New left project: Is porn hijacking our sexuality?

OK if people are arguing from the viewpoint that it's not possible to have any kind of sex under the patriarchy without it being an abuse of women, I'm going to back off from the thread because it's about as productive as arguing with the devoutly religious.

I think it was Sheila Jeffreys being interviewed (never been able to find it: source of great annoyance) that made the penny drop for me.

She explained that while we have a patriarchal status quo, sex can never be truly equal. Men wield power in all sorts of ways - under those conditions, the notion of female consent is inherently problematic.

ker-thunk

There is nothing wrong with wanting to watch others have sex. But in a patriarchy it will never be an equal or unproblematic exchange. The harm is also extremely well-documented.

Autumn, I didn't pass any comment on whether your argument was relevant or not. Nor did I say that it being unoriginal negated it. I said if you're genuinely interested, the arguments you present are in no way new and have been discussed plenty. Google some feminist material on porn and you'll see them discussed. Or even some threads on here. This would help you if a very large part of the anti-porn argument doesn't make sense to you. I pointed out that your arguments were not new, so you would know that you could find the counter argument to what you're saying, it you want to. That would save you trying to find answers on a forum you are so very critical of and find difficult.

Although I will read some of the materials you suggest

Alice My comparison with abuses in porn to abuses in other industries was very much relevant to my support of legitimately made pornography. It is not to detract from the topic, it is to say how a very large part of the anti-porn argument makes little sense to me. It would seem though that since other abuses don't involve rape or prostitution that they are not relevant.

Furthermore, I don't clai$ that my philosophy on the subject is new But I don't see how the unoriginality of my viewpoint negates it.

Porn is innately problematic*. The making of clothes is not innately problematic. Making of clothes does not need to include exploitation, it might do but that is not an innate characteristic of it. Whereas it is in porn.

Autumn if you're genuinely interested, the arguments you present are in no way new and have been discussed plenty. Google some feminist material on porn and you'll see them discussed. Or even some threads on here.

*Happy to revisit that statement once we don't have patriarchy.

Autumn, why are you trying to take the focus off the porn industry? That is what we are discussing here. There are plenty of other threads talking about the exploitation of women in other industries such as media, music,medicine, clothing etc. Even better, start one up yourself if that is what you want to talk about. Most of us are more than capable of caring about (and do care about) more than one issue at once. It is not hypocritical to focus on porn though. Just as it isn't hypocritical to focus on breast cancer rather than lung cancer or cancer of the liver.

However as Nyac said porn actively promotes the abuse of women. it is their aim to do that. And the amount of ethical porn out there in no way outweighs the amount of damage the majority of porn does.

This had been said before by others but I'd like to live in a society where porn doesn't make sense.

First off the non abused, non exploited workers are few and far between despite the "happy porn performer" myths spread around. Most porn performers have backgrounds of sexual abuse and/or rape, most are on drugs once they are in the industry.

I suggest you read Shelley Lubben's website for more details.

Secondly abuse and exploitation in other industries doesn't lead to someone's rape on film for someone else's enjoyment. That's the bottom line here. You're masturbating to someone who could be being raped or abused. For example a whole lot of people got a great deal of erotic excitement out of Linda Lovelace's rapes on the set of Deep Throat. Rapes that were turned into a multimillion dollar film that brought porn-rape to the mainstream.

Thirdly pornography promotes the abuse of women. Read this article by Robert Jensen about the contents of mainstream pornography if you are unaware of what it is like these days:

uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornography&cruelty.htm

All I see here is pure hypocracy.

Abigail all sorts of abuses exist in the arts and entertainment industries? That these industries place pressure on us and our kids to be a "certain way"? Or is that not important beacuse it's not just about women. And while we're talking about jewelery, you do know about blood diamonds don't you?

But there are plenty of people making porn with willing performers that's about exploring sexuality and giving pleasure. It's not wrong to want to watch other people having sex, nor is it wrong to engage in sex-as-performance to entertain others.

ANd why is it only the porn industry which you are incapable of seperating legitimate workers from abused workers? Why do you not take this stance with every other industry. Becaue abuses exist in all industries.

No, I'm telling people to come up with arguments that aren't completely hypocritical. I never said anything about placing conditions on my discussing the subject. I said why it's a difficult thing to do when you're talking in support of something with a group of people who can rarely support thier argument without vitriol.

It is my fervent opinion that abuse applies ONLY where a person is actually abused. Saying that someone doing something freely is abusive to them doesn't gel at all.

Well there we differ SGB. I think the world would be a far happier place without porn. It isn't art or music. As a rule art, music or jewellery don't harm women. Porn harms real women. The women who are involved in it and the rest of us because of how we are viewed and treated as a result of it.

It's not propaganda Autumn, if it's true.

Pornography requires the prostitution of women. Prostitution is male violence against women and inherently abusive. It's not possible to separate out the pornography from the abuse.

Basically you're saying that you want people to shut up about the truths of pornography or you won't discuss your support of it. I don't think that's how discussions work.

I agree with Autumn. People may not need sexual entertainment in the way we need food and shelter and clean water but we don't 'need' art or music or jewellery either. Yet the world would be a more miserable place without them: people should try to base more of their consumer decisions on whether or not the desirable item (shoes, new mobile phone, porn DVD) was produced by people working of their own free will for a fair wage.

All I'm saying is that I do with porn as with any other product. Know where it comes from!

And you don't NEED to buy clothes. But you do.

People don't need porn at all.

I thought that someone might say that Abigail but I still find it very hypocriticcal that people will buy clothes knowing what happens to children and women the world over. You might need clothes but do you need to buy them? Do you? If the abuse saddened you as much as abuse in porn you would go out of your way to biycott it. but you don't.

And, for the record, the fullfillment of sexual needs is recognised widely in Phsychology as necessary for a healthy mental state. So I refute that too. I'm npt saying that people "need" porn all the time but, for many, there is no other outlet.

The thing is Autumn, people need clothes. No-one needs porn.

Nyac it's not that people don't want to talk about it. It's a difficult subject to raise on forums such as this where sweeping statements advocating femenist propaganda are rife. Why enter a debate when the other side is more interested in torches and pitchforks than an actual conversation?

I've very recently been called a "supporter of filmed sexual abuse" which is an example of such propaganda. I found that very alarmist. To call porn filmed sexual abuse is inflammatory and screams of a viewpoint that cant be discussed. I am not for one second denying hat some women AND men are abused in porn but I find it a flimsy argument against porn in general. I asked if people using this argument would boycott buying clothes all together just because SOME manufacturers abuse children and women by using them as slaves paid on a pittance to make them. No-one replied.

It seems that the general consensus against it is one of exploitation. Yet it never occurs to people using this argument that these women and men themselves are exploiting a good market to make money and that they came to this choice of thier own free will. People who freely enter the porn industry are deemed an embarrassment to the human animal and a disgrace to the female sex. I find this deeply patronising and very limited.

Well I don't like being told what makes a woman a real or worthy women by EITHER sex. Finding legitimately made porn is not difficult.

Rooting out the abusive element in porn is something that I wholeheartedly encourage. But I will NOT condemn an entire industry on the back of it.

And that Ditum piece is great stuff.

I have no problem talking about porn. I've produced it, appeared in it and enjoyed it for more than twenty years.

You started this thread with a quote from Boynton which you said supported your position. The fact that it's simply full of weak assertions makes me wonder why you think it's so useful. But I guess it's up to you.

Thanks for telling us you're pro prostitution. It didn't seem terribly easy to get you to state that.

I guess the other thing I'd ask someone in a discussion about porn is if they themselves are a porn user, but that does seem to offend a lot of people. I don't understand why really, when porn users think that porn is such a great thing. It's funny not to want to talk about it.