The Politics Of Pornography

though i was annoyed by it as well. i can't explain why but it feels as though it's very complex. surely people who get off on that kind of thing don't actually want *sex*, they want something else?

and don't anyone say "a wank". i know what you're all like :)

we might as well just change the name of america to "NO FAT CHICKS" and get it over with.

What are you guys doing? Do you really not care, or not realise? I'm not being inhuman and saying 'don't be aroused by pornography'. It's not possible. But can't you just openly say, 'the way porn is presented is cruel and I don't like it?'

These things seem so obvious to me, I find it difficult to even say them. There are less obvious things about pornography that interest me more. In the early 70s in America, the turnover of the porn industry was about 7 mil dollars a year; now it's about 7 billion dollars a year. Pornography obviously influences the way we express ourselves sexually. Women and men copy the things they see. Secondly, the expansion of the porn industry coincided with the rise of feminism. Feminism seems to have had the side effect of turning women into sexual idiots without recourse to any protection, into drones the majority of whom will raise children by themselves and live around the poverty line. Women still have to please men, just in case they can get someone to help out with the kids; hence their 'swallowing' of the porn industry, I suspect. I guess it's fortunate that there are many men who are just too brave and nice to abuse the position they are in.

First captialists owning our means of production is the same whether that is your 36DD tits or your computer. It is about the exploitation of the working classes

Second is depicting sexual acts automatically wrong. If so why ? Is writing about it , or drawing it or sculpting it out of butter more acceptable because it does not involve useing humans. Is their a difference between Mapplethorpe and Bruce la Bruce then ?

I'm not asking these questions to attack, honestly, because the issues around porn worry and interest me, and do so probably more acutely because yes I am aroused by some of it. And the qn of how a couple that enjoys porn can fit it into their relationship non- exploitatively is, um, urgent and key for me. But I think the problem with so many questions about gender (see: any gender-based thread on this board) is that like classical economics and marxism and music taste the assumptions and ideas which make sense on a structural, mass level do so much less (or rather are of much less use) on an individual/everyday level. What is worse - being objectified at a physical level or a politcal one?

I am not saying women have no sexual desire. They do, and I guess that cos I was raised in a strange environment with a beyond radically feminist mother screaming at me in a drunken rage 'swear you will never get married! don't let me catch you cooking!' and never had any problems with 'discovering my sexuality' it all just seems so boring to me and I can't believe for a second that people can't just see STRAIGHT THROUGH ALL THIS CRAP. Not only that, but personally, like most girls probably, I've been on the receiving end of ridiculous and brutal abuse from boys produced through a vector of pornography. Do you really think you're doing something for the sexual liberation of women by paying money to buy 'Loaded' or Playboy or whatever real porn mags are called? Because that's what you imply when you claim that pornography is about sex!! But I give up. I can't believe I even tried to address the issue of feminism in that post, I barely even understand it and what I wrote was stupid and confusing. But where are the other fucking girls?

My friend told me that when she was at Catholic intermediate school, the male teacher kept touching all the girls, so they got together and one day at the end of school, they put their chairs up onto their desks and stood behind them with their arms folded and didn't leave, and one exceptionally brave girl walked up to the front of the class and said to the teacher that they didn't like what he was doing, and he had to stop. And he did stop.

Girls do you get it? You don't have to put up with boys telling you that you ought to have big tits, or be skinny, or whatever, you don't have to! You don't have to look at pictures of naked women every time you go into the service station or the dairy or anywhere they have magazines! You can say you don't like it, and you can stop it, once you say it's bullshit! What's the worst that could happen? Like people think you're too 'serious' like they might think about me, or think you're uptight, or what? Big deal! Think about what it would be like for women in the future if they really didn't have to go on diets or have cosmetic surgery to be 'happy'! Sure, you can do that now, by a major act of will. Why should you have to make that act of will?

I wonder if things would be better or worse for women if prostitution was legal. Seems like rather than rape someone, guys would save up their burger king money to show a prostitute who's boss once in a while.

Are you arguing that men will always need to have sex, will rape if necessary to get it, that women don't feel the need for sex, or that if they do they can control it whereas men can't, and so female prostitutes are performing a service by protecting women from men's implacable sexual desires? I need you to explain more.

The key assumption you're making Maryann is the idea that the porn you're describing is automatically degrading. Is it, and if so why, and if so also why is it degrading to 'women' in general rather than merely the individual women in the pictures? Why isn't it degrading for the men involved in hardcore, who are after all being reduced from individual to function just as much? What about 'amateur' pornography?

Do you not consider it sufficient that the individual women in the pictures are degraded? Perhaps you would argue that they choose to be in the pictures of their own free will. If so, why does porn command a higher rate per hour than most other jobs with a similar level of training? Because it is 'degradation money', similar to danger money. Ultimately the viewer pays for the degradation. I don't really see how you can argue with that, except when you mention amateur porn. If ONLY amateur porn existed, I AGREE THAT THAT WOULD WORK. Instead what happens is what I referred to earlier; sexuality doesn't exist in a vacuum. From what I've seen of amateur porn, men generally work hard to get their girlfriends to replicate what they see in the images that were paid for. But amateur porn does often fuck up the dominant porn iconography, I agree. So it's better. But not better enough, as it stands.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that the social problems you identify exist, but I don't think pornography is at the center of those problems.

I am interested in your point, Kerry, and wonder if you could explain further. What do you think lies at the centre of the social problems? Perhaps if you were more specific I could address this. As far as I can see, the objectification of women in the massive cultural production of visual and literary images is the way in which women's roles are policed. Pornography is not just of equal importance to all the images; because it's embarrassing to talk about, it's not dealt with much, so pornographers are free to propagate radical misogyny. And they do. Pornography is at the extreme edge of oppression, because it exists in secret. In some ways it expresses oppression in a 'pure' form. Sexual fantasies even seem to rely on extremely simple versions of social dynamics ... it's so interesting ...

Certainly some of the most sexist cultures are also the most puritanical.

Women certainly enjoy a much better position in America, New Zealand or Britain than they do in, for instance, Afghanistan. But I don't really see this as an argument for lesser forms of oppression.

Do I win a medal for patience? And re ionic reactionary - how can I argue against chemistry?

to you other contributors to this thread: the fact remains that porn doesn't exist in a vacuum: it exists in a currently patriarchal society. it is used to reinforce and perpetuate sexist ideas. if you want me to qualify, okay i will: most het porn does this. so fucking what, not all of it does, but the point is most of it does and THIS NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED!!!!!!

have i made sense? if any one wants to ask me more, please do. for the moment i have to go soundcheck.

and i'm not arguing for censorship because i realise that to do so would be heterosexist!!!!!!!

why don't you read my posting!!!!!!!! thank you very much!!!!!!!!

2) How do we define exploit ? These woman (and men) are making money off their own bodies , out of their own volition.

3) Why is looking at a sexually explicit depection automatically degrading when consent has been provided ?

4) you mentioned the patricahy but porn is the one of few industries where the woman make absurdly more money then the men do, the woman deterimine what sexual postions they will do with whom , they often deterimine who directs or photographs them and where .

5) Body Fascism and the Cult of the Blonde is enforced alot more strongly in Womans camps then it is men. Read Cosmo with the fitness tips and read then maxim where men are ofen pleased to get some

6) Some queer theorists, Paglia and I argue this a continuation of the American Puritan fear of sexual pleasure and its repricutions rather then seeing a little tit on the back shelves.

1) Most the discussions on pornography i can remeber are hetrosexist. Most theorists, (Dwarkin most agersiouly(sp depcit as nothing more then a cunt and cock power grab which oversimplifies the issue

Maybe most discussions on pornography deal with mainstream pornography, which is sexist? (Male) gay pornography obviously isn't misogynist.

2) How do we define exploit ? These woman (and men) are making money off their own bodies , out of their own volition.

3) Why is looking at a sexually explicit depection automatically degrading when consent has been provided ?

4) you mentioned the patricahy but porn is the one of few industries where the woman make absurdly more money then the men do, the woman deterimine what sexual postions they will do with whom , they often deterimine who directs or photographs them and where .

This is what I wrote to Tom: Perhaps you would argue that the women in pornographic images choose to be in the pictures of their own free will. If so, why does porn command a higher rate per hour than most other jobs with a similar level of training? Because it is 'degradation money', similar to danger money. Ultimately the viewer pays for the degradation. Rather than being proof of the empowerment of women, the high pay rate is proof that they are being exploited.

5) Body Fascism and the Cult of the Blonde is enforced alot more strongly in Womans camps then it is men. Read Cosmo with the fitness tips and read then maxim where men are ofen pleased to get some

I completely agree with you about Cosmo, I think it is radically sexist. I also think most pornography is equally, exactly equally, sexist. As I wrote to Kerry: Sexist pornography is of equal importance to other sexist images, and because it's embarrassing to talk about, it's not dealt with much, so pornographers are free to propagate radical misogyny. And they do. Pornography is at the extreme edge of oppression, because it exists in secret. In some ways it expresses oppression in a 'pure' form.

6) Some queer theorists, Paglia and I argue this a continuation of the American Puritan fear of sexual pleasure and its repricutions rather then seeing a little tit on the back shelves.

Here, you probably have a point, since I do have some confused ideas about sexual purity and ascetism. But on the other hand, do you think that most pornography would make women feel more comfortable about sex? It might make them feel like having sex in the short term, because of the arousing effect, but it doesn't seem to make women more accepting of themselves, which would appear to be the starting point for an 'authentic' expression of sexuality.

and furthermore, (and i am NOT reccommending people turn a blind eye to oppression in other countries) i would like to ask, why all the rush for westerners to criticise the oppressive practises of non-westerners? please do not interpret what i am saying as an argument for relativism, because i do believe the oppression of women and children in non-western countries is a problem which needs to be rectified. i am merely suggesting that our willingness to criticise the practises of non-western cultures could be inflected with a touch of (dare i say it) racism. please do not get all angry with this statement, i am not calling anyone in particular a racist, i am merely suggesting that we need to think long and hard about our motives.

anthony: but porn is non-unionised labour. so if a woman making porn is treated badly, she has less of a chance of getting a fair deal. and even if the women are earning lots of money, that doesn't stop people from watching pornography because it reiterates some fucked up ideas they have about female sexuality. which is why a lot of het men watch het porn: they think it can tell the truth about female sexuality. which it can't. why: because there is no ONE AUTHENTIC truth about female sexuality, and if there is, it sure ain't that we exist for the titillation of men!!!!!

he said she had a nice voice.

well, if he had whipped it out...

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/11/11/does-pornography-deserve-its-bad-rap

i totally do not get how "room for debate" is supposed to work

btw i miss Kiwi

totally do not get how "room for debate" is supposed to work

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, November 12, 2012 6:12 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

same. and there's something very school newspapery about it also.

i was thinking About.com, but yeah

A bunch of bush-league-level op-eds somehow combine to form voltron or something

they pontificate, u debate along at home w/ their opinionz as yr guide

lol "bush league" good choice of words hurting

thanks, i've learned a lot from your blogs. keep posting!

what's weird to me about the format is that reader comments are specific to each article, so there like 7 "debates", when it seems like they're going for some sort of synthesis, but there's no place for that synthesis to happen

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/fashion/In-a-surge-of-upscale-pornography-Steve-Shaws-magazine-Treats-aims-to-titillate.html

https://nplusonemag.com/issue-35/essays/cashconsent/

Thanks for that

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-rape-trafficking.html