not sure what to title this but it's to do with ejaculation

It's far from simplistic. It's holistic.

It is however simply disingenuous to seek comparisons with porn where gay men abuse other men, when women pretend that the porn they make empowers other women (yet still includes degradation and violence towards them) or when women commit sexual violence towards men......

......when we don't have a society where the degrader group has the power and where it isn't the type of porn demanded and consumed by the vast majority of users.

Patriarchy and porn go hand-in-hand. The latter wouldn't exist without the former.

Oh well I'm surprised you asked your above question then - it gave the impression that you were criticizing something you hadn't seen, because the question you asked is answered in the presentation.

I'm off out so I don't have time to discuss different niches of pornography. I already said what I think. They are variations of the same thing.

I have seen it already Beachcomber, so I don't need to "bother" to watch and you don't have to get all humpty because some people don't want to watch an hour long presentation.

I see where she and you are coming from, but I'm not buying it.

I don't think you can take all modern pornography and lump it together. Where does that leave gay pornography? Feminist-made pornography? Pornography where men are used?

I think it's a simplistic way of looking at things.

OK the modern patriarcialcapitalist genre of pornography if you prefer.

The one that has gone viral.

Dirty postcards and the witterings of the Marquis de Sade are of course older and also pornographic. They are part of a different genre. And an extremely different distribution process. And a different impact.

Gail Dines does actually explain where she is coming from if you bother to watch.

The whole conference presentation is brilliant actually so here are the rest of the links.

I'm not sure why you think that pornography started with Playboy. Is the problem you (and Gail Dines) have is that people make money from it?

Yes, sorry I said films because so much of modern porn is filmed. I should have said media (magazines for example).

Some posters might find the following interesting. Gail Dines on the history of pornography - which in the commercial sense began in the 50s with Playboy.

So would porn also include nude paintings, actors involved in erotic scenes, wood carvings or stone carvings?

Also if we are talking about taking off clothing for the titillation of others, female wrestlers, boxers gymnasts? Dancers of most kinds wear less clothing specificley for the purpose of showing more flesh.. Now yes all of these are objectification and all are wrong, however what my point is saying that if you want to impose those kind of restrictions your looking at much more than films. OMG looking was so not what I should have said sorry peeps.

Yes I got what you mean.

Lots of people do yellowraincoat.

I don't mean it is all the same as in the scenarios are all the same.

I mean it is all an expression of patriarchal paradigms of sexuality.

I completely disagree that porn is always the same.

But all porn is the same. There is a spectrum of violence, the acts and the people being filmed vary, but it is essentially all the same thing.

When I talk about porn, I mean porn. Films intended to arouse and to be used as a masturbation facilitator (or in some cases to be introduced into one's private relations with a partner).

Same for stripping. Stripping is taking one's clothes off and displaying one's body for the entertainment (and or titillation) of an audience. Again there are variations of what sort of clothes are taken off and how body parts are displayed but it is all the same thing.

(And I include burlesque, porn made by women, etc in the above - they are all the same thing. The sexism and the binary gendered power dynamic and/or sub/dom patriarchal dynamic, is always the same.)

"There will be no agreement on this so long as some people see porn as a tool of patriarchy and source of harm for women and children and others see porn as a completely benign form of entertainment."

But the above only applies if all porn was the same. I mean, where in your definition starts porn, or stripping for that matter?

Ahh VictorGollanz, I wish you would. You have a way with words about you. You too KRITIQ.

Thank you though. Thanks to everyone else for an interesting discussion.

Yes, Beachcomber has distilled it all very neatly in that post above.

There will be no agreement on this so long as some people see porn as a tool of patriarchy and source of harm for women and children and others see porn as a completely benign form of entertainment.

I keep wanting to contribute but really, Beachcomber says it better.

Sisters, I honestly don't know of another way to put it.

I like to think my posts are quite clear, but I guess not in this case . I suspect that our failure to 'get' each other is related to how we see both patriarchy and porn.

I see porn as a tool of the patriarchy. As an expression of all that is fucked up about the sexual dominance that is patriarchy.

So when I see that that tool is influencing and changing the parameters within which women (and men) make choices about their sexuality, I see a big red flag.

When I see that that tool has become an insidious aspect of the socialization of expressions of sexuality and relations between men and women, I see a big red flag.

And I would like to make it clear (again) that I am not judging individuals' sex lives AT ALL.

Porn eroticizes misogyny. The porn hounds have normalized the act of ejaculating in women's faces. And they normalized it whilst being perfectly transparent that they consider it an act of misogyny and that they consider that that is why porn consuming men find it hot.

Now if everyone else here has no issue with any of that, and they are quite happy with the situation, we are never going to agree. Which is fine. I know what I think and why I think it. Nobody has to agree with me, obviously.

Shoopaloop, this thread has been running around in my head and driving me crazy too.

I just don't get what anyone is even trying to say any more and half of it just seems to be totally contradictory.

typo hell

I find this thread so circular and exasperating.

What is the problem?

Is it that the act itself is disgusting and demeaning? Beachcomber, this is what you seem to be saying.

Or is it the problem that women feel pressurised by a 'pornified' society into thinking they should be doing this? That this act is normalized and pushed at women as 'the done thing'? Charbon, this seems to be your argument now?

I am confused.

I agree with the latter, but not the former. And I really am getting a bit hacked off with 'the personal is political' being used willy nilly to support the views of the poster. That phrase does not mean that every choice we make as individual women is political. It means that personal PROBLEMS can also be seen as political problems ie. in feminist terms, the problems we experience may as individuals may be shared, and the result of an oppressive, patriarchal society.

It doesnt mean 'don't use personal anecdotes to inform your opinion'. And the phrase shouldn't be used as a weapon to stop women dong so.

So, please, stop using it incorrectly. It is doing my head in.

And what is the symbolism of ejaculating on a face?

Because to me, sometimes ejaculating on a face is just ejaculating on a face is just ejaculating on a face.

I think the bodily fluids things is going to act as a bit of red herring. Yes bodily fluids carry germs and people may therefore have an aversion to them, but I don't wish to lose sight of the of the symbolism of an act.

I do not dislike page three because I have an aversion to breasts. I object to it because it objectifies women and disrespects them.

I like chocolate, but if throwing bits of chocolate at women during sex is the new things that men start doing as a sign of disrespect for women, then I'm going to think twice about going along with it.

Oh no rational answer for it. It's just the idea. I wouldn't mind one or two, in meaningful mutually respectful relationships. The idea of clocking up loads over time isn't a pleasant one. As I said, no rationality there.

Not that I'm saying you have to, but it seems a rather moot point.

Why? What difference does it make if it's one man or 38? Some women would be more than happy with having had 38 men come on their face.