The End Of Porn

If you’re looking for feedback, I think there are a lot of jumbled up concepts, accounts and viewpoints in the article which will make it quite inaccessible to a reader who isn’t already coming to it with the view that porn is terrible and must be banned. You’re essentially preaching to the converted - which is fine, if it’s just a position piece for the website or a piece of narrative research. If the plan is to use these young women’s experiences and accounts to engage with and encourage greater consideration of other young women whose positions and thought processes are still some way from those set out here, tone is going to be crucial. (And even more so in engaging young men. Phrases some young men who haven’t engaged in much discourse may infer are accusing them of enjoying rape or being “misogynistic cretins” are going to be an immediate switch off.)

In short, I’d happily share this with my thirty-something rad fem friends and expect them to say what a powerful article it was; I’m not sure it’s pitched quite right for the young people I work with in a volunteer capacity.

How do you intend to make change, if you will only communicate with your own echo chamber?

@ComtesseDeSpair isn't it in your remit to assist young people to discuss these issues?

And maybe if boys were to hear the truth of what we think of porn addled men, they'd begin to question their involvement.
Disapproval can be a strong motivator for behavioural change.

Yes, it is in my remit - hence why I’m always on the lookout for materials which I think will help younger people who haven’t yet got an established viewpoint with creating discourse.

As a blog article to appeal to radical feminists with established views on porn, it’s fine. OP indicated that her intention is to work with young women in a persuasive way towards the end goal of anti-porn campaigning. Hence feedback that the tone, accounts and concepts need some refinement. If feedback isn’t wanted then no need to take it.

Given that boys are the ones being groomed into watching porn and will grow into men who spend money on it, they might be worth thinking about, even from a completely utilitarian perspective.

I’m not a radical feminist and have not taken action. I don’t know the difference between radical and libfem except as described in the article. I’m also older than your target group. I have read on MN about the porn industry and in tv/radio about the dangers of porn especially for children.
My impression from someone outside of an established group. Really thought provoking
powerful testimony and subject hence my post.
If you want me to take action

• I thought in general feminism is a good thing and am put off by the phrase “pornsick libfems”. This is the testimony so fine but if you used it to try to convince me to join a campaign it is counter productive.
  
• banning porn would arguably have saved Charlotte seeing it, but the way she did was more to do with her mother offloading baggage onto her 11 year old, inappropriate whether it was about her fathers porn or if he had an affair.
  
• referring to the age when girls see porn is fine and presumably there are studies out there. Your average age of 10 has no context, a self selecting group and how many women responded. A pointless statistic
  

@Joskin69

Disapproval can be a strong motivator for behavioural change.

If a teenage boy has seen pornography he's not going to believe you when you tell him that pornography is violent and none of the women have pubic hair. That's something that middle aged suburban women say to each other so that they have a reason to disapprove.

You just have to look at it to see that it is not true. Or if you won't then read Sara Pascoe's book Sex Power Money. She writes that it is not mostly violent, that there is plenty of pubic hair to be seen, and there is research that shows it doesn't make men or boys more violent or sexist.

I don't like the way that Radical Feminists are secretive about their ideology. Don't tell young people you're a Radical Feminist in case they think you're a TERF.

The theory of objectification as stated by Catharine A MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin is that every time a man and a woman have sex the woman is objectified, even if they are married. Their solution to this problem is for all women to become political lesbians. That means not having sex with men, it doesn't necessarily mean having sex with other women. In many cases it means celibacy.

That's what people need to know when you have Radical Feminists telling young women not to have relationships with young men who enjoy porn. Radical Feminists don't want any women having sex with any men.

If this aspect of the ideology is new to you then maybe the secrecy is the reason for that. This is how cults work. Read what Sheila Jeffreys has written on this.

I can appreciate some people may wish to see an "end to porn". Realistically a complete ban won't have much public support and blocking it all from the internet isn't straight-forward and can be easily circumvented (VPN etc).

The theory of objectification as stated by Catharine A MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin is that every time a man and a woman have sex the woman is objectified, even if they are married. Their solution to this problem is for all women to become political lesbians. That means not having sex with men, it doesn't necessarily mean having sex with other women. In many cases it means celibacy.

That's what people need to know when you have Radical Feminists telling young women not to have relationships with young men who enjoy porn. Radical Feminists don't want any women having sex with any men.

Radical feminists have never been any better at agreeing with each other than any other group of people! Some of them might have agreed with the MacKinnon-Dworkin position and some not, and certainly not all of them "don't want any women having sex with any men". But they'd be likely to agree that a heterosexual relationship puts a woman in danger, and risks diverting her from feminist goals. Even radicals might accept that most people are heterosexual, and it would be hard to persuade us to give up the sexual/romantic part of our lives. So they might say that relationships with men are definitely wiser to avoid, and strictly an "at your own risk" kind of activity.

"That's what people need to know when you have Radical Feminists telling young women not to have relationships with young men who enjoy porn. Radical Feminists don't want any women having sex with any men"

And frankly, this is why if you go outside of feminist groups into the general population, you will find radical feminism has very little public support.

Radical Feminists don't want any women having sex with any men.

Why make such silly statements to a group of women who are likely to know they’re untrue?

What’s wrong with women not having sex with men?
Why should women have sex with men?

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

Why make such silly statements to a group of women who are likely to know they’re untrue?

When you ask what do Radical Feminists believe you have to look at what the leading members have said. Finn Mackay in her book Radical Feminism has written this.

"Contrary to much rumour since, the paper was not suggesting that women should simply pursue same-sex sexual activity. It was about the political choice to dedicate one's life to women. In fact, in the paper, the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group clearly reassured heterosexuals that the lesbian bit is not compulsory, and that celibacy is always an option."

The paper she is referring to is 'Political Lesbianism' by the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group which was led by Sheila Jeffreys. Jeffreys wrote "all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not f*ck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women."

Julie Bindel has quoted Jeffreys and believes what she has written.

MacKinnon and Dworkin took Kant's theory of objectification and modified it to say that every time a man and a woman have sex in a patriarchal society the woman is objectified. The only solution to this is for women to become political lesbians, which in many cases will be celibacy. It certainly means not having sex with men.

Radical Feminists might not be upfront about their beliefs and so many feminists who think of themselves as Radical or Revolutionary Feminists might not even know about them.

@CupOfNiceTea

What’s wrong with women not having sex with men?
Why should women have sex with men?

There's nothing wrong with not having sex with men. If you have sex with women only you should say so. If you have sex with nobody you should say so. Because that reflects on your opinions about pornography and prostitution. When Radical Feminists cooperate with Evangelical Christians (eg Jim Wells) or Catholics (eg Ruhama) you have to ask are they really trying to protect women or are they just trying to stop people fornicating?

Do you really believe all the false statistics or do you think that sex in prostitution is bad because all heterosexual sex is bad? Are you really trying to help women or are you just trying to stop something that you find disgusting?

I'm interested to know how a thread about how certain types of points can be harmful to the young people who view it has been derailed into a thread about what? How feminists are "frigid prudes" who shouldn't be listened to? 🤔

@jennywhitehorses you are funny.

@TheWeeDonkey a very good point.

@TheWeeDonkey

I'm interested to know how a thread about how certain types of points can be harmful to the young people who view it has been derailed into a thread about what? How feminists are "frigid prudes" who shouldn't be listened to?

I don't believe that feminists are frigid prunes. If you look at what the Radical Feminists have written about pornography and prostitution they seem to be motivated by the same things that motivate the Evangelicals and the Catholics that they campaign with.

Finn Mackay in her book writes several times that she is not a prude. She says she has good reasons to oppose porn and prostitution, for example the fact that the majority of prostitutes start at 14. "the average age of entry into prostitution worldwide estimated at around only 14 years old."

The problem is though that this is not true. You only have to Google it to find several sites which say it is not true and give the reasons why it is not true. Has she not bothered to Google it, or has she Googled it, realised that it's not true and said it anyway?

If she can't be bothered then her idea that she is full of compassion for the downtrodden of the world is clearly seen to be false. If she has then she is a liar.

You cannot solve a problem without understanding the problem. If you have no intention of understanding the real world then you can only end up harming people. If you believe that every time a woman has sex with a man she is objectified that will be the real reason for opposing prostitution.

Except you keep quiet about that and keep the false statistics coming. You say that these statistics provide your motivation, but it is obvious that they are not true.

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about Jenny you seem to be conflating many different points and getting each one wrong.

Feminists have the same motivations as patriarchal religions. Really?

Mutual consenting sex is no different to prostitution. That's your issue not mine.

You need to be a lesbian to have feminists beliefs. Are you sure?

Teenagers are not groomed into prostitution. Oh you sweet summer child.

You seem to have some very odd views about women, feminism and "sex work" . There's plenty of threads on here and wider literature that can give you a better understanding, but honestly I don't relate to any of these assertions you keep making.

@TheWeeDonkey

I thought I made it clear that Radical Feminists are not the same as all feminists. I am a feminist but I am not a Radical Feminist.

If you ask someone like Finn Mackay, author of the book Radical Feminism, why she opposes pornography and prostitution she will say that it is not because she is a prude it is because (for example) most prostitutes begin around 14.

However, that is not true. It is easy to see that it is not true. All of their statistics are false. So what is the real reason? There is the attitude that women don't really enjoy sex and so it is quite easy to become celibate. Where have we heard that before? Patriarchy. Despite calling themselves Radical they are actually very old-fashioned in their attitudes.

My family were secular but sex was a taboo subject. I grew up thinking that there was this dreadful thing that children shouldn't know about. This is common. When I was a teenager I decided to overcome my sexual inhibitions. Others don't. They may end up as nuns or Radical Feminists. This fear of sex in British society comes mostly from Christianity and persists even among secular people.

A 'political lesbian' is not the same as a lesbian, as ordinarily understood. Sheila Jeffreys believed that all women should be political lesbians. So do Julie Bindel and Finn Mackay. That is what they have written. I of course, like most feminists, don't believe that and thing it's a bit weird.

It is rare for teenagers to be groomed into prostitution. I get my facts from academics who have studied this area, such as Nic Mai and Belinda Brooks-Gordon. Both professors. Not from the Daily Mail.

You think my views are odd, but they are the same as authors such as Molly Smith, Juno Mac, Emily Kenway and Professor Amia Srinivasan. You may not be familiar with their views but that is because mumsnet up to now has been something of an echo chamber for the Radical Feminists.

Nuns or radical feminists; the choices for women who are afraid of sex. thats not a school of feminsim I'm at all familiar with.
Being a political lesbian means different things to different people, but the one thing they agree on its it means centering women.

I'm not sure Finn identifies as a radical feminist any more. But I feel her contribution to feminism deserves a better epitaph than 'sex hating and crap with facts', she has some cracking articles published. They include the facts that were available to her at the time she wrote them, so lets forgive her that.

''Abolitionists usually view prostitution as a cause and consequence of inequality, including gender inequality; they do not view it as work like any other.''
www.feministcurrent.com/2013/06/24/arguing-against-the-industry-of-prostitution-beyond-the-abolitionist-versus-sex-worker-binary/

It is clear from the quotations I gave above that both Finn Mackay and Sheila Jeffreys believe that being a political lesbian means not having sex with men. Mackay goes on to say that heterosexual women can be political lesbians because they can be celibate.

So a man can't become a woman but a heterosexual woman can be a lesbian? Of course women don't have to have sex with men. At any time a good proportion of women won't be having sex with anyone. But you have to question the motivation of celibate people.

When she says that 'global research' shows sex workers want to exit, what she wants you to think is that independent research from around the world shows this to be true. This is dishonest. It all comes from Melissa Farley, a Radical Feminist whose poor quality research is known to be biased.

But you have to question the motivation of celibate people.

Why?