The effect of porn on teenage boys and young men

Arguing that contrary opinion in a reasoned way isn't goady. Copy and pasting the same poorly thought through response to two different posters' arguments without engaging with them on their substantive points is arrogant and goady,

Well, if I'm wrong, it should be easy to point out how. I'll promise I'll listen. I'm disappointed you've given up without even attempting.

Oh could you also tell me what you do to escape your own echo chamber?

Beach

And the reason I use the word degrade is because pornography doesn't have to be violent or overtly abusive in order to harm women and negatively impact on how others perceive and treat women

Doesn't this just basically mean that the naked female form - if revealed to men, causes men to objectify women and for this reason it should be hidden from view ?

The slavery analogy is not good since I am unaware of any recorded evidence of slaves saying that they loved being slaves and that other people should have slaves and should become slaves themselves.

tartansnowman, you're welcome, and thanks.

speak

There is nothing much to engage with. You basically believe that you have developed or rather have read and agree with a cutting insight that gives you a special lens through which to view all human activity. Further - that if those involved in any given activity would just think about it properly they would arrive at the conclusions that you have and likely desist. Feminists usually react with great anger at the idea that women should be told what to do, but are happy to tell them what to do themselves.

Speaking of ideas and vacuums - your own are merely an expression of the ideas you surround yourself with which are largely an echo chamber whereby an expression of a contrary opinion is held to be "goady".

What about emotional abuse?

There is a clear moral distinction between something which involves violence and something which does not.

I understand that still leaves all the commodification problems, but to say we cannot make a distinction based on pain and obvious abuse is not the case. That's part of how censorship of mainstream film works.

Given your statement it is not possible to logically argue that the women either directing or acting in a porn film are not degrading themselves since "porn degrades all women"

It is not what I am arguing though so I would appreciate it if you didn't attribute that view to me or my words growapear.

I think slavery degrades humans but I don't think slaves degrade themselves.

I'm using the dictionary definition of "degrade" - the Cambridge Dictionary actually uses pornography as an example.
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/degrade

to cause people to feel that they or other people have no value and do not have the respect or good opinion of others:
Pornography degrades women.

And the reason I use the word degrade is because pornography doesn't have to be violent or overtly abusive in order to harm women and negatively impact on how others perceive and treat women. I also used it because degradation is cited as a violation of a person's human rights and is therefore a concept that is central to my objection to pornography.

I see what you mean Beach.

I would just say that all commercial representations of sexuality that are designed to arouse are inherently questionable. It's very difficult to distinguish positive 'erotica from negative 'porn' without a clear moral criteria by which to do so - and there isn't one. The Russell distinction is a gendered-political one. While that is completely right and valid, it is insufficient on its own.

Moreover, erotic representations are always corrupted by any commercial forces underpinning them. As soon as an economic value is attached to human sexuality, then you have a problem.

Within the context of capitalism certainly (whether that capitalism is patriarchal or not) I see no hope of a healthy erotica.

I take it you don't want to engage with that argument and explain why you think that I'm wrong? Again I'm left wondering why you're bothering if you don't actually want to discuss.

It's about the impact on women as a group, not the impact on the individual.

You're being a goady fucker now grow.

It's not necessarily that they don't understand, just that the thousands of years of conditioning for women as the inferior sex who is used for male sexual gratification is important to bear in mind. Their actions have consequences for other women, as they are perpetuating that role. But as part of the system you can avoid thinking too deeply about that. And being part of the system rather than a victim of it can be attractive.

Speak

Is it the old "they don't know what they are doing" argument ?

growapear do you think that people make decisions and hold beliefs in a vacuum free from any influence at all from other people?

venus

So it's the old "they don't understand what they are doing" argument ?

Qwerty I think you are attributing a different definition of erotica to my views than the one I have given.

I will try to clarify my position. Firstly I only quoted Diana Russell on erotica because I think her definition of it is useful in an analysis of what pornography is and does and what it is not.

I'm trying hard to think of an example of erotica and I'm finding it really hard because sexism is so pervasive in human interactions and the things we produce.

I am not defending what gets called erotica and as I said upthread, what gets called erotica is generally actually pornography.

Growapear, they are doing it within a patriarchal social structure. That really does matter.

Beachcomber, thanks for your posts. They have been very helpful.

I agree that is a sensible distinction between pornography and erotica.

The point being made is that pornography is degrading to women, all women

Women direct and star in porn. Given your statement it is not possible to logically argue that the women either directing or acting in a porn film are not degrading themselves since "porn degrades all women"

You were the one who used the word degrading - it is a very unpleasant word, which is why i quoted it back it you.

What if she's "freely consenting" as a prostitute or making porn films because she's addicted to drugs and can't get enough money for her fix any other way? As is very often the case? Drugs aren't a material need. Coercion isn't always a simple thing. Especially if the people exploiting her are also facilitating her access to the drugs.

Is a college degree equivalent to food and shelter?

Ok, so that's where the line is drawn is it? So if a woman is working in the sex industry for food and shelter then that should not be allowed? Right?

How would that work?

Meph can you expand on what you mean by the removal of the right to privacy?

Please don't assume that you know what I'm thinking, you are not a mind reader.

I was answering the question: How can you hope that porn can be regulated around the world successfully, to the point where you can be happy that the chance of the woman involved being coerced is vanishingly unlikely?

To clarify, my answer would be incredibly intrusive and pervasive ongoing individual surveillance.