Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Amateur porn - is it wrong from a feminist perspective?

88 replies

Bennifer · 08/06/2011 13:46

Just a general question. There's obviously porn that is "professional" in a sense, and it relies on the exploitation of women. What about amateur porn that's done between consenting couples who put stuff on the internet (or couples we assume are consenting)

PS, I don't want to include amateur looking porn that is professional in this category

OP posts:
CrapolaDeVille · 08/06/2011 16:52

For me porn and the involvement of women is always going to be a blind choice, if she does it she's expolited even if she wants to. Possibly not even true for all but until we stop objectifying women we never know if porn stars have a true free choice.

dittany · 08/06/2011 16:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CrapolaDeVille · 08/06/2011 16:50

I don't think that Amateur porn is a reality, I think it's just a cheap genre.

Original poster
Bennifer · 08/06/2011 16:46

Dittany, from the threads I've lurked on, most of the anti-porn arguments seem to quite reasonably come from the abuse/exploitation angle. It's for the very reason that I don't think the objectification side has been discussed a great deal that I brought it up.

OP posts:
HaughtyChuckle · 08/06/2011 16:31

Um Haughty, I think most footballers spend most of their time playing football or training. You're talking about a side issue.

Its not a side issue really how much time is spent talking about what good footballers they/public scandals its ususally the latter people focus on.

dittany · 08/06/2011 16:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HaughtyChuckle · 08/06/2011 16:19

That must be why so many fans fork out millions of pounds each week to watch them at football matches or on Sky I guess. Because they just don't care.

Yes but you have to admit Footballers seem to spend more time on adverts selling soething or in the tabloids the masses seem more Interested in that as everyone knows, that what I was saying.

Original poster
Bennifer · 08/06/2011 16:03

Well, I don't particularly see how it's rude to disagree on a discussion forum either. It's possibly ruder to assume I have a pro-porn agenda, when I was asking about whether porn was wrong if no-one was exploited and whether porn was intrinsically wrong (ignoring the exploitation that I object to).

I'll have to look up on the more theoretical objections to porn, but I'm not yet convinced by it as the case seems a little weak.

OP posts:
dittany · 08/06/2011 15:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Bennifer · 08/06/2011 15:55

I don't see how it's rude to ask questions on a discussion forum. The clue's in the name.

Ok, is it sexual objection rather than objectification you object to then?

OP posts:
dittany · 08/06/2011 15:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Bennifer · 08/06/2011 15:49

Dittany, why should I say what I don't think? I've said that I think women being abused is wrong.

Dittany what do you mean by objectification? Let's take a clearer example. Are fashion models objectified?

OP posts:
dittany · 08/06/2011 15:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Hullygully · 08/06/2011 15:40

jiggy on the telly

never pretty

Original poster
Bennifer · 08/06/2011 15:38

I agree with the footballers thing isn't a brilliant comparison given how much they're paid, etc, but I was trying to make a deeper point about objectification and whether it's wrong per se.

OP posts:
HaughtyChuckle · 08/06/2011 15:30

"Footballers aren't objects. They aren't reduced to their genitals, they are admired for their skill".

tbh in this day and age their skill is the last thing anybody is interested in, after how many affairs have they had, how many hair products and gillette contracts can they get.

not the same as a porn star though people don't really even need to see there faces there viewed as dime a dozen so the compariosn is not the same really.

I think If you definately know both parties have consented, like in Closer they other this couple make lots of filsm for money, their mutually happy, and its their life tbh but this is few and far between, most women go into that linme of work because they've been influenced to do so.

Original poster
Bennifer · 08/06/2011 15:27

Dittany,

"Footballers aren't objects. They aren't reduced to their genitals, they are admired for their skill".

Why aren't footballers objects? He's admired for his legs and what he can do with them. Most people don't think too much about what his favourite TV show is, or about his deeper emotional state. Footballers are objectified. The difference is that it isn't about sex with him. What is it about sex that crosses a line? Are fashion models ok because they keep their clothes on?

(PS, you're not read what I wrote when you say I don't see the harm in porn, as if people are being abused then I object to it, and have stated as much)

OP posts:
dittany · 08/06/2011 15:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

motherinferior · 08/06/2011 15:04

So you're saying, Celadon, that it's the male watcher that is the damaging thing not the conditions of its production?

Original poster
Bennifer · 08/06/2011 15:04

vesuvia,

That's my objection to it. I can draw a parallel (a bad one admittedly) to a hypothetical drug.

The hypothetical drug, if taken in moderation, did no harm to the user, but did if taken to excess. However, some of the drugs were made in a process that exploited women. Would that drug per se be bad? Or only the drug that used exploited women? Or the drugs that were taken to excess and harmed the user and people around him or her?

OP posts:
motherinferior · 08/06/2011 15:01

Yes, but my point is that if this is porn being made by lesbians for lesbians, it isn't being made for men. It's not portraying women for the male gaze. It's being made for women who get off on seeing other women having sex. So is it a direct equation to mainstream het porn, or not? I think it probably isn't. Suppose I film myself and a female lover making love, and we enjoy watching it, where does that fit in?

Original poster
Bennifer · 08/06/2011 15:01

celadon, does porn only become bad when a man watches it?

OP posts:
vesuvia · 08/06/2011 15:00

motherinferior wrote - "What about porn made by lesbians for lesbians?"

That is a variation on the theme of "porn made by producers for consumers".

I focus my attention on the conditions under which the porn is made e.g. presence or absence of consent, exploitation, violence etc.

Non-consensual, exploitative, violent porn made by lesbians for lesbians is a bad thing and is as bad as such porn made by others for anyone else.

celadon · 08/06/2011 14:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

motherinferior · 08/06/2011 14:42

What about porn made by lesbians for lesbians? Where does that fit in? I mean, obviously it's objectification in that sense but it's not for the male gaze (I am not talking about faux-lesbian porn made for het men, obviously).

I don't like porn, fwiw, but am also aware that some of my dislike comes from feeling very physically inadequate by comparison, which is not necessarily a particularly political perspective.