke whore]

I believe the current production of pornography as a commodity is a leftist issue and deserves particular attention as it shows the extreme exploitation of a worker who is alienated from two basic human rights, their body and sexuality. Commercial pornography hyper-masculinizes men and dehumanizes women creating unrealistic attitudes towards sex. I don't believe post revolution pornography will disappear as fundamentally it is the depiction of sex, and ideally should be a celebration of human sexuality.

[Decolonize The Left]

Wow, lots of great replies. I will address them in order.


Well why isn't that different from being in an action movie where you fight somebody else, or in any movie where you're involved in dialogue with other cast members?

It is different, that was my point.


But that's not just an issue of pornography.
Social discrimination against women will be present essentially whereever women are present.
And women are 'objectified' in far more places other than just pornography, like I said before, the kind of pornography that is produced nowadays is simply reflective of it's context.
If you take away context then pornography doesn't have to be sexist anymore than sex has to be sexist.

You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, this is a thread dealing with pornography, not sexism in general. And I don't feel as though I'm taking porn out of context, rather I am placing it within context and declaring it dehumanizing, exploitative, and sexist.


The only thing we can do is provide alternatives to / criticise generally / bring attention to social discrimination within our culture and work to change it. Focusing on specific parts of culture, like porn, which display the results of social discrimination within our culture is misguided. People like what they like and for the most part they like what they like because of the environment that they exist in, and the environment people exist in is created by individuals themselves, the attitudes that they hold ...
But .. the point I'm trying to make is...

Pick on social attitudes in themselves!
Don't pick on porn. :)

I intend to, and often do, critique social attitudes in themselves. Yet this thread was centered around pornography. Hence it is absolutely appropriate to focus on pornography as, within our culture, a sexist, dehumanizing, and exploitative industry.


Not really. I mean obviously having sex is a different way of using your body then brick-laying, but so is playing football or working in a lab somewhere. The only difference is that sex has moral taboos attached to it and brick-laying doesn't.

I disagree. It seems as though sex is a thoroughly different activity than manual labor despite your argument about taboos. Ask anyone who has been sexually assaulted and/or raped, and speak to someone who has been physically assaulted - they are very different.


Setting aside the inherent misogyny of some contemporary pornography, sex itself is arguably an act of objectification. Obviously 'sex' and sexual desire are diverse multifaceted concepts but much sexual desire is driven and punctuated by mutual lust for the body of another. When i have sex i'm not staring at the wall or the floor but at my lover (whenever possible at least), at their body, touching it, squeezing it - enjoying it. This is a mutal act of objectification, obviously in a more general sense i may value this person far more than that - say if we are in a committed relationship of some kind vs. a one-night stand - but in the act of sex itself - for that moment - things are a lot simpler.

Another member already articulated this argument. The conclusion we reached and the position which I have since adopted, is that while objectification is present in human activity, it carries with it the risk of abusing should it be removed from a context of mutual consent. This risk ought not to be understated as it has led to countless occurrences of horrible acts in the past.


The exploitation that exists in the porn industry today- regardless of whether it's hetero or gay porn is fundamentally that of the boss exploiting the worker - the people with capital exploiting the people who must sell their labour.

I agree. But for the umpteenth time, this is a thread about pornography. Therefore it is completely acceptable to focus on this one industry.


The problem with most critiques of pornography is that they specifically attack the dominant nature of the most mainstream heterosexual porn (as it exists now) - but instead of admitting this narrow focus the critique is presented as a comment on ALL pornography (which it is not).

The "dominant nature of the main stream heterosexual porn" places it in a position for critique. Furthermore, my critique applies to all forms of pornography. It is very simple, and I will elaborate it once again for clarity:

The original question of the thread was "is pornography a left issue?"

In order to argue that it is, I need merely prove that pornography is exploitative, dehumanizing, and sexist.
The first goes without saying - as many have argued to their own loss.
The second I feel I have argued coherently. You may wish to object that this is common across industry, but as I have already argued, this objection is off-topic.
The third applies to our contemporary sexist culture as well, yet is still valid when focusing on pornography.

Hence pornography (as we know it today) is exploitative, dehumanizing, and sexist and therefore is a left issue.

- August

[Black Dagger]

I disagree. It seems as though sex is a thoroughly different activity than manual labor despite your argument about taboos. Ask anyone who has been sexually assaulted and/or raped, and speak to someone who has been physically assaulted - they are very different.

That may very well be the case - to be honest i don't think it's possible to claim with any kind of verity what 'type' of 'assault' is more traumatic, rather it would depend on the specifics of each case and the individual(s) involved- but regardless, neither sex or pornography is not analogous with rape in any way so i don't see how this point is relevant.


Another member already articulated this argument. The conclusion we reached and the position which I have since adopted, is that while objectification is present in human activity, it carries with it the risk of abusing should it be removed from a context of mutual consent. This risk ought not to be understated as it has led to countless occurrences of horrible acts in the past.

Okay, but there is much consent involved in the porn industry as there is in any other; so how is 'the porn industry' exceptional?



Therefore it is completely acceptable to focus on this one industry.[/quoet]

I guess, but the problem as i see it is that this focus creates the impression that 'the porn industry' (whatever that means in this context) is somehow exceptional, apart from all other industries in exploitation. On the contrary, i think a much more serious issue is the treatment of piece workers nearly all of whom are women, who working from home or in a sweat-shop get paid dirt to produce commodities that will sell for hundreds of dollars minimum in western fashion houses. This is much more tangible exploitation IMO - not couched in the moral haze - the fact that the majority of the worlds poorest workers are women.

[quote]
The "dominant nature of the main stream heterosexual porn" places it in a position for critique.

Sure.



The second I feel I have argued coherently. You may wish to object that this is common across industry, but as I have already argued, this objection is off-topic.

Perhaps you could clarify what is 'off-topic' about this objection? If you're referring to your point about rape etc. i've responded to that above. Capitalism is dehumanising yes - the 'porn industry' like any industry in a capitalist society contributes to the dehumanisation of all.



The third applies to our contemporary sexist culture as well, yet is still valid when focusing on pornography.

I'm sorry for asking you to repeat yourself, but could you please clarify how pornography is inherently sexist?

[Decolonize The Left]

That may very well be the case - to be honest i don't think it's possible to claim with any kind of verity what 'type' of 'assault' is more traumatic, rather it would depend on the specifics of each case and the individual(s) involved- but regardless, neither sex or pornography is not analogous with rape in any way so i don't see how this point is relevant.

I think you have missed the point. I was not comparing trauma - rather I was addressing your earlier claim that sex is still using your body like anything else. While this is true, the sexual aspect of one's body is far more personal than the utility aspect. To illustrate this, I offered the comparison of a sexual assault and a physical assault.


Okay, but there is much consent involved in the porn industry as there is in any other; so how is 'the porn industry' exceptional?

I have already dismantled the objection of 'consent' in a different post. Basically, arguing that porn is consensual does not negate its reality, and furthermore one can easily call into question the 'consent' present.


I guess, but the problem as i see it is that this focus creates the impression that 'the porn industry' (whatever that means in this context) is somehow exceptional, apart from all other industries in exploitation. On the contrary, i think a much more serious issue is the treatment of piece workers nearly all of whom are women, who working from home or in a sweat-shop get paid dirt to produce commodities that will sell for hundreds of dollars minimum in western fashion houses. This is much more tangible exploitation IMO - not couched in the moral haze - the fact that the majority of the worlds poorest workers are women.

While I may agree with you completely, this is a thread about pornography.


Perhaps you could clarify what is 'off-topic' about this objection? If you're referring to your point about rape etc. i've responded to that above. Capitalism is dehumanising yes - the 'porn industry' like any industry in a capitalist society contributes to the dehumanisation of all.

It is off-topic because this is a thread about pornography. Therefore the objection that the pornography industry is like any other industry is true, but not appropriate for we are specifically dealing with pornography.


I'm sorry for asking you to repeat yourself, but could you please clarify how pornography is inherently sexist?

My argument deals not with anything inherent, it is simple. We live in a sexist culture, pornography represents this sexism in a very vivid and dehumanizing fashion.

- August

[Black Dagger]

I was not comparing trauma - rather I was addressing your earlier claim that sex is still using your body like anything else. While this is true, the sexual aspect of one's body is far more personal than the utility aspect. To illustrate this, I offered the comparison of a sexual assault and a physical assault.


That's the thing, sex might be a real 'personal' thing for you, but for sex workers it is their job, i'm sure they are are capable of separating their work from their personal life - not everyone has the same attitude towards sex as you do - least of all, i would think, sex workers. I understand the point you were trying to make with the comparison between sexual and physical assault, but as i've already explained i think this is a fallacious comparison. A physical assault could be just as 'personal' as a sexual one. What one person regards as 'more personal' is a subjective experience influenced by multiple factors - there is not this universal law which states one experience is always more 'personal' than another for every person.


Basically, arguing that porn is consensual does not negate its reality

And what is that?


and furthermore one can easily call into question the 'consent' present.

Sure, in the same way that one can question the 'consent' of any person exploited by the wage labour system - which shows that the 'porn industry' is not exceptional in terms of the exploitation of women, and certainly not the 'worst' offender in this regard.


While I may agree with you completely, this is a thread about pornography.

Right, but the point i'm making is that this debate about pornography and the 'porn industry' takes as one of its premises that this industry is somehow exceptional in its exploitation of women - indeed that it is an example of gendered oppression. By referencing the conditions of other female workers i'm attempting to illustrate that the porn industry is not exceptional in its exploitation of women - it does not deserve special attention, certainly not anymore than much larger, more exploitative industries. That this special attention says more about the proponents of that argument, their attitudes towards sex and sex work, then some inherent horror in the 'porn industry'.



Therefore the objection that the pornography industry is like any other industry is true, but not appropriate for we are specifically dealing with pornography.

I'm disputing the intellectual and political legitimacy of this focus on pornography.


We live in a sexist culture, pornography represents this sexism in a very vivid and dehumanizing fashion.

So all pornography is sexist?

How does pornography represent our sexist culture? In what ways?

How is it especially dehumanising?

[Drace]

By going toward socialist, I want a society without people addicted to porn. Theres no point to it. Pornography deceives people for you know...mmm...moneeyy

Left issue.

[Black Dagger]

By going toward socialist, I want a society without people addicted to porn.

What is the alternative? Ban pornography? Not everyone who watches or participates in porn is an 'addict' - whatever that means in this context.



Theres no point to it.

Seriously? You don't see the point in pornography? You seriously don't know why people watch it, or what it does for them?



Pornography deceives people for you know...mmm...moneeyy

So what? That's an argument against a capitalist porn industry, not against porn itself (besides you don't have to pay for porn, most people don't) - i've yet to read any coherent argument against pornography in this thread (which is meant to be the topic) everyone just keep making criticisms of the porn industry as it exists now in a hetero-patriarchal capitalist society, with capitalist social relations - but generalising these as if they apply to the concept of porn itself - that's intellectually lazy/dishonest.

[Drace]

Seriously? You don't see the point in pornography? You seriously don't know why people watch it, or what it does for them?

So what is the point of it?
Maybe its just our corrupted society that it seems that porn makes people act retarded.

[ChristianV777]

Something the Left should not be arguing for is banning pornography. I'll say that much.
It's possible to be against something without wanting to make laws against it, after all.

As far as addressing Socialist society, how can we do that? Has anyone ever lived in one? Who knows what changes we will see? I, for one, cannot even begin to guess at the exact minutiae of life in such a society.
In a true Socialist society, women and men might decide they have no interest in pornography. Who's to say?
I believe in the abolition of the concept of marriage and the establishment of free love, since marriage is the idea that the law has any say in love, and is based in the concept of property. So, without marriage, people might just decide to sleep with whomever, whenever, which would negate the need for porn.
Maybe consenting couples might still decide to do it for fun.

[Decolonize The Left]

Note: I will no longer be replying to direct questions which I have already answered numerous times.


That's the thing, sex might be a real 'personal' thing for you, but for sex workers it is their job, i'm sure they are are capable of separating their work from their personal life - not everyone has the same attitude towards sex as you do - least of all, i would think, sex workers. I understand the point you were trying to make with the comparison between sexual and physical assault, but as i've already explained i think this is a fallacious comparison. A physical assault could be just as 'personal' as a sexual one. What one person regards as 'more personal' is a subjective experience influenced by multiple factors - there is not this universal law which states one experience is always more 'personal' than another for every person.

(If this is too personal, that's fine, just say so and we don't speak of it any further) If you are a woman, have you ever been raped? If you are a man, have you ever greatly cared for someone who had been raped?

Because if you haven't, you have no right to make this claim. I've heard people tell me things that they claim are worse than death. And you sit here and say that, 'hey, it's just their opinion...' You know, it might just be their opinion, but they are people and people make up the proletariat, so what's your point? And furthermore, your attempt to discount what I'm saying as subjective and hence non-objective is functionally incoherent. For what you're saying isn't objective either...


Right, but the point i'm making is that this debate about pornography and the 'porn industry' takes as one of its premises that this industry is somehow exceptional in its exploitation of women - indeed that it is an example of gendered oppression. By referencing the conditions of other female workers i'm attempting to illustrate that the porn industry is not exceptional in its exploitation of women - it does not deserve special attention, certainly not anymore than much larger, more exploitative industries. That this special attention says more about the proponents of that argument, their attitudes towards sex and sex work, then some inherent horror in the 'porn industry'.

The pornography debate was brought to attention by women upset with how it functioned and what it represented... so yeah, I'll listen to them. Who cares if you don't think it's more important than any other industry? Some women do - and they have a right to protest what they find unjust, exploitative, and dehumanizing.

And I don't see where you're going to go from there. You have to start somewhere, but it seems as though you want to retreat into the theoretical ground whereby all industries are equally exploitative because they are capitalist, and therefore it is capitalism that is the problem... but where do I find capitalism? Can I knock on it's door and punch it in the face?


I'm disputing the intellectual and political legitimacy of this focus on pornography.

See above.

- August

[Black Dagger]

(If this is too personal, that's fine, just say so and we don't speak of it any further) If you are a woman, have you ever been raped? If you are a man, have you ever greatly cared for someone who had been raped?

So women can only be 'victims' and men their carers? That is quite a sexist/patriarchal characterisation :confused:

My personal experience does not give extra 'truth' to my argument. Experience is not some kind of 'special' knowledge that provides 'correct' insight into any given situation providing people with privileged speaking positions where everyone elses POV can just be shat on because 'they don't know' - as if everyone who experiences something like rape experiences it the same way - and that all consequently have 'correct' opinions about anything related to the topic.




Because if you haven't, you have no right to make this claim.

Unless you have been savagely assaulted you have no right to make this claim.

Have you ever been beaten so badly that you woke up in hospital? Swallowed your own teeth after they've been knocked out? If not, then your opinion is immediately invalidated! :bored:

------------

I have a 'right' (whatever that means) to express my opinion about anything i want to - i'm not going to be silenced by a weak appeal to experience or priviledge - my opinion is not invalid because i have not been raped, especially considering i doubt the vast majority rape victims are as self-obsessed as you suggest - i.e. 'rape is the worst thing ever - nothing could ever be as bad for someone else as rape was for me'.



I've heard people tell me things that they claim are worse than death. And you sit here and say that, 'hey, it's just their opinion...' You know, it might just be their opinion, but they are people and people make up the proletariat, so what's your point?

Right, and i'm a person - and i am a part of the proletariat, so what's your point?



And furthermore, your attempt to discount what I'm saying as subjective and hence non-objective is functionally incoherent. For what you're saying isn't objective either...

You've misunderstood me.

Yes, i'm claiming that it's not possible to say with any kind of verity that 'sexual assault is worse than physical assault' because not all assault whether sexual or physical in nature is the same, and further that people will experience and react to these things differently. Not every rape or assault victim has the same POV on what happened or how they feel - what their opinion on their experiences vs. others peoples experience are etc.

Nowhere have I claimed that my POV is 'correct' because it is 'objective' - all i'm saying is, because experience is a subjective concept and people experience physical and sexual assaults differently - it is not possible to assert with any sort of legitimacy that X is always > Y or vice versa - when what it means to experience X is not the same for every person, nor their feelings after the fact nor how they relate it to other peoples experiences.



The pornography debate was brought to attention by women upset with how it functioned and what it represented... so yeah, I'll listen to them.

Saying you'll 'listen' to the 'upset' women who came to you to express their disgust at porn fits perfectly with your argument that porn is a sexist evil that oppresses women - you're basically saying, 'well, i'll listen to the women who agree with me'.

But what about all the women who don't? What about the women who enjoy working in the sex industry for example? I guess their POVs doesn't matter as much.



Who cares if you don't think it's more important than any other industry?

Who knows? But this is a discussion forum - the purpose is to express ones thoughts on things.



Some women do - and they have a right to protest what they find unjust, exploitative, and dehumanizing.

Of course people can protest whatever - doesn't mean i have to agree with their POV or with the assertion that they're 'correct' just because they're women or had had a particular experience.



And I don't see where you're going to go from there. You have to start somewhere, but it seems as though you want to retreat into the theoretical ground whereby all industries are equally exploitative because they are capitalist, and therefore it is capitalism that is the problem...

Actually i'm advocating a more nuanced analysis of pornography and 'the porn industry' - i'm not merely saying 'it's all capitalism, whatever' - but rather my argument is really trying to get to the heart of the matter - to get people talking about specifics things - in more precise terms. Rather than making these generalised arguments about 'porn' and the so-called 'porn industry' that are reductionist/fallacious.

[Decolonize The Left]

So women can only be 'victims' and men their carers? That is quite a sexist/patriarchal characterisation :confused:

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I never said that anyone could only be anything. You have made an extension which is not logically valid.

If I say "If you are a man, have you ever seen a gofer dig on a beach?" - it does not follow that I am saying only men can see gofers dig on beaches...

And I do not appreciate your denigration. I have attempted to be polite and respectful, I ask nothing but the same.


My personal experience does not give extra 'truth' to my argument. Experience is not some kind of 'special' knowledge that provides 'correct' insight into any given situation providing people with privileged speaking positions where everyone elses POV can just be shat on because 'they don't know' - as if everyone who experiences something like rape experiences it the same way - and that all consequently have 'correct' opinions about anything related to the topic.

Once again, I never claimed that people experience things in the same way. Nor did I claim that all those who experience something are correct in their positions regarding that thing.

But, with that said, having experienced something does give you more leverage in an argument. For example, when a woman relates the experience of childbirth, I will take much of what she says as truthful because, well, she experienced it. Is it just her experience? Of course, but this experience is shared by many.

And furthermore, why do we value 'witness testimony' as opposed to someone who lives thousands of miles away and has an opinion... gee...


I have a 'right' (whatever that means) to express my opinion about anything i want to - i'm not going to be silenced by a weak appeal to experience or priviledge - my opinion is not invalid because i have not been raped, especially considering i doubt the vast majority rape victims are as self-obsessed as you suggest - i.e. 'rape is the worst thing ever - nothing could ever be as bad for someone else as rape was for me'.

You do have a right - it is incoherent for me to deny you voice. My apologies.

That said, it is highly insulting of you to call someone who says that an experience is 'worse than death' "self-obsessed."


Right, and i'm a person - and i am a part of the proletariat, so what's your point?

My point is that your argument is incoherent. You say that people who speak about their experiences don't have a right to make claims on others. But then you say that you are a person, who is speaking for others, and who has such a right.


You've misunderstood me.

Yes, i'm claiming that it's not possible to say with any kind of verity that 'sexual assault is worse than physical assault' because not all assault whether sexual or physical in nature is the same, and further that people will experience and react to these things differently. Not every rape or assault victim has the same POV on what happened or how they feel - what their opinion on their experiences vs. others peoples experience are etc.

This is logically true. In my experience, sexual assault has always been communicated as far worse than physical assault... usually because it involves physical assault and goes above and beyond it.


Nowhere have I claimed that my POV is 'correct' because it is 'objective' - all i'm saying is, because experience is a subjective concept and people experience physical and sexual assaults differently - it is not possible to assert with any sort of legitimacy that X is always > Y or vice versa - when what it means to experience X is not the same for every person, nor their feelings after the fact nor how they relate it to other peoples experiences.

Sexual assault involves physical assault. Physical assault does not involve sexual assault, because if it did, it would be called sexual assault.


Saying you'll 'listen' to the 'upset' women who came to you to express their disgust at porn fits perfectly with your argument that porn is a sexist evil that oppresses women - you're basically saying, 'well, i'll listen to the women who agree with me'.

No, I've listened to many arguments for and against pornography. And just so you know, to clarify your imaginary situation, these women did not 'come to me.'


But what about all the women who don't? What about the women who enjoy working in the sex industry for example? I guess their POVs doesn't matter as much.

What about members of the military who enjoy sending other people's children to die? What about police who enjoy beating people? What about capitalists who think exploiting workers is perfectly fine? This isn't an argument...


Actually i'm advocating a more nuanced analysis of pornography and 'the porn industry' - i'm not merely saying 'it's all capitalism, whatever' - but rather my argument is really trying to get to the heart of the matter - to get people talking about specifics things - in more precise terms. Rather than making these generalised arguments about 'porn' and the so-called 'porn industry' that are reductionist/fallacious.

This sounds very nice. But what do you mean by "get to the heart of the matter - to get people talking about specific things - in more precise terms"?

And if you cannot understand my position thus far, I have elaborated it numerous times, very clearly, then why are we arguing?

Look at post #43. There my position is stated clearly and coherently.

- August

[Hessian Peel]

Or to arouse the desire of individuals who will either masturbate or have sex using the work as sexual fodder?

I don't see anything wrong with that.

For me the only issue here (as with every matter relating to sex and sexuality) is consent. If the adults involved have consented I have no problem with it.

Something that is often left out of the debate over pornography is the fact that there is gay porn. The exploitation of women clearly doesn't apply here.

It's something worth considering.

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't see anything wrong with that.

For me the only issue here (as with every matter relating to sex and sexuality) is consent. If the adults involved have consented I have no problem with it.

Something that is often left out of the debate over pornography is the fact that there is gay porn. The exploitation of women clearly doesn't apply here.

It's something worth considering.

I have already dealt with the objection of 'consent makes everything fine.' Here's what I wrote, the whole post is #43:

To 'Consent makes everything fine': Simply an uneducated position to hold. Firstly, you have no idea if all porn, or most porn, or even some porn is consensual. Secondly, you don't know what each individual means by consent. Does not having enough money to buy food mean consent? What about having a child to support? At what point does an individuals material situation drive them to do things they otherwise might not do? And is this justified by 'consent'? Can this even be called consent? This position is too vague to be held firmly.

And yes, gay porn changes the situation, but only in-so-far as it is the exploitation, dehumanization, and objectification of the same gender.


"...prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the worker" - Karl Marx.

Marx seems to be using a rather lenient definition of prostitution here. For the definition of prostitution is:
"the act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money."

I don't see how working at the local coffee shop for minimum wage qualifies as "engaging in sexual intercourse for money." :lol:

But, poetically speaking, he is absolutely correct. We 'sell ourselves' in all forms of wage labor. We 'prostitute' our labor for the ability to survive monetarily. I have never said otherwise.

- August

[Ol' Dirty]

One big misconception is that feminism is inherently proggressive. I feel that some feminist concepts can be incredibly reactionary.

When I had the pleasure of visiting the US Social Forum in Atlanta, Georgia, I went to one 'seminar' -or whatever- called (I may be incorrect about the name) 'The Pornography of Everyday Life.' The host railed against pornography, which she defined as 'any depiction of sex that is exploitative of women.' Again, this is just a gisted version of what she said, but it was something along those lines.

When people started questioning her reasoning, she became hostile and very arrogant. The cool thing was that many of the people who confronted her were young women. They were positing that sex and pornography could be positive things, and that women were smart enough to make decisions for themselves regarding their bodies.

This host really would have made a better speaker at a conservative or reactionary conference. Unfortunately, some feminism resembles Islamist Sharia law: teaching women to be ashamed of their bodies, that sex is neccessarily something harmful and exploitive.

Sex can be that, but it can also be a powerful form of expression, and can be liberating. Some feminism fails to make that distinction, and sees all sex as some 'phallocentric,' 'patriarchical' thing that harms women. Though I am against misogyny, I'm equally against misandry.

I'm sex-positive: as long as sex is consensual and involves respect for everyone involved, it's a good thing.:cool:

Sex-negativity is an unhealthy thing.

[Decolonize The Left]

Feminism is a bourgeois ideology (http://www.revleft.com/vb/feminism-bourgeois-ideology-t71556/index.html?t=71556&highlight=feminism+bourgeois).

Wouldn't Emma Goldman be a fine counter-example to this line of thought? She was a feminist and an anarchist...

- August

[communard resolution]

I maintain that fluffers are the real proletarians of porn. You know, the unfortunate women and men who are called in to perform a bit of fellatio when an actor can't get it up for a scene. The moment he's hard, they leave. Talk about alienation of the worker from the product... and unlike the pornstars, they work for a minimum wage.

[CuteCommie]

Well let's see.

Firstly, porn is an occupation in which women are paid more than men, on average.

Secondly, it is not the woman that is demoralised as an image, but rather the men. The woman is displayed as someone with sexuality, with emotions and beauty. The man, on the contrary, is just portrayed as a 'fucking machine.' All we ever see of the man, typically, is his penis.

One downplays the sexuality of the man, one upholds the sexuality of women; one encourages sexual audacity for women, the other downplays the sexual agency of men.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Pornography as a business, yes. Pornography as an actual, honest-to-goodness choice, no.

It's interesting to note pornography is one of the few markets where you see "perfect competition" at work.

[Module]

Well let's see.

Firstly, porn is an occupation in which women are paid more than men, on average.
Right, so it's effectively one of few exceptions.


Secondly, it is not the woman that is demoralised as an image, but rather the men. The woman is displayed as someone with sexuality, with emotions and beauty. The man, on the contrary, is just portrayed as a 'fucking machine.' All we ever see of the man, typically, is his penis.Porn is not about 'emotion', it's about sex. Sex which is almost always viewed from a male perspective.
Women become sexual objects in porn, men are viewed simply as the penis who has sex with the woman because the men who watch it simply don't want to focus on the man.
Of course the woman is the one displayed with "sexuality" and "beauty" in heterosexual porn - it's made for men.


One downplays the sexuality of the man, one upholds the sexuality of women; one encourages sexual audacity for women, the other downplays the sexual agency of men.This is actually the biggest load of shit I've ever heard.
Porn, as many people in this thread have said, perpetuates female sexual subservience. Women almost always play the submissive role, and what they do in porn is on the basis of how it makes men feel. Porn is made for men, not for women. The only porn where this isn't the case is lesbian porn, and even that is made for male entertainment, not female.

[Josef Balin]

The stronger arguments against pornography are not concerned with consent. We all understand that it's 'better' to have consenting adults have sex and video tape it than have folks forced into the situation. This is obvious.

But the real objections have nothing to do with this. They have to do with the reality that pornography, whether or not those involved are consenting, involves the blatant objectification of those involved - primarily women. This is problematic as the objectification of an individual easily leads to the abuse of said individual for they have been de-humanized.

- August
How is sex any more demeaning or unnatural than a massage? How do YOU know that the women involved are not proud of their work?

[Josef Balin]

Right, so it's effectively one of few exceptions.

Porn is not about 'emotion', it's about sex. Sex which is almost always viewed from a male perspective.
Women become sexual objects in porn, men are viewed simply as the penis who has sex with the woman because the men who watch it simply don't want to focus on the man.
Of course the woman is the one displayed with "sexuality" and "beauty" in heterosexual porn - it's made for men.

This is actually the biggest load of shit I've ever heard.
Porn, as many people in this thread have said, perpetuates female sexual subservience. Women almost always play the submissive role, and what they do in porn is on the basis of how it makes men feel. Porn is made for men, not for women. The only porn where this isn't the case is lesbian porn, and even that is made for male entertainment, not female.
How do you know that the women do not enjoy, the same way a doctor or carpenter enjoys, their work?

What is wrong with female sexual submissiveness? It has nothing to do with anything outside of the bedroom.

[Dr Mindbender]

I maintain that fluffers are the real proletarians of porn. You know, the unfortunate women and men who are called in to perform a bit of fellatio when an actor can't get it up for a scene. The moment he's hard, they leave. Talk about alienation of the worker from the product... and unlike the pornstars, they work for a minimum wage.

i have to confess, im not at all ignorant to porn yet i have yet to witness these 'fluffers' you speak of.

[Decolonize The Left]

How is sex any more demeaning or unnatural than a massage? How do YOU know that the women involved are not proud of their work?

Did you read the post you quoted when you wrote this? Because not only do your questions miss the point, they also distort what I wrote (and you quoted above). I never said sex is demeaning, unnatural, or that women are not proud of their work. Please attempt to be more coherent when you post, as this post doesn't help anything (not even your argument because it proves you don't have one).

- August

[communard resolution]

i have to confess, im not at all ignorant to porn yet i have yet to witness these 'fluffers' you speak of.


Oh, they're very common. Maybe a bit less frequently needed since the invention of Viagra, but they still assist most porn shoots just in case.

[Revolutiondownunder]

No why should it be? unless it is not a matter of choice of course.

[Spartacist]

Pornography is a weapon of revolution. It should be used to debase capitalist society and bring the revolution about. After the revolution, the State should crack down on pornography and eliminmate as much of it as possible and punish those using it. You don't make revolution by groping yourself, you get the opressor to grope himself then knock him in the head.

[Dros]

Pornography is a weapon of revolution. It should be used to debase capitalist society and bring the revolution about. After the revolution, the State should crack down on pornography and eliminmate as much of it as possible and punish those using it. You don't make revolution by groping yourself, you get the opressor to grope himself then knock him in the head.

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

That is way up on the list of stupidest things I have ever seen!

-=-=-=-

Leftism is fundamentally reliant on the idea that people can and should make choices for themselves. Pornography is a non-issue. If people want to make it, then in a Communist society they will be allowed to.

There's a lot of backwardness in capitalist society around issues that have to do with sex and sexual expression and these are fundamentally grounded in thousands of years of ideology that sees sex as a way to generate an heir and sees women as primarily a means to that end. Because of this, the abolition of private property and the emancipation of women specifically, will lead to (in my view) a more sexually expressive culture.

[JimmyJazz]

The vast majority of pornography is produced for the purposes of being sold - is a business.

- August

Um, do you have statistics on that? User-generated porn is taking over in porn just as much as other types of user-generated content are taking over other areas of entertainment. See RedTube, YouPorn, and probably others. The potential for amateur/user-generated porn to overtake studio porn actually exists, too, considering that what you need to make porn is pretty simple (a few people with even fewer inhibitions). It's not like movies, where Hollywood will always have a stake since a million dollar budget produces things you can't produce otherwise.

[VukBZ2005]

I maintain that fluffers are the real proletarians of porn. You know, the unfortunate women and men who are called in to perform a bit of fellatio when an actor can't get it up for a scene. The moment he's hard, they leave. Talk about alienation of the worker from the product... and unlike the pornstars, they work for a minimum wage.

If you are being serious here, then, I have to state that all of those that work in the pornographic industry, from the aforementioned fluffers to the largest porn stars, are proletarians (in most circumstances), due to the fact that they do not control the means of production that they utilize nor do they control the properties that those means of production happen to be located on.

[Black Dagger]

Oh, they're very common. Maybe a bit less frequently needed since the invention of Viagra, but they still assist most porn shoots just in case.

How could you possibly know that? :confused:

[Dros]

If you are being serious here, then, I have to state that all of those that work in the pornographic industry, from the aforementioned fluffers to the largest porn stars, are proletarians (in most circumstances), due to the fact that they do not control the means of production that they utilize nor do they control the properties that those means of production happen to be located on.

No. Many of the people in the adult entertainment industry don't get paid a wage.

[Red Phalanx]

Leftism is fundamentally reliant on the idea that people can and should make choices for themselves.

Oh, so can people choose capitalism if they want to?

Spartacist makes a good point. Revolutionaries have always used drugs, porn and other social stimulants to drag the opressor down then eliminated them to establish authority and ensure the life of the revolution.

[Dros]

Oh, so can people choose capitalism if they want to?

Capitalism is not a personal choice. It is a system that is forced on people without their consent.


Spartacist makes a good point. Revolutionaries have always used drugs, porn and other social stimulants to drag the opressor down then eliminated them to establish authority and ensure the life of the revolution.

No. They have not. Name one time when a leftist group has used drugs and porn to "drag the oppressor down".

Your social puritanism is disturbingly anti-communist. Grow up.

[VukBZ2005]

No. Many of the people in the adult entertainment industry don't get paid a wage.

I think you misunderstand the point that I am making; class is not determined by how much a person makes or how they make it (that is, to a certain extent), but, by whether not they are in possession of private property and if they are in a position to extract surplus-value from their workers through the use of the means of production that exist upon it.

If you continue to make the assertions that are making about my point, then, I would have to say that your understanding of what makes the classes the material forces that they are in Capitalist societies happens to be very flawed.

[communard resolution]

If you are being serious here, then, I have to state that all of those that work in the pornographic industry, from the aforementioned fluffers to the largest porn stars, are proletarians (in most circumstances),Naah, I was only joking. I agree with what you say. Porn actors are proletarians, albeit much better off proletarians than most. Of course, they cease to be proletarians once they've made enough money to start their own porn production company - this is what most porn stars strive for these days.


How could you possibly know that? :confused:

I know a woman who works in pornography.

[Dros]

I think you misunderstand the point that I am making; class is not determined by how much a person makes or how they make it (that is, to a certain extent), but, by whether not they are in possession of private property and if they are in a position to extract surplus-value from their workers through the use of the means of production that exist upon it.

If you continue to make the assertions that are making about my point, then, I would have to say that your understanding of what makes the classes the material forces that they are in Capitalist societies happens to be very flawed.

Proletarians are those who must sell their labor to the bourgeoisie for a wage. Most of the more well known pornographic actresses do not. They do own private property even if they are not part of the haute bourgeoisie. They are part of the petty bourgeoisie like most wealthy actors and actresses are. I'm sorry but it is not my understanding of class that is flawed.

[Red Phalanx]

Name one time when a leftist group has used drugs and porn to "drag the oppressor down".

Many German communists used in during the Weimar years to destroy bourgeois culture and values as did many Western Euro Reds like the Faurisson Collective in France in the interwar period and factions of the New Left (Cyril Gantry, the Ant Hill Project). Several Commintern courriers were later surprised to discover they had smuggled porn (Magnus Kazaro wrote about it in Written in Blood 1954). The Viet Cong also sold hardcore porn to U.S. troops in Vietnam. Pete Atwell of Eros Films (1962-1977) was a Marxist and always said that he produced porn to, "break down the capitalist system."

Now, stupid ass, let me school you to something else: when debating, never flatly say NO THEY HAVE NOT then ask when they did, it makes you look like the braying ignorant jackass that you are!

[Decolonize The Left]

Many German communists used in during the Weimar years to destroy bourgeois culture and values as did many Western Euro Reds like the Faurisson Collective in France in the interwar period and factions of the New Left (Cyril Gantry, the Ant Hill Project). Several Commintern courriers were later surprised to discover they had smuggled porn (Magnus Kazaro wrote about it in Written in Blood 1954). The Viet Cong also sold hardcore porn to U.S. troops in Vietnam. Pete Atwell of Eros Films (1962-1977) was a Marxist and always said that he produced porn to, "break down the capitalist system."

Now, stupid ass, let me school you to something else: when debating, never flatly say NO THEY HAVE NOT then ask when they did, it makes you look like the braying ignorant jackass that you are!

You have not proved that these individuals used drugs or pornography to "drag the oppressor down." This is a specific purpose which you have attributed to several unrelated actions.

- August

[Spartacist]

You have not proved that these individuals used drugs or pornography to "drag the oppressor down." This is a specific purpose which you have attributed to several unrelated actions.

You cannot be serious with this.

[Dros]

Many German communists used in during the Weimar years to destroy bourgeois culture and values as did many Western Euro Reds like the Faurisson Collective in France in the interwar period and factions of the New Left (Cyril Gantry, the Ant Hill Project). Several Commintern courriers were later surprised to discover they had smuggled porn (Magnus Kazaro wrote about it in Written in Blood 1954).

You appear to have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that idiots didn't try this. I'm saying that a.) it didn't work and b.) they weren't Communists! Get it now?


The Viet Cong also sold hardcore porn to U.S. troops in Vietnam.

I'm fairly confident that they had a different motivation for selling the porn...


Pete Atwell of Eros Films (1962-1977) was a Marxist and always said that he produced porn to, "break down the capitalist system."

1.) did it work?
2.) what do you mean by "marxist"?
3.) I think he had a different understanding then you about how this was to occur.


Now, stupid ass, let me school you to something else: when debating, never flatly say NO THEY HAVE NOT then ask when they did, it makes you look like the braying ignorant jackass that you are!

Perhaps you should read up on the rhetorical question. See, when I asked you that, it was to demonstrate how absurd your answer would be! And the amusing part is, it worked.


stupid ass

:lol::lol::lol:

Are you in fucking kindergarten? If you're going to try and flame me, please at least put enough effort into it so that I can read it without laughing hysterically.

[VukBZ2005]

Proletarians are those who must sell their labor to the bourgeoisie for a wage. Most of the more well known pornographic actresses do not. They do own private property even if they are not part of the haute bourgeoisie. They are part of the petty bourgeoisie like most wealthy actors and actresses are. I'm sorry but it is not my understanding of class that is flawed.

You are correct when you say that Proletarians are those who must sell their labor, or rather, labor-power, to the Bourgeoisie for a wage as a means to survive. However, As I have been implying indirectly, a Proletarian does not lose his or her class character if they manage to obtain a substantial amount of private property, or, if they happen to inherit a substantial amount of private property. It is just that these aforementioned Proletarians only possess the capability or potential to extract surplus-value from other Proletarians. Even so, to actually make such a pursuit viable, they would have to accumulate the necessary Capital to start-up that process, and most of the time, they do not have means or opportunity to achieve such an objective.

Therefore, based on what I have just pointed out, I can then make the assertion that your stance on Pornographic actors/actresses, not to mention all actors/actresses, in relation to their ownership of private property, is mostly incorrect, because even though these people do own private property, under normal circumstances, they are not Bourgeois or Petit-bourgeois because they are not actively exploiting other working class people and extracting their labor-power from them while they are in possession of that private property.

Also, when we speak of the private property that is usually in the possession of both Pornographic actors/actresses and Non-pornographic actors/actresses, we are not speaking of holdings like production studios or factories; we are speaking of holdings like mansions, large lawns and/or backyards, and, it is because of the aforementioned situation that it is impossible for us to summarily exclude the entirety of this group from the Proletariat. We can only exclude those that are within this group, and, that are actively involved in the extraction of surplus-value from the Proletariat.

If you continue to engage in such exclusion, then, your actions would only demonstrate themselves to be completely nonsensical.

[Dros]

You are correct when you say that Proletarians are those who must sell their labor, or rather, labor-power, to the Bourgeoisie for a wage as a means to survive. However, As I have been implying indirectly, a Proletarian does not lose his or her class character if they manage to obtain a substantial amount private property, or, if they happen to inherit a substantial amount of private property. It is just that these aforementioned Proletarians only possess the capability or potential to extract surplus-value from other Proletarians. Even so, to actually make such a pursuit viable, they would have to accumulate the necessary Capital to start-up that process, and most of the time, they do not have means or opportunity to achieve such an objective.

That is incorrect. Someone's class is defined by their relationship to the means of production. As that relationship changes, so to does that person's class and their class outlook.

Let me ask you, is Bill Clinton a proletarian? Your argument would suggest that he is.


[/B] Therefore, based on what I have just pointed out, I can then make the assertion that your stance on Pornographic actors/actresses, not to mention all actors/actresses, in relation to their ownership of private property, is mostly incorrect, because even though these people do own private property, under normal circumstances, they are not Bourgeois or Petit-bourgeois because they are not actively exploiting other working class people and extracting their labor-power from them while they are in possession of that private property.

That is not the defining aspect of the petty-bourgeoisie. The petty bourgeoisie do not by definition need to directly exploit other workers. Class is, again, determined by their relationship to the means of production. The petty bourgeoisie is that class of people who do not sell their labor for a wage and who own some, but not much, private property. This includes artists (like actors), professionals like lawyers, and small business owners.


Also, when we speak of the private property that is usually in the possession of both Pornographic actors/actresses and Non-pornographic actors/actresses, we are not speaking of holdings like production studios or factories; we are speaking of holdings like mansions, large lawns and/or backyards, and, it is because of the aforementioned situation that it is impossible for us to summarily exclude the entirety of this group from the Proletariat.

That's an assertion grounded in nothing. Clearly, I agree with you with regards to the nature of the private property in question. That fact has no bearing on their class nature.

[bayano]

this is typical of revleft. put me in the camp that distinguishes between pornography (which includes exploitation, as is even in the etymology of the word) and erotica.

far too many people can personally defensive about porn and/or too many anticapitalists behave as if porn isnt business, isnt industry, and therefore necessitates exploitation by way of slavery or capitalism.

[communard resolution]

put me in the camp that distinguishes between pornography (which includes exploitation, as is even in the etymology of the word) and erotica.

There is absolutely no distinction between these. One person's pornography is another person's art, and one person's erotica is another person's pornography. The lines drawn between those are arbitrary, and dependent on factors such as e.g. the individual consumer's personal taste, level of prudery/squeamishness, aesthetic requirements, milieu, the consensus in society, etc.


far too many people can personally defensive about porn and/or too many anticapitalists behave as if porn isnt business, isnt industry, and therefore necessitates exploitation by way of slavery or capitalism.No one doubts that porn is a business, the question discussed in this thread is whether it's a more exploitative business than others.

[bayano]

There is absolutely no distinction between these. One person's pornography is another person's art, and one person's erotica is another person's pornography. The lines drawn between those are arbitrary.

Soooo, you're not a marxist? The lines drawn are primarily at the point of production. You could argue it is about the affect on the consumer too, but really it's a question of production. Porn is made for profit, with bosses, and exploiting both the participants.

Of course, there are all sorts of other issues relating to porn that ideally don't hit erotica. But I don't think you can call the point of production an arbitrary issue.

[communard resolution]

Porn is made for profit, with bosses, and exploiting both the participants.

Correct. This applies to porn, "erotica", and any other industry.


But I don't think you can call the point of production an arbitrary issue.I didn't. I was talking about the (alleged) lines between erotica and porn that you brought up and which have nothing to do with modes of production at all.

[communard resolution]

Soooo, you're not a marxist?

:confused:

[bayano]

I don't see why differentiating between sex as business and sex as art at the level of production isn't worthwhile to you.

Porn is harmful to much more than the participants, of course, but even its negative affects on the consumers and on people who have no direct connection to it can be argued to be rooted in the production. Erotica (for lack of a more precise term: sexual art) should leave consumers with relative respect for other people, and not leave people's dignity intact. Porn, because it is made for profit through slavery or capitalism, gives consumers warped views of sex, sexuality and tends to reinforce any of a variety of gender roles (though admittedly beyond male/female).

But the distinction can and must be made. You can't simply say "there is no distinction". You have to explain why you believe there is none, as I have explained why there are some.

[communard resolution]

I don't see why differentiating between sex as business and sex as art at the level of production isn't worthwhile to you.

Maybe it would be if you explained to me what you meant? You stated that porn is made for profit under capitalist relations. But so is 'art'. The moment it's on the market, it's part of the capitalist process. Capitalism is all-encompassing, so your idea that art somehow exists outside of it seems bizarre.

There are many hardcore porn directors who regard their films as art and shoot them in a distinctive 'arty' style.

There are 'art' films and 'art' photography books with explicit (=hardcore) sexual content.

Books such as "The Story of O" or any of Marquis de Sade's works were labeled pornography then, they're labeled erotica now (in the Western world, that is, certainly not e.g. in Iran).

Courts have always had a hard time deciding whether something was erotica or pornography.

Richard Kern's photography is art to some, nasty porn to others.

There is no clear distinction between porn and erotica. It's arbitrary and depends on culture and individual perception. Of course, the idea of consuming 'art' or 'erotica' appeals to middle-class notions of "taste" more than the idea of consuming pornography. But even that is changing now.

Also, it's news to me that the distinction between 'porn' and 'erotica' has anything to do with Marxism (as you imply by asking me whether I was "not a Marxist")?



Porn is harmful to much more than the participantsHave you actually ever spoken to any, or are you just imagining porn must be harmful to them? I have, and I'm fairly sure they would laugh at the idea of being harmed by acting in porn.


its negative affects on the consumers Could you point me to any study that proves porn has a negative effect on its consumers?


Porn, because it is made for profit through slavery or capitalism, gives consumers warped views of sex, sexuality and tends to reinforce any of a variety of gender roles Most media representations will project a certain view of sex, sexuality and gender roles: advertisements, music videos, mainstream movies, sitcoms, men's magazines, women's magazines, etc etc... If it's mainstream media, it will by informed by society's dominant ideologies in regards to gender and sexuality. This goes for mainstream porn as well as non-pornographic mainstream media.

But this doesn't apply to all media, and it doesn't apply to all porn. There are even feminists who shoot porn movies.



You can't simply say "there is no distinction". You have to explain why you believe there is none, as I have explained why there are some.I think it's up to you to explain the distinction to me since you brought it up. What is the distinction? Where exactly do you draw the line? And do you think everybody would agree with you on that line?

[Fawkes]

Pornography objectifies women in exactly the same way American History X objectifies black people and A Clockwork Orange objectifies people in general. Because of this, pornography should be banned just like violent movies should be banned....


/sarcasm

If some guy wants to crank one out to a video of a fictional rape scene, why the hell should I care any more than that kid who gets an adrenaline rush every time he sees the boy lying on the bunk get stabbed in Friday the 13th?

[JimmyJazz]

^I don't have an opinion on that, but your sig is from Billy Bragg, not Lars Frederiksen and the Bastards. I mean, originally. :D

[Chapaev]

Characteristic of the decadence and decay of bourgeois culture is the passion for pornography. Pornography is a sort of intellectual opium that bourgeois society feeds young people. Its sole purpose is to evoke emotion for its own sake, as an experience providing pleasure. The existence of pornography is yet another demonstration of the intellectual crisis of bourgeois society. Pornography is profoundly reactionary, however benevolent the motives used by bourgeois ideologists to justify it.

[JimmyJazz]

Well, it is true that any time spent jerking it is time not spent handing out leaflets...

[Herman]

Characteristic of the decadence and decay of bourgeois culture is the passion for pornography. Pornography is a sort of intellectual opium that bourgeois society feeds young people. Its sole purpose is to evoke emotion for its own sake, as an experience providing pleasure. The existence of pornography is yet another demonstration of the intellectual crisis of bourgeois society. Pornography is profoundly reactionary, however benevolent the motives used by bourgeois ideologists to justify it.

And pray tell how is pornography "reactionary", especially when it's voluntary (in the case of amateur pornography)?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Well, it is true that any time spent jerking it is time not spent handing out leaflets...

False most people have two hands.


But on topic if two people consent to making a film useing there webcam / whatever and somone else wants to wank off over it thats none of my business.

Also i know pornography is a business in many cases but so are most things why campaign against this one when there are much more exploitive industries.

(Im not saying i wont argue for better conditions for porn workers but id be more concrned about little kids in nike sweatshops or factory workers).

[dread...]

Characteristic of the decadence and decay of bourgeois culture is the passion for art. Art is a sort of intellectual opium that bourgeois society feeds young people. Its sole purpose is to evoke emotion for its own sake, as an experience providing pleasure. The existence of art is yet another demonstration of the intellectual crisis of bourgeois society. Art is profoundly reactionary, however benevolent the motives used by bourgeois ideologists to justify it.

Surely you could say the same about art?What other purpose does art have a lot of the time? What about entertainment? Music?

Basically the logical conclusion of you position is against all pleasure.

[Jazzratt]

The question is weird, pornography - as it is an industry - is of course a "left issue" but it's not something the left need condemn in and of itself. As a lot of people have pointed out the exploitation isn't all that different from, say, steelwork but it's also got a lot of other, attached problems; especially in straight and "lesbian" pornography aimed at men.

Pornography is not morally reprhensible but much of the industry is filled with sexism and worse.

[john von konstantine]

poronography is unnecessary exploitation and in most cases it is as a result of poverty or even more importantly unemployment. it is a menace to the society, just like prostitution.it is very well something which has to be dealt with immediate effect and eliminated .i think it is the leftists duty to see it is banned,fot it can be derogatory andshrewdly malignant for the society

LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION

[Jazzratt]

poronography is unnecessary exploitation and in most cases it is as a result of poverty or even more importantly unemployment.

Most luxury industries require unnecessary exploitation, as does much of the service industry. Even essential industries are unnecessarily exploitative (in a Marxist sense). All work is the result of poverty and unemployment - if people weren't poor and unemployed they wouldn't seek employment.


it is a menace to the society, just like prostitution.

No. It is, quite often, a menace to the people involved in it - much like prostitution, and that should be fought. The problem with pornography is not the fact that someone is paid for sex - the problem is much of the coercion involved, the disturbing message sent by a lot of main-stream pornography (a lot of it is about the degradation of "dumb *****es" and "sluts") and so on; much in the same way the problem with prostitution is pimping and drug abuse based exploitation.


it is very well something which has to be dealt with immediate effect and eliminated.

It won't be eliminated; not as long as people have tendencies toward voyeurism and martymachlia. I imagine though it will be rather different, with a lot more in the way of subtle eroticisms and the like and a lot less of the "dumb *****es" shite.


i think it is the leftists duty to see it is banned,fot it can be derogatory andshrewdly malignant for the society

I will state again it does not damage society it can, and often does, damage those involved, especially the actresses, but society is a whole remains completely unharmed.


LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION

Indeed.

[Raúl Duke]

Well...

I'm not sure if pornography/erotica will be ban in communism per se.

I mean, what if there are people who just like to distribute erotic/pornographic photos/videos of themselves?

Let me explain this with a hypothetical example:
A person/group of people in a communist society post up pornography/erotica, free, on the net or distribute this material in DVDs, etc. They're not making money out of it and do it like a hobby of sorts. Is this something that would be prohibited? On what grounds?

What is indeed going to be prohibited from the erotica/porno field-industry would be capitalist relations such as profit-making and wage slavery, that's for sure.

One thing that's interesting is that people claim pornography harms society...what if what is depicted in pornography today (violence, treatment of women) just a symptom of our culture? (I bet pornography is different depending on who makes it, where it's from, time-period i.e. the culture involved.)

[counterblast]

poronography is unnecessary exploitation and in most cases it is as a result of poverty or even more importantly unemployment.

Is there some sort of study your claim is based upon? Or are you suggesting that porn actresses are predominantly poor or unemployed because its convenient?

[communard resolution]

Is there some sort of study your claim is based upon? Or are you suggesting that porn actresses are predominantly poor or unemployed because its convenient?

I think we all know the answer. :)

[p1nkfl0yd]

I definately think that pornography is a left issue. I can consider the argument against pornography as being essentially the same as the argument against prostitution- the porn star/prostitute chooses to be so, but only as an alternative to starving. What is more disturbing is that prostitutes and porn stars can make good money- meaning there is a massive market for women to demean and degrade themselves. Of course, I don't support the banning of pornography (unless it's kiddie porn or violent porn, obviously) or prostitution, but I would hope to establish a society that did not value a trade for which women could humiliate themselves in return for payment.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

porno is a break down of basic rule of stric socity is offten asosiated with anarchist. althogh with the concept of all most of the time i degades wemon. porn is a left issue.

[communard resolution]

the porn star/prostitute chooses to be so, but only as an alternative to starving.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Many pornstars are college/university graduates with good prospects and steady jobs. They choose a career in the porn industry primarily because they view it as an option to hit the big time and live a life outside of the ordinary. Which is perfectly fine given how boring normal life can be.


meaning there is a massive market for women to demean and degrade themselves.Whether they "demean" and "degrade" themselves by indulging in sexual acts is a matter of your subjective perception. Your statement really only says something about your personal sexual attitudes (which I don't mean to attack as they're your business), and I know for a fact that many porn actresses don't think of their profession as degrading at all.

[Gleb]

Porno industry, yes, pornography per se, no.

EDIT: But seriously, I really don't get where's the point of all this fussying really is. I mean, let's think about: what does it mean when you are a revolutionary leftist? Answer is rather simple; it means you trust on people, you trust on the working class. You trust on them, you give them responsibility to decide what happens in the society they are resident of. But still, some of you don't consider them to be qualified to decide what happens in their own lifes? Seriously, since when we have been in need of bureaucrats or even soviets to tell us what is proper behaviour and what degrades us and is thus not allowed? It doesn't matter if people think you are degrading themselves or not, if you are doing this all because you want to do so.
Right to do whatever one wants with one's body, does something like that ring any bells?

No victim, no crime. Nanny state can fuck off.

[apathy maybe]

porno is a break down of basic rule of stric socity is offten asosiated with anarchist. althogh with the concept of all most of the time i degades wemon. porn is a left issue.

Err, does it also degrade the gay male porn stars, the transsexual porn stars and the other male porn stars?

If porn is produced for women by women does it degrade women?

If a porn flick only shows men doing what men do with other men, are those men being degraded?

Broaden your mind, not all porn shows only women, or is targeted at a male heterosexual audience.

[AAFCE]

I likes me some Ecchi, Hentai, and Yaoi.

Does it also exploit the men, who take place in Gay Pornography?

[Plagueround]

Porno industry, yes, pornography per se, no.


This. Like almost everything else in this world, the problem is the application in a capitalist society and not pornography itself. Even then, the stereotype of the poor battered porn star submitting her/himself to horrible, degrading circumstance for drug money isn't the only reality of the porn industry.

[Revy]

I voted "No".

We are not sexual puritans. If it is consensual and legal in age, then nobody was harmed. A woman making her own sexual choices is not contrary to feminism.

What's next? No sex at all? Just use the Orgasmatron?

[Wanted Man]

The poll is kind of pointless. It mostly serves as a useful way for the OP to shift the goalposts ("I only need to prove that it is an issue to the left"), when in fact some more extreme things are being suggested:


And yes, pornography would be abolished in a post-capitalist world as it is solely a for-profit business and would have no purpose following the collapse and overthrow of capitalism.

Really? So if two people want to videotape themselves having sex, and put it up on YouPorn so that people can freely view it, how are they going to be stopped? And it that even desirable?

Of course, porn in post-capitalist society should not be in the hands of big business. Young people should not be forced into a highly abusive business because they need it to feed themselves. It should have a strictly voluntary basis, where nobody is coerced into doing things that are uncomfortable to them because they can't eat otherwise.

[atheist_anarchist]

I really think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with porn. It is human nature to desire sex and want to see the opposite sex nude. Sure masturbation is a key form of suppressing the urge for sex but someone will always need to see the opposite sex nude. If there was no porn, im going out on a limb saying this and not really considering it much, than the rape rates could go up, which would not be good. So i think that it should be completely up to the person "performing" in the porn and the one watching it.

[progressive_lefty]

The industry is a mess. The current industry is a product of capitalism. If you look at most movies, the girls are usually from South-Eastern Asia, Eastern Europe and South America. The racist themes with-in the movies is staggering..

[red-carnations]

I once heard someone compare pornography and strip club to Minstrel shows/"black face" performances.. Taking the stereotypes of African Americans(big lips, watermelon eating) and the stereotypes of women (huge breasts, bumping and grinding, hooker-heels) I think this is a fair assessment..

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I really think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with porn. It is human nature to desire sex and want to see the opposite sex nude. Sure masturbation is a key form of suppressing the urge for sex but someone will always need to see the opposite sex nude.

Masturbation suppresses the urge for sex? Wha'?

Either you have never masturbated or you're doing it wrong.


I once heard someone compare pornography and strip club to Minstrel shows/"black face" performances.. Taking the stereotypes of African Americans(big lips, watermelon eating) and the stereotypes of women (huge breasts, bumping and grinding, hooker-heels) I think this is a fair assessment..

Well, it would be if all pornography is like that. It isn't. Believe me, it ain't. Porn has skinny women, fat women, women with big tits, women with flat chests, big dicks, small dicks, demons, monsters, robots, aliens, animals, women with penises, men with vaginas, all kinds of outfits on both sexes, and so on and on and on and on....

Really, human sexuality is far too variable for such blanket assessments to have any kind of validity.

[Jazzratt]

I once heard someone compare pornography and strip club to Minstrel shows/"black face" performances.. Taking the stereotypes of African Americans(big lips, watermelon eating) and the stereotypes of women (huge breasts, bumping and grinding, hooker-heels) I think this is a fair assessment..

Yeah. Also, all hip hop music is about money and hoes. :rolleyes:

[scarletghoul]

As users of the internet I am surprised at some peoples low level of understanding of pornography on here. There are many many differant types, many of which do not even involve human females. As long as the participants are all ok with what they're doing then I dont see a problem with it.
As for things like southeast asian females being overrepresented in it, then that is a reflection more real social problem

[LunaSlave]

Absolutely, positively, porn is a left issue...i think we should actually distinguish between 'porn' and highly explicit depictions of sex. porn contains the latter - but our opposition should not be opposition to graphic depiction of sex, but rather economic structure and ideological content. in short, i think our position on the issue should be kind of nuanced - opposed, and willing to fight against, the oppressive reality that the porn industry creates for people - and also we should embrace a kind of 'radical subversive erotica' that actively tries to fight against the dominant ideology of an industry that chews up and spits out its performers while dehumanizing them. It often actively dehumanizes women, and tends to passively dehumanize men as well (who are seen as little more than stunt cocks in straight porn at least). It pushes not only sexism, but extreme forms of racism as well.

but i actually think it's quite possible to create a highly subversive erotic media...in a recent conversation with an anti-porn activist on this issue i actually came up with the following suggestions for a possible alternative. *cut and paste follows*

think there are some core principles that such a movement would need to embrace - just off the top of my head i can think of some possibilities:

a) no pay for performers, no profit from sales - get the economic motive out of there entirely, both as a tool of recruitment for performers (volunteers only, no sex trafficking/slavery/paid performers) and incentive to produce media for financial gain. free distribution, with access limited only to those of verifiable legal viewing age.

b) a combination of democratic and consensus based decision making power extended to all involved in production...aiming for consensus whenever possible. no one would ever be outvoted into doing something they don't wish to do as far as performance is concerned - yet sometimes democratic majority rule is necessary (ie what time should we get the catering truck to arrive?) if consensus can't be reached. preferably a transparent decision making process that's completely apparent to the viewer as well - she or he can see people discussing these issues, disagreeing, and coming to agreements as well - so as to provide a constant context of radical democracy to it all.

c) no violence, no misogyny, no homophobia, no racism, ageism, etc - in short no content that would uphold the current right-wing ideological stranglehold that porn has over depictions of explicit sex

d) obvious celebration of various types of bodies, not one oppressive beauty standard

e) all media produced in multiple versions, with the various performers edited out/blurred out, so if they ever decided that they regretted their decision to participate, they would be removed easily simply by asking.

f) an obvious educational and/or political context. the idea isn't to make more alternatives to jack/jill off to, although of course people are free to do that if they wish - the whole point is to completely subvert the ideological power that porn currently has. for example, having movies in which not every participant is depicted as willing to have sex at the drop of a hat is a positive - there could be great opportunities for messages here too. for example, showing a guy getting rejected by others because of his display of sexism, or unwillingness to use a condom, or something. letting real human situations enter into it as well is important - whether it's depicting the emotional consequences of a guy experiencing erectile dysfunction in a world where guys are expected to be held to the porn stud standard - or actually showing a girl say stop because she's too sore, is bored, or has to take a bathroom break. all of this, to me could be incredibly subversive to the 'get the viewer's rocks off no matter the cost' attitude of the porn industry...it's like reclaiming the sex act from porn. even setting up situations where the viewer is expecting explicit sex because of what has come before, but instead they get something else, like, say a black screen with the words "USE YOUR IMAGINATION" on it to break the Pavlovian hold that porn can have on people who become addicted. whatever. so many possibilities. the use of rejection could possibly even extend to the viewer as well - for example to teach them a lesson, in the realm of the internet, say, a kind of bait and switch could be used, say if they click on the big banner that says 'click here to see hot sluts in action' their account is suspended for violating the terms of service which prohibit sexism but if they click the little 'no thanks, that's sexist' below they have a chance to navigate away, if that was their desire, or view the contents. just a few completely random thoughts here, the possibilities are endless :)

of course none of these things are meant to be substitutes for what really liberates people from their conditions - organization, education, and resistance. they're just supplementary tools that it might be possible to use to engage people who are otherwise disengaged and isolated from others. i just found it a creative exercise to think of some possibilities, i guess - and i actually think it would be quite a worthwhile exercise to attempt to create such thought provoking media in a world where people view sex through the various sets of lenses proscribed (prescribed? they're lenses after all) by religion, porn, the state, capitalism, the family, etc.

[progressive_lefty]

I get the feeling that a lot of the beautiful young women that do do porn, once they finish their career's they suffer from post-traumatic stress. One must think that it must not be easy to deal with the impossibility of finding a boyfriend and other problems relating to the fact they used to be a pornstar..

Generally I find I can't watch most porn, because the guys are usually uptight and get off by saying things like 'ohhh ssay you want too suck my dick', 'say that your a dirty slut' or 'your a fucking dirty slut arent you'....

Most of the black male pornstars seem more suited to it, because they're realxed and not uptight about having sex and just get on with it.

[Junius]

Originally posted by progressive lefty
I get the feeling that a lot of the beautiful young women that do do porn, once they finish their career's they suffer from post-traumatic stress.Condescending and unscientific crap.


Originally posted by progressive lefty
One must think that it must not be easy to deal with the impossibility of finding a boyfriend and other problems relating to the fact they used to be a pornstar..Are you kidding? A porn-star finding it difficult to find a boyfriend in this world? :huh:


Originally posted by progressive lefty
'ohhh ssay you want too suck my dick'People say these things when they...want their dicks sucked.


Originally posted by progressive lefty
'say that your a dirty slut'
Originally posted by progressive lefty
'your a fucking dirty slut arent you'Sometimes people talk dirty. :ohmy:


Most of the black male pornstars seem more suited to it, because they're realxed and not uptight about having sex and just get on with it.That's a pretty broad statement.

[communard resolution]

LunaSlave:

first off, your post is probably the best and most stimulating I've read in this thread - in a non-pornographic sense, that is. Doesn't happen too often that people actually come up with ideas and alternatives on what could be done in the forseeable future.

I've got some comments and questions about the points you've raised, though:


we should actually distinguish between 'porn' and highly explicit depictions of sex.

No, fuck it. Let's go the whole way and claim the 'porn' label. 'Highly explicit depictions of sex' sounds too clinically sterile... we still want to get off, don't we?


a) no pay for performers, no profit from sales - get the economic motive out of there entirely, My problem with this is that you suggest to establish a non-capitalist enterprise within a sea of capitalism - is that reasonable or even possible?

This reminds me a bit of anarchist punk bands whose fans expect them to be 100% dedicated to their ideals while not earning any money whatsoever. How will the band pay for the petrol on tour? How will they pay the rent and phone bill upon return? I know this may be a crude analogy, but what I'm trying to say is that you cannot deny that you live in a capitalist society and are subject to its laws. You cannot just 'drop out' or work outside of it, no matter what projects you are involved in. In an ideal communist society, of course, porn would come without the economic connotations. But we haven't established that society yet.

Also, why do you single out the pornography industry? Why not "let's get the economic motif out of the clothes industry"? Or "let's get the economic motif out of music video production"? See, it's impossible. And by the way, both of these industries are subject to the sexism inherent in our society just as much as pornography is. Or why can't I go to the shoe store and get myself a pair of men's boots with seven inch stiletto heels if that's what my heart desires?


no one would ever be outvoted into doing something they don't wish to do In mainstream porn reality, no one is ever forced to do things they don't want to do. If you don't want to do anal, they won't force you to. But you'll get $500 more if you do - that's the motif. Of course, these discussions rarely occur on the set. You can preselect by reading ads, it will for example say "female performer of such-and-such looks wanted for 2 day adult movie shoot. Practices: oral, full penetration. No anal required. Pay: $2000".


no violence, no misogyny, no homophobia, no racism, ageism,I can see what you are saying, although I do have to add that in the bedroom as in pornography, we often find the playful enactment of things that we oppose in 'real life' very stimulating. And the rule is often: the nastier and more 'forbidden', the better - it's about pushing boundaries. But that would be almost too long of a discussion.


obvious celebration of various types of bodies, not one oppressive beauty standard As another poster previously mentioned, there is porn for every taste out there: fat people, thin people, old people, young people, 'beautiful' people, 'ugly' people, etc. The porn industry is actually much more varied as far as beauty standard than, say the fashion industry or the mainstream movie industry. What would be the point in having a fat actor/actress enter a sex scene in a porn flick that's aimed at viewers who are into slim bodied people?


e) all media produced in multiple versions, with the various performers edited out/blurred out, so if they ever decided that they regretted their decision to participate, they would be removed easily simply by asking. OK. But I don't see that as porn specific, it should go for all other entertainment media too. I bet Madonna would love to remove her performance from some of the crappier movies she acted in. Most of them, actually. Or what about the embarrassing riff you played on your band's first album?

Also, the original unedited version would still be in circulation.


letting real human situations enter into it as well is important - whether it's depicting the emotional consequences of a guy experiencing erectile dysfunction in a world where guys are expected to be held to the porn stud standard - or actually showing a girl say stop because she's too sore, is bored, or has to take a bathroom breakInterestingly, all of these situations occur frequently in 1970s porn flicks, especially European ones. For an obvious American example, try the classic 'Deep Throat' where the main male character just can't deliver as much as he'd like to, gets sore after too many attempts, and is ultimately incapable of satisfying the woman. But that's just off the top of my head, 'Deep Throat' is hardly the most extreme/radical example. 1970s porn was also much more playful as far as sexual practices and variations. You never really knew what to expect, and to see some of the things shown in 70s mainstream porn you'd have to look in a specialist section today. Also, the gender roles and behaviour were often less stereotypical. Then again, many of the people involved in porn in the 70s (especially the French) viewed themselves as leftists and radicals on a mission to subvert society and its sexual norms - directors and actors alike. Actress Brigitte Lahaie and director Jean Rollin come to mind.

Some time in the late 80s and especially since the 90s, there seems to have occured a standardisation: mainstream porn movies are now very much alike, the guys are an internachgeable succession of big dicks, women display stereotypical behaviour and act out a narrow range of stereotypical roles. There is no story, the psychology is simple to the point of boring, and you always know what act/position will come next.

Pornographers claim that the consumers don't want a story, nor a more complex psychology to the individual scenes. I don't know whether that's true or not, but I suspect this just gives them an excuse to mechanically churn out more movies by the dozens.

Don't have time to comment on the other points now, but I think this should suffice for now.

[StalinFanboy]

Destroy the industry. Naked people are rad.

[mikelepore]

I get the feeling that a lot of the beautiful young women that do do porn, once they finish their career's they suffer from post-traumatic stress.
Condescending and unscientific crap.

The suicide rate is very high among women in the porn movie profession. Megan Leigh, Shauna Grant, and "Savannah", to name a few that I saw reported in the news. Such a trend makes me wonder how many more were reported on those days that I didn't read the news. ("Murdered by an estranged boyfriend" is another whole category.)

[communard resolution]

he suicide rate is very high among women in the porn movie profession. Megan Leigh, Shauna Grant, and "Savannah", to name a few that I saw reported in the news

Wow, that's an extremely high rate indeed: three. What is the suicide rate among city workers, factory workers, lawyers, or art students in comparison? I'd be curious.



("Murdered by an estranged boyfriend" is another whole category.)This is like blaming the practice of extramarital sex for murders commited by jealous husbands.

[wigsa]

Left wingers who are anti-porn are hypocritical.It's the liberisation of women that's allowed for the porn industry to take off.If all nations were still as conservative as they were 50 years ago,porn would be an illegal,black market industry.

[nk36]

Porn as such cannot be a left issue but does become one if the causes are studied in that context. Porn is more about making individual choices than anything else. Its an individualistic thing......As long as the individual choices are not infringed upon, it is alright. But it is certainly not the case in south asia or for that matter anywhere in the poverty-stricken part of the world, where it is more about hunger, poverty, malnutrition,low-literacy rate, poor economic indicators, etc which culminates in the women ending up in this largely unorganised business.

So if the contexual view of the implications and the ramifications is seen then it certainly becomes a Left Issue

[Invincible Summer]

The main debate here seems to be whether the porn-making business will even exist, post-revolution as monetary motives will be done away with.

I don't think porn should be banned or abolished - as mentioned earlier, any expression of sexuality is inherent to individuals and should not be suppressed.

Also, I'm not sure if pornography is 100% exploitative and misogynistic towards women - it may just be the framework from which some critics are analyzing it from. Firstly, how do you calculate the labor value of the sexual exploits in porn? Secondly, women are generally seen as the "weaker sex" and are stereotypically "submissive," but women in porn aren't always just catering to the man's needs - they're supposed to be "enjoying it" too. It's almost like some feminists who criticized porn are harboring and perpetuating the "weak female" stereotypes themselves. There's always that dominatrix-type stuff, but I never got into that whole PVC, whips, gag-balls thing. I suppose you can say it's because I'm a misogynistic son of a ***** that can't stand to see a woman in control :rolleyes:

[atheist_anarchist]

I would like to add in, fairly late though, that a lot of women who are in porn actually enjoy it and do it for themselves. In amateur porn is this exceptionally present since a lot of women post their nudes up on free porn sites and find enjoyment in knowing that people are getting off to them, i think they actually find it a confidence booster.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I have nothing against the idea of pornography. That is the idea of sexual acts being depicted. But in it's current format pornography should be abolished. Porn is the degradation and exploitation of the female sex, it is just as bad as sweatshop labour. It doesn't matter if it is consenual because we could all argue that the oppressed working class consent to being oppressed just for the fact that they sell their labour. It is the same for porn.

Porn is not liberating women, it is depicting coercion, patriarchy, exploitation and abuse of women we surely want to eliminate from society. As a feminist and Anarchist, I know I do.

[Invincible Summer]

I have nothing against the idea of pornography. That is the idea of sexual acts being depicted. But in it's current format pornography should be abolished. Porn is the degradation and exploitation of the female sex, it is just as bad as sweatshop labour. It doesn't matter if it is consenual because we could all argue that the oppressed working class consent to being oppressed just for the fact that they sell their labour. It is the same for porn.

Porn is not liberating women, it is depicting coercion, patriarchy, exploitation and abuse of women we surely want to eliminate from society. As a feminist and Anarchist, I know I do.

Then what do you suggest "agreeable" pornography should look like?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Then what do you suggest "agreeable" pornography should look like?

I do not know exactly. When I said porn I did not mean it in the sense of porn today. I meant it in the sense that nudity and sex has been used in art, in film. In this sense it can be a beautiful thing but in this degrading and exploitative format I do not agree with 'porn'.

[Glorious Union]

Pornography should be banned due to the fact it goes against the rules of God as proclaimed in the Bible.

I have read the bible, didn't come across that passage. Could you please cite that?

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I think it should be outlawed.It discrimanative to women and serves no pupose in a prolaterian society

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

.It discrimanative to women

How?


and serves no pupose in a prolaterian society

Aiding masturbation?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I used to be sympathetic to the idea that pornography harms women, but I changed my mind. Of course, women in the industry are sometimes harmed, but that is an unnecessary consequence of pornography.

There is no established causal connection between the presence of pornography and views harmful to women. In fact, if you consider the accessibility of pornography and views towards women, there is a correlation, if I remember the study correctly.

If a specific study isolated enough variables to show that pornography X convinces people women are inferior Y, I'd still consider free speech more valuable, most likely.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that, if pornography does censor women, it might be dangerous. For instance, if something convinces people "women shouldn't be listened to" that infringes on the ability of women to be considered, not heard. People could simply tell women to "stop talking" whenever the spoke. Of course, I don't think speech is so easily censored. Ignoring people who speak is difficult if not impossible when they speak the same language. The idea that a view of female inferiority would cause women to become "background noise" like animals in the forest, I think, is grossly exaggerated.

I'm not sure in the "greater scheme" how to consider this issue. If society tells everyone to ignore women, and they listen, there might be some harm occurring. However, society goes to far sometimes. Religion is sometimes included in various discrimination clauses. I certainly have a right to not listen to a religious person who begins talking about God. I'd say the right to ignore people is more important than diversity, perhaps.

[Hoxhaist]

it turns women into an object for sexual fantasizing and is detrimental to women in the workforce who become the living objects for fantasizing. Pornography is the epitome of capitalist exploitation, women are payed to reveal their bodies for money and become a tool for sexual exploitation in the minds of the consumers of pornography

[Idealism]

it turns women into an object for sexual fantasizing and is detrimental to women in the workforce who become the living objects for fantasizing. Pornography is the epitome of capitalist exploitation, women are payed to reveal their bodies for money and become a tool for sexual exploitation in the minds of the consumers of pornography

This is caused by sexism which in turn makes sexist pornography, the the other way around.

[Black Dagger]

it turns women into an object for sexual fantasizing and is detrimental to women in the workforce who become the living objects for fantasizing. Pornography is the epitome of capitalist exploitation, women are payed to reveal their bodies for money and become a tool for sexual exploitation in the minds of the consumers of pornography

And what of porn in a communist society? You must admit that what you describe (though i think you are wrong) is nevertheless a product of the material conditions present today and not inherent in the idea of sexual media? Be it erotic photography, film or in print. That 'pornography' is not these things but capitalist industry, patriarchal social norms etc. And that merely depicting nudity or sex in some form is not 'oppressive' to anyone (please remember that there is also more to pornography as a concept and even in todays society then heterosexual sex, or female subjects).

[Stranger Than Paradise]

How?


Aiding masturbation?

Are you joking?

[apathy maybe]

Are you joking?

I think that the answer, while it maybe a joke, is a good answer to the comment.

"[Porn] serves no pupose in a prolaterian society"
But, that's wrong, it does! It aids masturbation.

That works for me.

More to the point, why does everything need a purpose? If it does need a purpose, why isn't aiding masturbation (not to mention, many people like watching porn during/before they have sex) a good purpose?

Also, why do people still think that porn only involves women for heterosexual males? Did this get done over before?

What about porn by gay men for gay men? What about porn by lesbians for lesbians? What about porn involving men for heterosexual women?

Just to mention a few possibilities...

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Saying that pornography is inherently detrimental to women is, in fact, sexist toward women.

I agree with Black Dagger, that pornography is created as a result of the material conditions of the particular society it exists in. Capitalist pornography is, indeed, exploitative of women. However, pornography in a socialist or communist society does not have to be. Saying that it is INHERENTLY so makes the proclamation that all sexual relations between men and women are exploitative of women and this actually puts women into a position of INHERENT inferiority where they cannot achieve equality with men. If women are always exploited in a biologically necessary activity for reproduction, what does that say about our view of women? It says that we believe them to be fragile and ultimately, at the mercy of sympathetic male saviors to enact laws and ban pornography to defend their honor on some patriarchal shit. Fuck that. Women need to be empowered, not cared for and protected. Women and men can work together to create gender-sensitive pornography that everybody can enjoy.

And I liked what apathy maybe had to say about this as well... Just because it doesn't serve a purpose doesn't mean it needs to be banned. What sort of puritanical society are you guys envisioning? Comedy movies don't serve a purpose, drama television shows don't serve a purpose, hell, entertainment in general doesn't serve a "purpose". I don't want to live in a society where everything's value is determined based on some Marxist fundamentalist concept of utility and productivity. Sometimes we need to let loose and get off, what's so taboo and wrong about that?

[Patchd]

Some people on here seem to imply that pornography is limited to male-female sex, which could be a reason why they're coming to the conclusion that porn is inherently anti-woman and/or exploitative.

Let's face it, most jobs under Capitalism will be exploitative, it's the nature of the system. Of course women are going to be made to be seen as sexual objects in porn in our era, it brings in more profit and appeals to the privileged male, they don't give a shit about sexism, or how they could portray women in a more equal light.

If we take a look at gay porn then, a lot of arguments against porn will falter here. Porn is simply acting, some people believe it or not quite like the sub/dom aspect during sex, and porn simply helps to portray that through acting.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Some people on here seem to imply that pornography is limited to male-female sex, which could be a reason why they're coming to the conclusion that porn is inherently anti-woman and/or exploitative.

Let's face it, most jobs under Capitalism will be exploitative, it's the nature of the system. Of course women are going to be made to be seen as sexual objects in porn in our era, it brings in more profit and appeals to the privileged male, they don't give a shit about sexism, or how they could portray women in a more equal light.

If we take a look at gay porn then, a lot of arguments against porn will falter here. Porn is simply acting, some people believe it or not quite like the sub/dom aspect during sex, and porn simply helps to portray that through acting.

Well you could make the argument that gay pornography is exploitative of men with smaller builds since they are usually the "receivers" while the taller, more muscular men generally take the dominant role. Gender roles still play a role in gay relationships, and pornography generally takes the interpretation of those roles to a sexually fetishized extreme.

[Revy]

Women are not sexual objects and should not be treated as such. Women, as people, are sexual beings, and so are men. People of any gender identity cannot take on some robotic lack of sexuality. If simply fantasizing about somebody sexually means we are "objectifying" them, then only the 1% of us estimated to be "asexual" can be guilt-free of that.

Some feminists take to positions that make them seem like the religious right - eager to repress in the name of liberation.

The truth is, men and women regardless of sexual orientation are full of sexuality. We think of people we find attractive in sexual ways. As long as it is expressed consensually and with respect, it is acceptable. We cannot force people to have to live under a draconian society that would ban pornography.

Watching porn is a bit different than sexually harassing a woman in your daily life. Are women more personally affected by that, or "evil" porn?

[Patchd]

Well you could make the argument that gay pornography is exploitative of men with smaller builds since they are usually the "receivers" while the taller, more muscular men generally take the dominant role. Gender roles still play a role in gay relationships, and pornography generally takes the interpretation of those roles to a sexually fetishized extreme.

Not really. I have seen porn where a smaller built male would be the active person in a porno, but more often I see porn whereby one physique is displayed, be it skinny, large, built, average etc...

I don't think I've been in a relationship where gendered roles had a part to play in anything, attraction is different to forcing gender roles on people. There can be a big person attracted to a slimmer person, and that does not mean to say that the bigger person is the dominant one in the relationship either, nor does it say that the bigger person likes slimmer people because that's how it's reflected in a generalised heterosexual relationship.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Porn fulfills a natural human desire, it's not the job of the left to be moralistic.

Much of porn is exploititive percisely because it's a reflection of cultural sexual practises within a heteronormative and patriarchal society, porn is a byproduct of society; a mere reflection of female subjugation. So instead of wasting time going on moral-crusades, let's really help women by attacking the economic system that really serves them a hard time..

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think that the answer, while it maybe a joke, is a good answer to the comment.

"[Porn] serves no pupose in a prolaterian society"
But, that's wrong, it does! It aids masturbation.

That works for me.

More to the point, why does everything need a purpose? If it does need a purpose, why isn't aiding masturbation (not to mention, many people like watching porn during/before they have sex) a good purpose?

Also, why do people still think that porn only involves women for heterosexual males? Did this get done over before?

What about porn by gay men for gay men? What about porn by lesbians for lesbians? What about porn involving men for heterosexual women?

Just to mention a few possibilities...

No I was fine with that answer, I meaqnt his first answer that it isn't discriminating.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Not really. I have seen porn where a smaller built male would be the active person in a porno, but more often I see porn whereby one physique is displayed, be it skinny, large, built, average etc...

I don't think I've been in a relationship where gendered roles had a part to play in anything, attraction is different to forcing gender roles on people. There can be a big person attracted to a slimmer person, and that does not mean to say that the bigger person is the dominant one in the relationship either, nor does it say that the bigger person likes slimmer people because that's how it's reflected in a generalised heterosexual relationship.

I wasn't implying that size was always the issue, I was merely using that as an example that I've noticed via the relatively small amount of gay porn I've seen while walking through the Castro in SF. I could very well be wrong on that point, but you can't honestly be arguing that gay porn is completely non-exploitative and should be free of the criticism we give to straight porn, are you?

And maybe your experience has been different, but I have yet to meet a gay couple that didn't fall into the same sort of dominant/submissive structure. I always see one that demonstrates more "feminine" characteristics and is more submissive and another more "masculine" and is usually more dominant, with gay men and with lesbians. This isn't really the point of this thread though.

[progressive_lefty]

Generally I find I can't watch most porn, because the guys are usually uptight and get off by saying things like , 'say that your a dirty slut' or 'your a fucking dirty slut arent you'....


What I meant was, these guys say it in a very negative context with a tone of misogyny and with the girl quite unwilling to say it. I think for most young women who enter porn, they view it as a way of getting some much-need cash, but also as a way of being appreciated as being beautiful, not in a way that they like guys making personal/offensive attacks on them.
The worst example of porn sites being Meatholes, is apparently not actually all that popular. I saw a poll on one site that actually showed most guys don't like watching a girl insulted and humiliated before sex, and are not fans of Meatholes production. When I say insulted and humiliated, I mean the real thing, not some stupid little acting performance.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

it turns women into an object for sexual fantasizing and is detrimental to women in the workforce who become the living objects for fantasizing. Pornography is the epitome of capitalist exploitation, women are payed to reveal their bodies for money and become a tool for sexual exploitation in the minds of the consumers of pornography


Ever heard of amateur porn?

[h0m0revolutionary]

And maybe your experience has been different, but I have yet to meet a gay couple that didn't fall into the same sort of dominant/submissive structure. I always see one that demonstrates more "feminine" characteristics and is more submissive and another more "masculine" and is usually more dominant, with gay men and with lesbians. This isn't really the point of this thread though.

That's utter nonsense and im sure you know it is.

You can't possibly generalise from the, persumeably, very few gay couples you know. Homosexuality has nothing to do with the binaries of domiance. Up to 1/3 of homosexual males for example never indulge in any form of penetration at all and are content in doing that. Not that penetration is an expression of dominance, but it can be.

I like how you "quote" the words 'masculine' and 'feminine' as if that somehow legitimises their use, it dosn't, in any homosexual relationship (or those involving trans, pans, intersex etc) there is no issue of such steriotyping. In any heterosexual relationship you may well find that one partner makes more decisions, does more chores, is more dominant during sex - is this a 'masculine' trait?

[Kassad]

What about guy-on-guy porn? Is that discriminatory towards men? Kassad lives to shatter your sanctuaries of ignorance!

I think pornography, at least that which serves the patriarchal society, can be discriminatory because it forces woman to subject themselves to sexual acts just to make ends meet. It is in the same field as prostitution. Society does not provide for its citizens, as a workers democracy does not properly maintain resources for the people. Women, forced to compete in a sexist society, are forced to subject themselves to maintain proper living standards. It is tragic, indeed.

Of course, that is under the bourgeois standards. In a socialist or communist society, women would not be subjected because they need to survive, as workers are united and everyone receives their necessities. If they choose to be in pornographic films, maganizes or websites, that's their choice. I think we shouldn't focus on pornography under capitalism and say 'hey, this is discriminatory', but instead, remember that this is another symptom of the capitalist disease that forces people to do irrational things to survive. It's another argument against capitalism, in truth, but pornography is not inherently discriminatory.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What about guy-on-guy porn? Is that discriminatory towards men? Kassad lives to shatter your sanctuaries of ignorance!

I think pornography, at least that which serves the patriarchal society, can be discriminatory because it forces woman to subject themselves to sexual acts just to make ends meet. It is in the same field as prostitution. Society does not provide for its citizens, as a workers democracy does not properly maintain resources for the people. Women, forced to compete in a sexist society, are forced to subject themselves to maintain proper living standards. It is tragic, indeed.

Of course, that is under the bourgeois standards. In a socialist or communist society, women would not be subjected because they need to survive, as workers are united and everyone receives their necessities. If they choose to be in pornographic films, maganizes or websites, that's their choice. I think we shouldn't focus on pornography under capitalism and say 'hey, this is discriminatory', but instead, remember that this is another symptom of the capitalist disease that forces people to do irrational things to survive. It's another argument against capitalism, in truth, but pornography is not inherently discriminatory.

Exactly my feeling comrade. In it's current form, in this Capitalist society I completely reject. That's not to say in a non-exploitative and non-competitive society that I would be against pornography

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

That's utter nonsense and im sure you know it is.

You can't possibly generalise from the, persumeably, very few gay couples you know. Homosexuality has nothing to do with the binaries of domiance. Up to 1/3 of homosexual males for example never indulge in any form of penetration at all and are content in doing that. Not that penetration is an expression of dominance, but it can be.

I like how you "quote" the words 'masculine' and 'feminine' as if that somehow legitimises their use, it dosn't, in any homosexual relationship (or those involving trans, pans, intersex etc) there is no issue of such steriotyping. In any heterosexual relationship you may well find that one partner makes more decisions, does more chores, is more dominant during sex - is this a 'masculine' trait?

And yet you possibly generalize from the, presumably, very few gay couples you know that it has nothing to do with the binaries of dominance. How convenient. I live in the second "gayest" neighborhood of the gay capital of the world homie, I wouldn't doubt the chance that I know more homosexual people than you.

I'm not saying that homosexual couples are more dom/sub, I just said that they suffer from the same social ills as heterosexual relationships due to the effect of capitalism. Your penetration point is moot, that's like saying "I've never hit my girlfriend, therefore I'm not in an abusive relationship." It completely negates all other possible manifestations of abuse, and in your case, dominance. I didn't say that there aren't gay couples that are egalitarian, all I said was that I haven't met any, which is consistent with the fact that I can count on one hand how many completely egalitarian, non-sexist heterosexual couples I've met where predefined gender roles played absolutely no part (maybe 2). It seems like you're trying to idealize homosexual relationships as somehow superior to heterosexual relationships on the basis of... what? This is the problem with identity politics comrades. The unwillingness to see error in one's cultural, religious, ethnic, racial, sexual, etc. modus operandi. Fuck man, I feel like I'm making a critique of the Aztec Empire to a Brown Beret. Come on kids, objectivity and self-criticism!!!

Quoting the words was meant to denote traits that are generally perceived as masculine or feminine. Yes, making more decisions and being more dominant during sex are perceived to be more masculine traits, doing chores and being more emotional are perceived as being more feminine. If you can't acknowledge the social context of these terms then you are blind. I wasn't saying that "feminine" traits actually are feminine traits, that's why I put them in quotes to begin with, to demonstrate their social construct.

I know you're trying to find one word that I'm saying to take out of context and call me a homophobe or a sexist, but maybe, if you spent more time reflecting on the corrupting effect of capitalism on issues of sex and gender and less time trying to pounce on any mistake I make, we'd understand each other better.

[h0m0revolutionary]

And yet you possibly generalize from the, presumably, very few gay couples you know that it has nothing to do with the binaries of dominance.
.

I'm not trying to call you a homophobe, i'm just saying you're wrong to suggest that in gay relationships there is someone "feminine" and someone "masculine". That assertion is homophobic and wrong.

The point of homosexuality isn't to replicate heterosexual relationships.

You're point is completely stupid anwyays, it dosn't even stand for heterosexual partners, are you seriously suggesting someone is oppressed in all relationships, that one is always submissive?

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I'm not trying to call you a homophobe, i'm just saying you're wrong to suggest that in gay relationships there is someone "feminine" and someone "masculine". That assertion is homophobic and wrong.

The point of homosexuality isn't to replicate heterosexual relationships.

You're point is completely stupid anwyays, it dosn't even stand for heterosexual partners, are you seriously suggesting someone is oppressed in all relationships, that one is always submissive?

LMAO! You just said you're not trying to call me a homophobe, then you immediately follow by saying that my assertion is homophobic. Wow. Pray tell, what is homophobic about my statement? Is it asserting that homosexual relationships are inferior? Is it asserting that homosexuality is wrong? Is it showing that I am afraid of homosexuality? That I have a prejudice toward it? Can you honestly answer "yes" to any of those? Nooooo. That pretty much covers all the manifestations of "homophobia". No, h0m0revolutionary, I'm not going to treat gay relationships as special and unique in , according to you, their perfect egalitarianism, and if that makes me homophobic according to your skewed definition then fine. All I'm saying here is that gay and lesbian couples have the same strengths and weaknesses as straight couples, I really don't understand why you're so up in arms about it.

Notice how in my post I didn't use dom/sub to refer to all intimate relations. What I said was that I only know like one or two straight couples that don't have any kind of adherence to traditional gender roles or ingrained sexism in their relationship, and that this takes a form as well in gay relationships where someone assumes the traditionally male roles and somebody the female. This occurs to a greater or lesser extent, but the vestiges of capitalism exist in any intimate relationship. That doesn't mean that one is necessarily dominant or submissive, but sometimes people just fall naturally into expected roles without realizing. I wasn't even suggesting that somebody was oppressed in all homosexual or heterosexual relationships... All I'm saying on this is that many people will automatically fall into the roles of their predetermined gender, one masculine and one feminine, and that homosexual relationships, being as they exist in a majority heterosexual society surrounded by heterosexual culture, also fall victim to these same shortcomings as they are imposed upon them by the superstructure.

[Nulono]

I would like to point out that men participate in pornography as well. Pornography is a perfectly legitimate occupation as long as it is freely chosen, just like people have the right to pose for any other artform. Not only this, but pornography, particularly the drawn variety, can serve as a release for stress or sexual frustration, especially for those whose sexual fantasies would be illegal if acted out IRL. Pornography serves an important social function, on top of the fact that restricting it would encroach upon freedom of employment AND freedom of expression.

[Sean]

I'm not trying to call you a homophobe, i'm just saying you're wrong to suggest that in gay relationships there is someone "feminine" and someone "masculine". That assertion is homophobic and wrong.
Someone's misconception about homosexuality isn't automatically homophobic. I'd suggest that you don't bandy serious charges of homophobia around just to score a point on the internet - even if you bizarrely claim that you aren't doing so in the previous sentance! It may just suggest that chicorazon is naive about sex.

[Eva]

I am a woman and for porn.

Pornography has been experiencing a transformation throughout the past couple of decades. A medium that was once dominated by cliche and marketable stereotypes of what it is to be sexually attractive (brazilian waxes, epic boob jobs, stilettos, and long blond hair) has been morphing into a much more natural and diverse environment; mostly in response to popular demand. Men and women from all walks of life lend their bodies, in a sex-positive manner, to pornographic endeavors (both classy and trashy): nerds, political activists, plus sized, gay, straight, transgendered, etc. A significant number of the websites available today advice and educational forums, tight communities, a progressive perspective on sexual exploration.

Naked bodies are beautiful and something to be celebrated, sex is awesome, and masturbation is healthy. It is also important to point out that pornography is not always for profit. Men are women enjoy a certain degree of exhibitionism and objectification in their lives. From the beginning of time, men and women have decorated their bodies in an attempt to be aesthetically pleasing to the opposite sex. Some people are into kinky sex. The human mind is very complex.

Other factors I would like to mention: the porn industry is one of the few industries in which women make drastically more money than men. The idea that the decision to so porn is simply a result of exploitation ignores the degree to which people can make this an active choice.

I think pornography is a left issue is the sense that, ideally, there should be no money involved; and also because it is important for us to discuss it in the context of diversity and social acceptance.

[Chambered Word]

I honestly don't see what's so wrong with pornography, and I always laugh bitterly when I see some funny Christians on YouTube crying about how pornography supposedly destroys businesses, breaks up families and razes towns to the ground. The only thing they do that makes me crack up more is watching them hold up 'OH NOES SOCIALISMS' signs, or watch them try to disprove evolution 'easily' with a jar of peanut paste (I'm serious, look up 'peanut butter the atheist's worst enemy' on YouTube, you will rage so hard).

In sex ed classes (I live in Perth, Australia so you all know) we were told about how pornography is not a real representation of women or love, and that women are being made to pay the price every time someone thinks it is. Porn actresses are often considered to be at the bottom of society but hey, if we take it away all the partygirls who failed school will be out of jobs. Anyway, I like porn and so do many others.

If feminists don't like the way women are represented in pornography, we should take down advertising of soft porn in open areas (seriously, I'm all for that. We have Zoo magazine ads right where kids can see them. I'm 14 myself and I really don't approve of that). But I really think feminists are making a big deal out of nothing, everyone knows porn actresses are not your average female, I'd be alot more worried about women represented in suggestive advertising and in movies. Alot.

[Agrippa]

πορνογραφία (pornographia)

from πόρνη ("prostitutes") and γράφω (graphics)

Thus, pornography is the graphic depiction of prostitution.

Thus, pornography will not exist in a communist society, because there will be no wage labor and thus no prostitution.

I've read all ten pages of this argument and to me it is disturbing how many people have left their assumptions unchecked.

For example:

"It's a personal choice!" - How is something that involves mass-production a personal choice?

"It's just getting off to images of sexuality! That's natural!" - Is it really natural to be staring at a television or computer screen, slumped over at a computer chair, jacking off, paying attention to what's going on on-screen instead of paying attention to your body?

"After the revolution people will be able to make whatever erotic art they want!" - Yes, but if adolescents, who are naturally curious about human sexuality, are still getting the majority of their information on human sexuality from aesthetic depictions of sex that give them the wrong impression of what healthy human sexuality consists of, in my mind, that's still a threat to society. Let's say, in this theoretically communist society, a "gang-bang" video is produced of the same nature that can be found on any porn website. Even if there was no economic exploitation involved in the production of the video, it could still imprint on the psyches of young people who watch it, masturbate to it, and develop their budding sexuality around to it. Human sexuality is not entirely innate, there's an environmental element to it. People's sexual appetitutes are partly effected by the sexual imagery they're exposed to, especially at a young age. As someone else has said, buried in this ten pages of arguments, capitalist relations not only negatively effect the producer but the consumer as well, which is something being totally ignored in this argument.

"But now the majority of porn is ameteur/home-made!" - Even if that were true, it's irrelevant. We're entering a new stage of capitalism in which consumer-created mass-entertianment is being made more available. This is not "progress" towards a more libertarian or decentralized society but merely the reaction of the capitalist system to the crisis of mass-ennui, disillusonment with, and disinterest in traditional capitalist mass-entertainment. User-created mass-entertainment is still dependent on the capitalist economy (server space, ad space, etc.) especially when the vast majority of people have been thoroughly brainwashed into having capitalist values. A home-made YouTube video detailing various pieces of pointless celebrity gossip is still a capitalist commodity, created by the false "need" of capitalist consumerism, that reinforces capitalist values, and makes the ruling class profit. It's not a matter of "banning" YouTube celebrity gossip after "the revolution" because "the revolution" would involve a vast, radical shift in cultural values which would render YouTube celebrity gossip as utterly harmless....


The well-being of the workers themselves is paramount and we should encourage consciousness and organization among sex workers on their own terms, and support their continued empowerment and struggles for reforms to improve their working conditions (like through mandatory measures to prevent STD spread or prevent discrimination)

It might be useful for us to compare the situation to "traditional" labor struggles. On the one hand there are organizers who make specific demands - reforms that will aleviate the material condition of the workers, but will ultimately keep the exploitative social relationship unchanged. (wage increases, holidays, child labor laws, etc.) On the otherhand, there are organizers who only seek to disrupt normal economic production via wildcat strikes, sabotage, etc. To the latter group, workplace organizing is only a means to undermining the exploitative social relationship.

This applies, in theory, also to the sex industry, although in practice I am unfamiliar with any historical precedent. Workplace organizing that obtains valuable reform (such as STD-prevention in the case of sex work) aleviates peoples' suffering and does not inherently impede the other, more disruptive (from the capitalists' perspective!) form of workplace organization, however the latter should be the primary focus of communists.

In short, sex workers self-organize to destroy the porn industry via collective self-determination

[progressive_lefty]

I honestly don't see what's so wrong with pornography, and I always laugh bitterly when I see some funny Christians on YouTube crying about how pornography supposedly destroys businesses, breaks up families and razes towns to the ground. The only thing they do that makes me crack up more is watching them hold up 'OH NOES SOCIALISMS' signs, or watch them try to disprove evolution 'easily' with a jar of peanut paste (I'm serious, look up 'peanut butter the atheist's worst enemy' on YouTube, you will rage so hard).

In sex ed classes (I live in Perth, Australia so you all know) we were told about how pornography is not a real representation of women or love, and that women are being made to pay the price every time someone thinks it is. Porn actresses are often considered to be at the bottom of society but hey, if we take it away all the partygirls who failed school will be out of jobs. Anyway, I like porn and so do many others.

If feminists don't like the way women are represented in pornography, we should take down advertising of soft porn in open areas (seriously, I'm all for that. We have Zoo magazine ads right where kids can see them. I'm 14 myself and I really don't approve of that). But I really think feminists are making a big deal out of nothing, everyone knows porn actresses are not your average female, I'd be alot more worried about women represented in suggestive advertising and in movies. Alot.

But given the wide-use of porn, and the almost de-regulated aspect of it today, I think porn is a very different thing from what it was in the 70s or 80s. The kinds of things you see in porn movies these days, you would have never have seen 20 years ago.
A popular theme of porn movies these days, is to denigrate women, show a guy very roughly fucking a girl, and then kicking her out the door or something stupid of the like. Now, we all know this is just part of the 'storyline' as most on here would argue, but I think its pathetic to make it alright to treat women like that on screen but discourage it in real life. There have been several studies which have shown that men are making their girlfriends and wives do what they have seen in porn films.
Am I arguing for christian-styled censorship? No. I believe that censorship has its place, and a de-regulated porn industry is bad for everyone, including men.

[Eva]

To answer your questions, Agrippa:

a) To participate in pornography does not equal prostitution. Pornography is anything that entails the graphic depiction of erotic behavior.

b) Erotic materials may be created for the sole purpose of causing sexual excitement, as something to be shared at the author's discretion, and not intended for profit.

c) In a communist society the graphic depiction of erotic behavior would remain.

d) The use of technology (email, texting, blogging) as a medium for the dissemination of pornography does not make the contents any less natural; just like reading it from an old dusty book or a letter from a partner does not make it any less veritable.

e) In a communist society, adolescents would not be getting the majority of their information on human sexuality from pornography because such a society would be stripped from regressive taboos, and open for dialog and exploration. Teenagers would experience their sexuality without the artificial boundaries of capitalism.

f) The subject matter of pornography would be up to the author to decide. Pornography would not be an industry but rather an medium for self expression.

[Glenn Beck]

Let's say, in this theoretically communist society, a "gang-bang" video is produced of the same nature that can be found on any porn website. Even if there was no economic exploitation involved in the production of the video, it could still imprint on the psyches of young people who watch it, masturbate to it, and develop their budding sexuality around to it.


There have been several studies which have shown that men are making their girlfriends and wives do what they have seen in porn films.

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having more fun than you are.

[communard resolution]

the wrong impression of what healthy human sexuality consists of [...] a threat to society.

These words alone are enough to make me run for the hills.

[communard resolution]

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having more fun than you are.

Essentialism: the audacity to assume you know what's natural, healthy or good for all people.

[progressive_lefty]

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having more fun than you are.

How is this relevant to the discussion?

Is anyone else worried about the racial stereotypes in porn? black men, asian women, african women...

[Agrippa]

To answer your questions, Agrippa:

a) To participate in pornography does not equal prostitution. Pornography is anything that entails the graphic depiction of erotic behavior.

We're arguing over definitions. Different dictionaries define words in different ways. I'm choosing to define "pornography" in a way that makes sense to me based on the etymology, and in a way that's useful to me in separating what is free, healthy erotic expression and what is a harmful product of capitalism.


b) Erotic materials may be created for the sole purpose of causing sexual excitement, as something to be shared at the author's discretion, and not intended for profit.

Oh yes, I agree. Hence why I did not define pornography as "any depiction of erotic acts that has no artistic purpose and only serves to sexually excite". (a common dictionary definition of pornography) Is there going to be a Party or Council that analyzes every piece of erotic art for artistic merit? That would be totalitarianism.

What I'm opposed to is pornography as in erotic imagery that people were paid to produce, and that were created to sell for a profit. Not simply because it exploits those involved (it doesn't always) but because it leads to a situation where economic factors dictate and manipulate people's sexual desires...


d) The use of technology (email, texting, blogging) as a medium for the dissemination of pornography does not make the contents any less natural; just like reading it from an old dusty book or a letter from a partner does not make it any less veritable.

I would argue that point. A letter from a partner does not require modes of production invented by the bourgeoisie, whereas computers and the Internet do.

[Agrippa]

These words alone are enough to make me run for the hills.

So, you're saying, it's not a problem when capitalist mass-media dictates standards of female (or male) beauty, especially when they're so unrealistic that you have women starving themselves, mutilating their faces, injecting themselves with botulism toxin, giving themselves breast implant surgeries that destroy both the erotic nerve-endings in their nipples and any future capability of lactation, and "having their legs cut and lengthened with metal rods" (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1049080715586_16/?hub=CTVNewsAt11)?

You're saying it's not a problem when the first image of human sexuality a 10-year-old or 9-year-old child sees is a simulated rape scene in which five men gang-fuck a woman in a bathroom while holding her head down in a toilet and saying "take it, *****", and ejaculate all over her face at the end? (A piece of pornography I've seen) Or a middle-aged man coercing his teenager daughter into sleeping with him? (A piece of pornography I've seen) Or a simulated rape scene in which a gang of men rape an (alleged) teenage version, bragging and gloating as they do so about the unplanned pregnancy that will result? (Also a piece of pornography I've seen) Or a woman sucking a horse's cock? (Also a piece of pornography I've seen)

Considering forms of media such as film have existed for mere centuries, we still have no idea what effect they have on the human psyche especially a developing human psyche. I believe it was the Boston Strangler who was very strongly influenced by an Alfred Hitchcock film he saw in which a woman was strangled and raped. Obviously the Boston Strangler also likely had a really fucked up, emotionally un-supportive, sexually repressed upringing, but it all comes with the same territory.

I'm actually not advocating sexual prudishness in any way, shape, or form. If I made the argument that someone who only gets their news from the Washington Post, and believes every word written in the Washington post, is miseducating themselves, would you accuse me of being anti-newspaper? How is it any different than the porn industry as a way of miseducating people....

[Il Medico]

Many feminists argue that pornography is a left issue. It is exploitive of women and sends out the wrong ideas about sex. Is the first claim true? I mean we all sell ourselves in order to make a buck, why should porn get more attention, is it worse than regular employment? In a post-capitalist world, when wage labor has been abolished, would porn still be a left issue?.
I don't see how is exploitative of women. Both men and women participate. People have sex, in weird ways sometimes, porn is a video of it. I see nothing wrong with it.

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

I voted "It depends," because this is actually a complex issue. I don't think anyone of any political color (except maybe fascists) would argue in favor of people being forced to perform sex on film. But the idea of people have sex, voluntarily, on film, I think the Left should defend this. I'm referring to the act in itself. Now, the industry is pretty loathsome, and a leftist could certainly make an argument about profiting from the industry.

But let us assume my partner and I want to film our sex acts: is there a problem with this? I do not see it as a problem. What if I want to give it to others to watch? Again, I think something like this should be defended by the Left.

Now, extant porn is pretty objectifying of women; the Left should take issue with objectifying women. And if a woman feels so hopeless in capitalist society that she feels pushed into selling her body, whether on video or not, well, that's terrible. And if you watch current porn, it certainly sort of subordinates women through symbolism, e.g., the woman is always on her knees, the man almost always ejaculates on her face, etc. If this was equal opportunity, then it would be one thing. For example, if a woman peed on a man's face after a sexual encounter just as often as a man ejaculated in a woman's face, then we might say that the genders are equally degraded. But this is not the case.

And I'm not criticizing this action if both parties like it, but as I mentioned, it symbolically subordinates the woman to the man who is not covered in bodily fluid at the end of over 90 percent of encounters. So, it certainly depends if this is a "left" issue.

[Agrippa]

I don't see how is exploitative of women. Both men and women participate. People have sex, in weird ways sometimes, porn is a video of it. I see nothing wrong with it.

Because they have to do it to earn a wage. (Sometimes they are just directly physically forced to do it, especially in pornography made in Eastern Europe, continental Asia, Africa, Latin America, etc.)

"People have sex, in weird ways sometimes" because those people are weird and they enjoy sex. That's totally different from getting paid to star in a porn film, and to say otherwise is to ignore the obvious reality of the situation.

You might as well say "I don't see what the big deal is about factories! Some people like to stand at an assembly line performing menial labor for hours on end!"

[Eva]

Aggrippa,

a) There is no much a thing as two different words to separate what is "free and healthy sexual expression" to "what is a harmful product of capitalism", if they are in print, these two fall under pornography. Additionally, distinctions between "low brow" and "high brow" are bourgeois and hence would not exist.
b) Under a communist society, economic factors would not manipulate people's sexual desires. You would be free to participate at your discretion.
c) Erotic materials do not need to have any artistic merit, would not be measured by such, and would not be censored by anyone.
c) A letter or a book also require "modes of production invented by the bourgeois". This is absolutely irrelevant.

[Eva]

...a simulated rape scene in which five men gang-fuck a woman in a bathroom while holding her head down in a toilet and saying "take it, *****", and ejaculate all over her face at the end? (A piece of pornography I've seen) Or a middle-aged man coercing his teenager daughter into sleeping with him? (A piece of pornography I've seen) Or a simulated rape scene in which a gang of men rape an (alleged) teenage version, bragging and gloating as they do so about the unplanned pregnancy that will result? (Also a piece of pornography I've seen) Or a woman sucking a horse's cock? (Also a piece of pornography I've seen)



You might want to reconsider the kind of pornography you watch, Agrippa.

[Eva]

I'm actually not advocating sexual prudishness in any way, shape, or form. If I made the argument that someone who only gets their news from the Washington Post, and believes every word written in the Washington post, is miseducating themselves, would you accuse me of being anti-newspaper? How is it any different than the porn industry as a way of miseducating people....


It's fiction.

[Glenn Beck]

I would argue that point. A letter from a partner does not require modes of production invented by the bourgeoisie, whereas computers and the Internet do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen#History

Brb burning all products of bourgeois mad science in my house


So, you're saying, it's not a problem when capitalist mass-media dictates standards of female (or male) beauty, especially when they're so unrealistic that you have women starving themselves, mutilating their faces, injecting themselves with botulism toxin, giving themselves breast implant surgeries that destroy both the erotic nerve-endings in their nipples and any future capability of lactation, and "having their legs cut and lengthened with metal rods" (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1049080715586_16/?hub=CTVNewsAt11)?

Indeed it is a problem, but this is sensationalism, and its causes are far more complex than what you portray (in this case, as in the case of your previous post I don't care whether your actual opinion is more complex and sophisticated than what you put forth. It's your responsibility to express yourself in a clear, rational, and respectful manner, a responsibility you seem to be blissfully unaware of).

There are probably more 'natural' porn actress than Hollywood actresses. The values portrayed in porn (and porn is very light on these, overzealous interpretations aside) are far less prevalent and damaging than the values portrayed in mainstream more 'prude' portrayals of sexuality. One Hannah Montana kills millions more libidos than a thousand Max Hardcores. A quick look at the society around you will confirm that the majority of sexually maladjusted people got that way from factors far more widespread and fundamental than 'extreme' pornography, which may however provide with a more 'extreme' and satisfying emotive explanation. How many porno addicts do you know are rapists? Compare this to the amount of them that are lonely losers who live with their parents and are still virgins. Of course those that would ascribe all social sexual problems to pornography suffer a severe confirmation bias. Since practically everyone from certain demographics has seen some pornography and a large percentage see it somewhat regular its a tempting 'explanation' to ascribe all pathologies to the most visible and controversial factor.

This is of course, all irrelevant, as I'm arguing on your terms. Max Hardcore and Hannah Montana are symptoms of the disease that is making us ill, not the irritants themselves. I would tend to agree with you that the phenomenon we are all using the term 'pornography' to describe (a language convention you are unhelpfully using the grammar-nazi non-argument tactic of etymological pedantry to undermine) should not be produced for profit but rather for use value. Just like everything else. This is, after all, a revolutionary socialist forum, not a utopian capitalist forum, despite your bizarre need to equate the radical left with reformism whenever possible. As capitalism is undermined so is alienation, and once capitalism no longer exists alienation will wither like an uprooted weed.


You're saying it's not a problem when the first image of human sexuality a 10-year-old or 9-year-old child sees is a simulated rape scene in which five men gang-fuck a woman in a bathroom while holding her head down in a toilet and saying "take it, *****", and ejaculate all over her face at the end? (A piece of pornography I've seen) Or a middle-aged man coercing his teenager daughter into sleeping with him? (A piece of pornography I've seen) Or a simulated rape scene in which a gang of men rape an (alleged) teenage version, bragging and gloating as they do so about the unplanned pregnancy that will result? (Also a piece of pornography I've seen) Or a woman sucking a horse's cock? (Also a piece of pornography I've seen)

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that the root of this is your own sexual neurosis and trauma. As for the actual point you have buried in all the shocking and emotive imagery, it's been addressed above. It's not possible for the first image of human sexuality for a 10 year old child to see to be a gangbang porno because from the moment we are born we are in a human social universe that is sexual from top to bottom whether we like it or not. If such pornography is indeed incompatible with healthy sexuality and gender relations then a child raised in an environment of such healthy relations will probably see such a film in much the same way as we view something like 2 girls, 1 cup. In our capitalist and patriarchal society characterized by the puritan disavowal of the innately sexual nature of human life and relationships such a product is instead viewed with obscene fascination.


Considering forms of media such as film have existed for mere centuries, we still have no idea what effect they have on the human psyche especially a developing human psyche. I believe it was the Boston Strangler who was very strongly influenced by an Alfred Hitchcock film he saw in which a woman was strangled and raped. Obviously the Boston Strangler also likely had a really fucked up, emotionally un-supportive, sexually repressed upringing, but it all comes with the same territory.

Yes, the Boston Strangler and Alfred Hitchcock are both products of the same society. Does that make poor Al a rapist and murderer? Does that make both of us, being products of the same society now even more decadent and violent even worse rapists and murderers?


I'm actually not advocating sexual prudishness in any way, shape, or form.

Nevertheless, you are responsible for the impressions you give off. We are not obligated to see the complexity of your 'real' arguments and the inner brilliance of your beautiful soul as a unique and glorious individual, you have to show it to us, neatly packaged.



If I made the argument that someone who only gets their news from the Washington Post, and believes every word written in the Washington post, is miseducating themselves, would you accuse me of being anti-newspaper? How is it any different than the porn industry as a way of miseducating people....


No, you would not be, however you are ALSO the equivalent of anti-newspaper (or at least seeming to be given the information you have given us, see above) hence it's a moot point.

[Eva]

So, you're saying, it's not a problem when capitalist mass-media dictates standards of female (or male) beauty

...Sometimes they are just directly physically forced to do it, especially in pornography made in Eastern Europe, continental Asia, Africa, Latin America, etc.

No. I think everybody in the forum agrees with how harmful capitalist standards of beauty, economic exploitation, abuse, and depictions of racial stereotypes are; which is precisely why pornography is a left issue.

[Agrippa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen#History

Brb burning all products of bourgeois mad science in my house

Regardless of what effect capitalism had on the development of the printing press, the pencil, the pen, or paper, these are all devices that could, theoretically, be built from scratch by an artisan, using materials that could be grown or found on a small piece of territory.

This is different from a computer, which requires materials from seperate corners of the globe (including those buried deep within the ground) to be gathered together, which requires massive amounts of fuel (silica smelters, etc.) to produce, as well as a hyper-sterile environment, (in the creation of computer chips) etc.

What I'm not trying to do is argue the impossibility of a libertarian society to produce computers. However, producing a computer is a far more labor and resource intense proceedure than producing a pencil. People have been using writing impliments for thousands of years, so that's already part of the "natural" human experience whereas staring at a computer screen is a very new part of the human experience, and the full physiological or psychological consequences are unknown.

In short, I merely stated that implying that porn is something people have been doing for thousands of years ignores the fact that the capitalist mode of production has changed the way people view erotic graphics. For example, it is less difficult to observe important details in your own body (your heart rate, whether you're about to come, whether you're stroking hard enough or fast enough to damage your sensitivity) when you are jacking off to a cave drawing than when you are jacking off to multi-colored motion picture projected in a computer screen.


Indeed it is a problem, but this is sensationalism, and its causes are far more complex than what you portray

But porn still contributes to the problem. Remember this all stems from a comment I made about the consumer relationship being exploitative in the same way the producer relationship is exploitative. For example, food and hygenie products with toxins in them. Another example is the possible psychological consequences of having the majority of the erotic images one sees (or lusts over, masturbates to) being those that are produced by capitalist mass-media, especially if one has no other, more positive, or more inspirational examples of human sexuality. (As it the case with youth in capitalist society)


There are probably more 'natural' porn actress than Hollywood actresses.

That's likely true, but Hollywood films and television shows have hundred-million-dollar budgets to work with, and can thus afford to hire whomever they like. Porn tends to be more of a low-budget operation.


The values portrayed in porn (and porn is very light on these, overzealous interpretations aside) are far less prevalent and damaging than the values portrayed in mainstream more 'prude' portrayals of sexuality.

This is verging into "oppression olympics" territory. It would hardly be constructive or easy to objectively determine which sector of the entertainment industry (porn vs. "legitimate" entertainment) does more to promote damaging values in regards to human sexuality. Ultimately they are part of the same system, and are promoting the same values. In fact, I barely find it nessicary to make the distinction between the two....


One Hannah Montana kills millions more libidos than a thousand Max Hardcores.

I would classify Hannah Montana as "pornography". Even if Hannah Montana was not sexual in nature, (which it is) Miley Cyrus is still a prostitute (in the metaphorical sense) and millions of people are still paying money to consume mass-produced images of her. Cooking shows, for example, are virtually identical to pornography. Arguably, it's the same thing, only with a different biological drive. Thus, my criticism of pornography is thus not specifically related to the consumption of mass-produced images of sex but of a general spectacle-society in which people are more often passive observers than participants.


A quick look at the society around you will confirm that the majority of sexually maladjusted people got that way from factors far more widespread and fundamental than 'extreme' pornography

Yes, but virtually everyone looks at porn. (and that includes romance novels and what not) So why the factors are more widespread than just pornography, pornography is one of the cornerstones, just like capitalist newspapers, magazines, television shows, etc.


Thanks for confirming my suspicion that the root of this is your own sexual neurosis and trauma.

None of the pornographic films I mentioned were a source of trauma for me. I saw them all when I was an adult and thought they were merely silly and gross. (Elementary school is much more of a source of my personal neruosis and trauma)

But I could see how viewing them, especially repeatedly, could lead to trauma and neurosis, if done at an early age, especially within the context of our capitalist society in which the only "sex education" we get is a state-sponsored diatribe about the dangers of STDs and teen pregnacies.


How many porno addicts do you know are rapists? Compare this to the amount of them that are lonely losers who live with their parents and are still virgins.

I'm confused. "lonely losers who live with their parents and are still virgins" and "porno addicts" are mutually exclusive categories?


Of course those that would ascribe all social sexual problems to pornography

I would not be included among those. Ponrography is as much of a factor, as, say, state-produced sex-ed textbooks. (especially "abstainace only" programs) However, many youths spend hours viewing pornography, masturbating to it, etc. which is not something that can be said of state-produced sex ed textbooks. Again, it's not the only factor, but it's a significant factor.


I would tend to agree with you that the phenomenon we are all using the term 'pornography' to describe (a language convention you are unhelpfully using the grammar-nazi non-argument tactic of etymological pedantry to undermine) should not be produced for profit but rather for use value. Just like everything else.

erotic art produced for "use value" would be entirely different than capitalist porno, though....


your bizarre need to equate the radical left with reformism whenever possible.


It's not possible for the first image of human sexuality for a 10 year old child to see to be a gangbang porno because from the moment we are born we are in a human social universe that is sexual from top to bottom whether we like it or not.

from the moment we are born we are in a human social universe that shaped top to bottom by ethnic dynamics whether we like it or not. However, if a Goyish child, who has never met Jews or heard of Judaism, is shown Der Ewige Jude, they are still going to take it at face value unless an adult gives them an explaination of what they are seeing....Der Ewige Jude may be the symptom rather than the irritant of the social disease but that doesn't prevent the symptom from being harmful.

Furthermore, to argue that in certain situations it can be harmful for people to watch Der Ewige Jude does not mean that censoring, supressing, our outlawing it is the answer, especially when satire, ridicule, and heckling are much more effective weapons. Same with porn, however, this relates to the consumer's relationship to porn rather than the producer's, which is certainly more important in terms of fighting this or any other industry.


If such pornography is indeed incompatible with healthy sexuality and gender relations then a child raised in an environment of such healthy relations will probably see such a film in much the same way as we view something like 2 girls, 1 cup. In our capitalist and patriarchal society characterized by the puritan disavowal of the innately sexual nature of human life and relationships such a product is instead viewed with obscene fascination.

Hence why state-censorship is not a useful weapon against the porn industry, as was implied by my previous statements....


Yes, the Boston Strangler and Alfred Hitchcock are both products of the same society. Does that make poor Al a rapist and murderer?

He may have been, but not to my knowlege. But he was not a rapist and a murderer by the act of making his films, (which have more artistic value than the average piece of pornography, even if you only think of his films as clever pop-culture trash) no. I was merely pointing out that, especially for children, experiencing something on-screen can be as traumatic as experiencing it in real life. I wouldn't be surprised if a child witnessing a real rape and murder before his or her eyes would later develop a neurosis as a consequence. The same is true of mass-media.


Nevertheless, you are responsible for the impressions you give off.

If someone wants to try to debunk my arguments based on the "impressions" I "give off", they're free to go ahead, however, I'll go ahead and point out that their counter-arguments will probably fail in resonating with me, or anyone who happens to agree with me.


No, you would not be, however you are ALSO the equivalent of anti-newspaper (or at least seeming to be given the information you have given us, see above) hence it's a moot point.

No, I'm just arguing that in a communist society, newspapers would look nothing like the Washington Post. And newspapers that did look like the Washington Post wouldn't nessicarily be outlawed or censored, but they wouldn't nessicarily be tolerated or encouraged either. Certainly, no one would have to contribute to the production of Post-like newspapers if they didn't want to. Same goes for porn. If someone wants to jack off all day to donkey-dick porn, that's their freedom. I'm not working in the paper mill or the silica mine for them to do it, though. They can draw their own damn donkey-porn....

[MilitantAnarchist]

Porn is great.
You can say it 'degrades' women and your probibly right. But that means it degrades men as well, men getting paid alot less then women do.
But as adults, we have the choice to do what we want to do...
But whats wrong with sex? People who moan about porn just need to get laid and see how great sex is...
Sex sells everything in advertising, but that is the 'illusion' of sex, and not much is said about that... porn is just selling what it is, with no pretentions.
I have very few issues with porn.

[progressive_lefty]

Because they have to do it to earn a wage. (Sometimes they are just directly physically forced to do it, especially in pornography made in Eastern Europe, continental Asia, Africa, Latin America, etc.)

"People have sex, in weird ways sometimes" because those people are weird and they enjoy sex. That's totally different from getting paid to star in a porn film, and to say otherwise is to ignore the obvious reality of the situation.

You might as well say "I don't see what the big deal is about factories! Some people like to stand at an assembly line performing menial labor for hours on end!"

Another good post :thumbup1:

These are the things that make porn an issue for the left. I don't think you would find anyone on this site that has a problem with two people having sex and filming it. But I think you would struggle to find (well I hope anyway), people on this site that have no issue with rape-themed porn films, or websites like meatholes, or films with blatant racism.

[natacha]

In a post capitalist society I don't think porn won't exist. I think porn would be voluntary, in which case it might even become some sort of art orrrrr i guess just a hobby, like sex is!

I feel uncomforable with the way porn is accepted too readily now though, I feel dehumanised going in to a corner shop and buying a chocolate and then head level to a child is a picture of a woman on the front of a magazine with boobs that nobody has ever been born with . No wonder men feel it is acceptable to shout out of their van windows sexual abuse at me, they see it every day, it is digusting.

Being in the porn industry as an individual isn't isolated, it affects the perceptions of all women (and men).

[progressive_lefty]

There's interesting article over here (http://www.newpartisan.com/home/2004/05/09/tim-marchman-talks-to-mike-south.html) which talks about the current issues in porn, mostly related to the new misogyny genre based around sites like meatholes.

[TheFutureOfThePublic]

Ther is nothing wrong with it.Women that say its degrading to women are assholes coz ther is also men it them.So they only care that it is degrading for women which it isnt because it is voluntary

[Outinleftfield]

Many feminists argue that pornography is a left issue. It is exploitive of women and sends out the wrong ideas about sex. Is the first claim true? I mean we all sell ourselves in order to make a buck, why should porn get more attention, is it worse than regular employment? In a post-capitalist world, when wage labor has been abolished, would porn still be a left issue?

Personally, I don't have too much of a problem with it. No more than I do with other jobs.

I see it as a left issue but in a different way. Most moral opposition to pornography comes from bourgeois sexual values, that sex is a dirty, shameful thing in the first place. By breaking free of this bourgeois idea pornography can be liberating if it's not done due to economic coercion and it's not reflecting patriarchal values (i.e. non-commercial pornography).

I can understand the feminist argument against pornography, but it really doesn't apply to all pornography. It's degrading and exploitive for a woman (or a man) to do things they find disgusting or humiliating because of economic coercion, and the way pornography portrays the role of the woman does tend to enforce patriarchal values but this is the same in every portrayal because it reflects the dominant, bourgeois values which are subconsciously expressed in all commercial media. However, one thing people here condemning all pornography as degrading or exploitive to women are ignoring is the fact that pornography need not be commercial and not all pornography even includes women (for example, gay male pornography). That all pornography is degrading to women when pornography doesn't always have women is impossible. Not saying that commercial gay male pornography is not degrading or exploitive as it is for the same reasons that commercial pornograph with women in it is degrading and exploitive.

There is no reason for non-commerical pornography to be considered degrading or exploitive. All pornography means is visual representation of sexual acts for the purpose of providing the viewer with sexual pleasure. It does not have to involve money. There are a number of websites where people post free videos of themselves. And I'm sure there are probably more intimate exchanges too, such as people in a long distance relationship sending each other videos over the e-mail. Clearly these people are not being exploited or degraded or they wouldn't be doing it. Sexuality is a part of human nature people should NOT be ashamed of. And like other human activities some people might desire to share those activities with other people. Naturally some people feel like sharing their experiences with others or watching the experiences of others.

Of course since patriarchal values pervade our society a lot of noncommercial porn does show a woman being treated like an object, because the couple just acts it out that way, but people making non-commercial pornography need not do that. To say because objectification can happen with or without money makes all pornography bad is to say that about anything that can be viewed. A man can treat a woman like an object talking to her in public, but nobody says that videos of people talking in public are inherently degrading or exploitive.

In the end even when pornography does portray women as submissive or as objects it's the symptom, not the cause. If we lived in a matriarchal society where women were dominant most pornography would objectify men and they would be submissive to women. Fighting against pornography isn't going to get rid of the misogynistic, patriarchal values that determine how most of it is portrayed.

[brigadista]

Of course it is an issue for leftists in relation to the sex industry and debt slavery- many women entering into the sex industry from the developing world [sex workers also work in the porn industry]maybe trafficked or enter into contracts whereby they are given money by the bosses to travel to the west to enter into the sex industry and then have to pay the debt back at a massively inflated repayment eg equivalent of 7k spent to travel and set up in the west then have to repay 60k which means the bosses get a 24 hour worker with a debt to repay which is impossible to repay. This is the height of exploitation. Many south east asian women come to the west this way.. and they will also have to work on websites and in porn films with no choices as the bosses will have details of their families at home.

This also happens to women in their home countries- the "choice" to enter into the porn industry isnt often a choice as such for the reasons i have posted -

[yuon]

I love these sorts of threads. Some few people have already thoroughly destroyed any arguments that think that porn is bad (by which I mean, from a "left" or "socialist" perspective), and yet people still insist on discussing it. The fact that not all porn is for heterosexual men, and that some is by and for lesbian women, gay men, and heterosexual women (not to mention bisexuals etc.) and that porn not involving, or targeted at women can not degrade women (any more than a book, or clothing) has been mentioned more times than I can be bothered counting, and yet people still raise this "issue".

This thread goes on and on, porn is no more and no less a "left issue" than other forms of art and entertainment. End of story, and unless you are arguing from a non-socialist (rationalist) basis, you should agree.

[Agrippa]

I love these sorts of threads. Some few people have already thoroughly destroyed any arguments that think that porn is bad (by which I mean, from a "left" or "socialist" perspective), and yet people still insist on discussing it. The fact that not all porn is for heterosexual men, and that some is by and for lesbian women, gay men, and heterosexual women (not to mention bisexuals etc.) and that porn not involving, or targeted at women can not degrade women (any more than a book, or clothing) has been mentioned more times than I can be bothered counting, and yet people still raise this "issue".

This thread goes on and on, porn is no more and no less a "left issue" than other forms of art and entertainment. End of story, and unless you are arguing from a non-socialist (rationalist) basis, you should agree.

But the issue is that different people have different definitions of pornography.

"Pornographic" has a colloquial definition, which rougly means anything erotic or anything that shows the nude human form, especially in an erotic way. However, in my mind this is not technically correct, and the popularity of this colloquial definition even among quasi-intellectual circles such as this one has only served to sow confused and degrade the usefulness of terminology.

Half of the word "pornography" is the Greek word for "prostitute". With that in mind, the word pornography has always had a connotation of patriarchal wage-exploitation and commodification. Thus, to refer to erotic art produced in a communist society as "pornography" is, in my mind, the same thing as referring to a militia in a communist society as a "police department".

[yuon]

But the issue is that different people have different definitions of pornography.

"Pornographic" has a colloquial definition, which rougly means anything erotic or anything that shows the nude human form, especially in an erotic way. However, in my mind this is not technically correct, and the popularity of this colloquial definition even among quasi-intellectual circles such as this one has only served to sow confused and degrade the usefulness of terminology.

Half of the word "pornography" is the Greek word for "prostitute". With that in mind, the word pornography has always had a connotation of patriarchal wage-exploitation and commodification. Thus, to refer to erotic art produced in a communist society as "pornography" is, in my mind, the same thing as referring to a militia in a communist society as a "police department".
Do you have a moral or ethical objection to persons having sex with other persons for money? (Assume a capitalist framework, where renting out labour is acceptable, in a communist society it just wouldn't happen.)

If we define pornography simply as “erotic images, movies etc. designed to stimulate sexual desire”, do you have a problem with it? Is it problematic in a “communist” society? Is it problematic now?
What if it is produced (now, in our current society) for free, by friends for friends and shared freely? Is that then pornography by your definition (no wage-exploitation and commodification took place)?

Do you recognize that porn (and/or other erotic art/entertainment) produced by, and for, lesbian women, without any men involved, cannot be patriarchal, even if done for a wage?

[Agrippa]

Do you have a moral or ethical objection to persons having sex with other persons for money?

I have a moral and ethical objection to all forms of alienated labor, especially wage labor, which includes prostitution. However, the ones ethically culpable are the pimps and the johns. The prostitutes themselves have just selected one of many legitimate ways to make a living in this hellish society.


Assume a capitalist framework, where renting out labour is acceptable

So you're asking me what my opinion would be if I was a capitalist? I don't think prostitution is any more "unacceptable" than any other form of "renting out labor".


If we define pornography simply as “erotic images, movies etc. designed to stimulate sexual desire”, do you have a problem with it?

Not necessarily, but I view that definition as incorrect.


Is it problematic in a “communist” society?

A communist society will put more emphasis on aesthetic merit, so I doubt it.


Is it problematic now?

Yes, I'd say so.


What if it is produced (now, in our current society) for free, by friends for friends and shared freely?

YouTube videos are produced for free, by friends for friends, and shared freely. YouTube videos, however, are still capitalist commodities, and their contents were not created in a social vacuum


Is that then pornography by your definition (no wage-exploitation and commodification took place)?

Not necessarily, but it could easily be used as pornography (ie: sold) and it likely still has the water-marks of pornography.


Do you recognize that porn (and/or other erotic art/entertainment) produced by, and for, lesbian women, without any men involved, cannot be patriarchal, even if done for a wage?

Women have positions of political and economic power in patriarchal society. Women in patriarchal societies also can behave in a patriarchal way or perpetuate patriarchy. Sexual abuse is typically described as a characteristic of patriarchal society, and female prison-guards and prisoners commit sexual abuse all the time.

[Zurdito]

everyone is exploited under capitalism but selling your body is about as bad as exploitation gets, and in a male dominated society this means abuse of women and the turning of the female body into a commodity. I would say it is a left-issue, because even within capitalist exploitation, some practices are especially degrading and backwards.

[Stand Your Ground]

I agree that porn is wrong but it doesn't necessarily mean it's a left issue.

[JJM 777]

I think that nude and sexual art would exist in Socialism, because so many people enjoy it so much. But probably the persons would wear face masks to hide their identity, to avoid any negative social impact from working in the industry. Which is great fun for some, not every sex worker hates his or her job.

[Jazzratt]

I think that nude and sexual art would exist in Socialism, because so many people enjoy it so much. But probably the persons would wear face masks to hide their identity, to avoid any negative social impact from working in the industry. Which is great fun for some, not every sex worker hates his or her job.

The image of porn with people wearing masks is...disturbing to say the least. I dunno, it would look very creepy to me. Perhaps we should makes sure that there isn't a negative social impact attatched to being in erotic art so the masks (*shudder*) are not necessary.

[JJM 777]

Masks are not a moral problem, just please not the Hannibal Lecter style.

Being unmasked and recognized in erotic products is a moral problem, because:
- In most cases the photo model is not a nudist, and the only reason why she/he agrees to public nudity is that she/he desperately needs the money that is paid for doing it. So the fact that any person is unmasked in sex products is usually a direct result of economical oppression.
- The photos cannot be cancelled once they have been published. In many cases the models of sex industry later regret what they did some years ago, but it is impossible to repair the social stigma.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Porn: where dollar meets bang.