Porn

[Bubbles01]

Am I being unreasonable for getting upset that my husband keeps looking at porn?

I was struck by Robert Jensen said, about how there are only so many ways people can rub bodies together, and most of the variation in sex is emotional/psychological. Porn doesn't show that, so its variation has become about pain and cruelty. (I am paraphrasing).

So people who aren't watching porn that involves pain and cruelty, what is their reason for watching many different films?

If it is essentially just people rubbing bodies together, why is so much money made from pornography? Why have there not just been 100 films made and that is all that is required? What makes all of these 1,000s of films different from each other so people have to buy lots showing the same thing?

This is a genuine question.

Well I think Robert Jensen is talking out of his bum. By that line of argument, everyone who has had more than a certain number of sexual experiences must inevitably need to progress to sex involving 'pain and cruelty' and this doesn't happen (unless you are the sort of person who believes that anyone who has had more than 3 sexual partners is immoral or 'damaged' anyway).
As to why there are so many different porn films made, have you not heard the saying that there are only so many plots in fiction (either 5 or 10 is usually claimed)? And there are certainly shitloads of utterly generic films and novels (boy meets girl, a murder is uncovered, there's a ghost in the house and someone defeats it etc) that people still want to watch. Think of genre fiction like Mills & Boon or most cheap pulp horror, most of these things are exactly the same apart from the names and the number of legs the monster's got, or whatever. People who like these like the same thing again and again, what they are getting out of it is the comfort of a familiar structure and a familiar feeling (a safe scare, a bit of true-love-romance or indeed sexual arousal).

You are misinterpreting what Jensen is saying. He is not saying that having more than a certain number of sexual experiences are wrong. He is saying that the variation in sex is in the psychology and emotions. You could sleep with 100 people and the emotions and psychology between the people would be different each time.

But I think you answer, if I can summarise, is that porn has as much plot to it as a Mills & Boon, or a horror film, and that is where the variation lies?

I am surprised by this as everything I have read suggests that films with a plot are a minority interest, and overwhelmingly the public are buying plot free, gonzo porn.

Some porn films have plots - the most expensive and glossy ones such as those made by Private or Wicked have quite elaborate plots, often involving pastiche or parody of mainstream films. These are selling well or the studios would not spend the amount of money on them that they do. And (IME anyway) quite a lot of people who like porn ie explicit depictions of sex designed to arouse, dislike the rough end of gonzo, the insulting dialogue, the spitting etc - though not all gonzo is like this either.
As to the variety in plotless form, what appeals to the viewer varies according to viewers, for some it;s seeing different performers and being entertained by the variations in their appearance (it's another myth that porn peformers all look exactly the same), their facial expressions, their demeanour etc, for others the repetitiveness of what they see is actually what appeals, it;s comforting.

why is it called "gonzo" and what is that ?

< don't particularly want to google >

Potter Stewart's definition isn't the only one of porn -- the film industry has its own criteria, and most people are capable of forming their own judgements. My point is that subjective assessment of porn is completely acceptable. Everyone has a right to their own personal reaction to it.

My question again; if you take the sex out of it, what is there? A plot? Varying levels of degradation of women? Of men? Porn essentially shows one-dimensional women having sex with men who are also one-dimensional. I disagree with your argument that this has some sort of comforting psychosexual value. If someone needs to see a scene of a young woman being gang raped 150 times, they should be seeing a psychiatrist. Do you rule out the idea that there may be an element of addictiveness to porn, to seeing the same scenes played out with very little variation, again and again? Is the porn industry supplying a habit?

WRT porn that involves defecation '...and most of what shows up on line of that nature is not viewed by many people for masturbation purposes, more for shock value.' This is just your opinion, SGB, unless you've conducted some market research on the product and what it's used for. Can you find figures to back up your claim?

The porn industry takes the commodity view of sex and women to the nth degree, because of the exploitative practices of porn producers and because it's basically all about sex being packaged and sold. Basically, a consumer of porn has bought a sexual experience for him or herself. The idea that women are a commodity whose value increases or decreases according to how many sex partners she has had is probably not the biggest issue western women are facing today -- in some parts of the world it continues to be the case of course that women's sexual freedom is a non-starter, but this is hardly a major problem for western women, certainly not one that warrants a fix along the lines of accepting, embracing or normalising a genre that serves no useful purpose other than the expression of men's darkest fantasies and least acceptable attitudes towards their fellow human beings.

You could look at the entry for it on Wikipedia - that gives a straightforward explanation. I can't google to find a better link than Wikipedia because I am at work.

thanks milly

Anyfucker: 'Gonzo' in porn means low production values and little or no plot whatsoever. The term is not derived from anything particualrly misogynistic nor is it evocative of odd sexual practices, it is derived from Hunter S Thompson's 'gonzo' journalism ie unglossy and supposedly 'authentic'.
Mathanxiety - you do seem to hold the view that having sex (outside of longterm heteromonogamy) is inherently degrading to women. THis is not a uinversal view. And as I said, not ALL porn involves insults or gangbangs. You also seem to conflate watching porn with paying a sex worker for a physical encounter - these are not the same thing, any more than reading one of Jamie Oliver's recipe books is the same as having him come and cook your tea for you.
And I disagree with you that women's lack of sexual freedom worldwide is not a priority for western women: a repressive view of sexuality is the most dangerous one there is for women.

'...you do seem to hold the view that having sex (outside of longterm heteromonogamy) is inherently degrading to women.' I don't hold any such view about having sex, SGB. I just don't equate sex, frequently involving violence against and degradation of women by men, filmed and sold for the enrichment of a limited number of (usually male) producers and promoters, to be by any stretch of the imagination, empowering for women, either the women involved in the porn or women in wider society. And I think if you have bought something for the purposes of sexual arousal then you have paid for a sexual experience. It's exactly the same as paying a sex worker for sex, just at one remove, not up close and personal. Your Jamie Oliver analogy doesn't make any sense, unless you're saying porn is an instruction manual of some kind, in which case, I fear for what my DDs will encounter and be expected to go along with from the boys who have been exposed to pornographic material from the last 10 years or so.

A view of women, held by men, that their sexuality is the only thing important about them, and that women's biology is our destiny, is one of the most dangerous things out there for all women, and this is the view that porn promotes. Women in undeveloped countries are oppressed the way they are (strict dress requirements, female genital mutilation, lack of educational opportunity and all the rest of it) purely because of their male-dominated societies' preoccupation with their biologically determined role. Porn does absolutely nothing to counteract male assumptions. The idea that it is some sort of liberated statement or a manifesto for the freedom of women is belied by the content of most of what's freely available today -- it's not uplifting, life-affirming, female-empowering material that most teenage boys are using for masturbation.

Well Mathanxiety, we;re going to have to disagree on that, because I am pretty sure I have seen a lot more porn, of a wide variety than you have and therefore maybe know just a little bit more than you do about it. ONe reason I am constantly opposing the 'all porn is evil' mindset is that it makes it much harder for those people trying to produce porn which isn't the lowest common denominator, which demonstrates different perspectives on sexual behaviour, which is fun and goodhumoured etc and which has high standards of safety and welfare for performers. People are engaged in doing this, though it's difficult to do so successfully (this has more to do with the difficulties of an independent media producer within capitalism and consumerism in general than any special nature of sheer badness that only applies to sex or sexually-explicit stuff). There is nothing inherently wrong with paying for sexual entertainment, any more than paying to listen to music (live or recorded) is morally inferior to playing an instrument yourself.

I think the idea that porn is 'sexual entertainment' is a fundamental misapprehension of its nature. As Dittany says, filmed sex, sold and broadcast all over the world, is not at all the same as recorded music or cooking instructions. What is important and objectionable in it, from a feminist woman's point of view (mine), is what message men are taking from it and putting into it about themselves in relation to women, and about the nature of women. I see porn as a deepseated expression of a backlash attitude against what is still relatively recent women's efforts at emancipation.

Well this is where we fundamentally have to disagree, Dittany - sex is not unlike any other human activity to everyone. For lots of people it's simply no big deal (and some, of course, have no interest in it whatsoever). It's the attitude that sex is in a category all its own which does most of the harm associated with expressions of sexuality.
Music, art and sport as well as other forms of fiction may well involve the causing of physical and mental damage to participants, sometimes it's a risk they accept because the psychological rewards outwieght (in their opinion) the damage, sometimes they are motiviated by financial desperation or manipulated by others. And these risks they run are often if not always for the benefit of other people, whether that's to enrich their relatives/managers, or to give an audience vicarious thrills. Do you think people should reconsider their appreciation of ballet, boxing, gymnastics or motor racing in the light of this as none of these activities are acutally necessary for human existence?

Very good and valid point SGB.

Dittany: boxing (which is often used as an escape from poverty-stricken or chaotic home environments) carries the risk of brain damage and death. Overly intensive training for ballet or gymnastics or some other sports in childhood or early adolescence can cause permanent disabilities and deformities - and there seems to be some sort of marked tendency for gym/sports trainers to have abusive tendencies towards their trainees (perhaps because of the intense focusing on the developing body, sports training may appeal to predators in the same way that the priesthood with its obsession with controlling sexuality may appeal to the sexually dysfunctional). Being alive means being, to some extent, at the risk of rape and indeed murder - being in a committed relationship puts you at the risk of rape and murder.
As to the difficulties of those trying to produce sexually explicit entertainment which is not the same old crap, a general stigmatizing of 'porn' makes it harder for them in many ways - Filament magazine had a lot of trouble getting it's second issue printed because 'It's Porn!' - though what was being objected to was a picture of a bloke with an erection.

BTW do we want a Porn II thread or have we all had enough?

SGB, maybe we could have a related topic rather than exactly the same one - a variation on a theme.

So why do men watch porn?

MillyR: Looks like we might get a Feminism topic on MN which would be fab.
ITP: IF you know a man who does, ask him. Men are no more a homogenous group than women.

I would be interested in a Porn II thread, having not participated at all in Porn I.

(is mine the last post? is it? is it?)

No, mine is!!

Oh, hey, look at that.