Porn. How do you honestly feel about it?

[Biggem]

I mean we all know men are going to look whether we like it or not.
But, I want (need) to know how other women feel about it, and I'm to scared to ask my friends incase I turn out to be the only one who has issues with it.

Any porn is fine, or is it when they start going on the live things (internet, not the shows in amsterdam) that it would bother you? Or aslong as ur still getting it u don't care it's only when they'd rather watch it than come and bump uglies with u!)

"Ethical porn can't exist whilst we live in a patriarchal society."

Why not? Why this insistence that all women are being oppressed all the time?

Milly: Well, in terms of supporting people who are into consensual BDSM, we could perhaps start with accepting that it doesn't mean you're a danger to society or to your own children. THere have been cases of vengeful XPs shopping PWCs to SS on the grounds that the PWC is a 'pervert' who will harm the DC, also people have lost jobs after being 'outed' as having once attended a fetish club.

Ok, I don't have a problem with porn, I watch it myself, but the DH I feel is now watching it all the time, rather than intitate sex with me. I'm pg and don't feel sexy at all, but I will intitate sex occ.
However, I'm now getting to the point of giving him an ultimatuim, porn or me... I have had enough.

Freya, the fact that something was once unacceptable but now is doesn't mean that everything that was once unacceptable now is. Many things that were once entirely acceptable no longer are.

BDSM culture is a subculture of society. It can't become part of mainstream society in the way that gay culture is. Gay culture is about a relationship between types of people who keep that identity within wider society. It is equivalent to people with different ethnicities having relationships, or people with different religions, or adults with a large age gap having a relationship.

BDSM is isn't primarily about a type of person; it is about a category of behaviour. I doubt many people are going to advocate that expression of BDSM culture becomes part of the mainstream. People are not going to start taking their kids on a BDSM pride march, or take their kids to a BDSM cafe. BDSM relationships are not something that people will want to express in front of their children or the general public, because unlike homosexuality, their isn't an ethical way of expressing that behaviour to people who haven't consented to participate or view that behaviour. It remains an expression that has to exist purely within consensual sex; that is not the case with homosexuality.

I am sure that you actually can make that distinction, and you don't really believe that there is a similarity between having a wider gay identity and having a wider BDSM identity or advocate that they be treated in the same way. And that is why exposure to BDSM becomes an issue connected to porn culture, because it is through the poorly regulated distribution of porn culture that people become unwillingly exposed to BDSM.

I agree with SGB that it is not acceptable for people to be put at risk of losing their children over an activity that they have kept entirely private from their children, or lose their job over an activity that they have kept private. And that should be the issue. It is a practical question of how we support this; it should not become a moral question over how we make it much more visible, because submission and sadism don't have an acceptable non-sexual expression, except perhaps in entertainment wrestling.

If you regulated porn production properly, in line with other normal working conditions, you would close the industry down.

That may or may not be true... One way to find out, I suppose.
But surely an attempt to do this - or at least to highlight this as something that needs to be considered urgently - is more productive than speculating about whether porn damages relationships, whether there's 'ethical' porn (if there is, it would survive regualtion, so there's one way to find out...)

It seems that anti-pron campaigners do themselves few favours by focussing on imponderables and so making themselves look didactic and opionated. Unfortunately this draws attention away from what has to be the real issue, which is the abuse of people (mostly women, probably) who are used in the making of porn.

The porn industry cannot respect normal employment law and still function.

It would be interesting to find out.

SGSF - I find it amusing that you have yourself such a narrow view of women who are anti-porn. Is that borne entirely out of experience? It is, as I'm sure you well know, peppered with flaws. However there is no point in arguing about the type of women who are anti-porn. It is not a debatable point and only leads to defensive attitudes and stereotypes.

ThePoorMansBeckySharp - you don't think women are oppressed? Really? Let's put aside for a moment the trade in human trafficking (mostly women and children) and the many countries in which women are second class citizens with no rights to vote, drive or maintain a free lifestyle and let's put aside the fact that in some countries women are still stoned to death for adultery, stoned to death for being raped (obviously it was her fault) and cast out by families.

Let us take this country where there are still instances of women being forced to marry against their will; women who are killed for dishonouring the family; millions of women who are subject to domestic abuse; women who on average get less pay for doing the same job as men; women who do not make up enough MPs to fully represent us; women who receive sexual threats for daring to voice their opinions on blogs; women who are paraded around at the Grand Prix, Boxing Matches and other sporting arena wearing skimpy bra and knickers; women who appear topless in national newspapers; women who make up the vast majority of the underpaid; women who are sneered at in the media for their looks, their body image and so on; women who are paraded as catwalk models with their ribs showing encouraging countless other impressionable girls to follow suit; women who are called sluts, slags, whores and other obsenities whilst men are called what exactly? I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

Porn is just one example of how misogynistic this society is. But it's also a dangerous one because of the porn industry's clever tactics of normalising porn and spreading the view that those who are anti-porn are some kind of Mary Whitehouse figures who believe in virginity and think that sex is dirty. They label porn as sexually liberating for women and point to how many women in the industry enjoy their well-paid jobs without also revealing where some of the porn profits go to, without revealing the dark underside of porn and without touching upon the fact that mainstream porn of today was the hardcore porn of yesterday - that porn is becoming increasingly violent and shocking and is forever coming up with new ways to shock in order to satisfy huge demands and those way invariably involve women in degrading positions satisfying men. Women who are referred to as dirty sluts, whores, bitches and so on. And yet to many, this is all perfectly acceptable.

I actually think I have less issue with BDSM practices than what is accepted as mainstream sexual violence in the context of porn. I don't know much about BDSM but it strikes me that because of its intense nature, the focus on valid and freely given consent is heightened (safe words/safe sex etc) and those who are interested in BDSM are very aware that the sexual thrill is predicated on power so the dynamics are actually more honest.

I would imagine men who have power and responsibility in real life are attracted to being subjugated/demeaned in their sex lives because it is a relief/pleasure not to have to be the one in control. I don't equate nasty misogynistic mainstream porn (women gagging on cocks) with BDSM porn because I would expect BDSM porn to have an equal number of men (if not more) featuring as the masochists and women as the dominatrix. Maybe SGSF will enlighten me please?

I do however come back to the problem for me with all porn is you just cannot tell who has not been coerced/drugged (eyes glazed over)/trafficked/had an abusive childhood/raped etc. Once that clicked for me, porn could no longer serve its purpose. JackMatthias summed it up: ""Think! Are you buying someone else's misery?" Kind of kills the buzz.

Plumpdogmillionaire the main problem here is not employment law or even the much tougher Health and Safety at Work legislation, because porn producers will always get round both by making the performers freelance and therefore without employee or worker status - and will be keen (as now) not to register any premises under HASAW legislation and to make sure that they have fewer than 5 employees on the books.

It is also a myth that regulation improves conditions in the sex industry, as Amsterdam discovered. Legalisation paved the way for organised crime to flourish and sex workers reported even worse treatment by punters post-2000, when prostitution became legal and regulated there.

The particular problem with regulation in porn is that most consumers access it on the internet, a medium that itself is not regulated.

I share your amusement SirCliff about these posts that have an 'Only Gay In the Village' quality about them. People who are assertive, secure about their sexuality, enjoy sex (and are not in the least bit intimidated by prejudiced internet warriors) can laugh and shrug off the narrowness of this viewpoint.

For other people, especially women, this lazy view feeds into their insecurities. Women who are told by their partners that all men use porn and that the resultant pornified sex on offer, is the best it gets. That it's acceptable for oral sex to hurt their throats and their eyes, for their necks to be gripped tightly or, as a recent thread evidenced, for their faces to be slapped during sex.

Anti-porn campaigners couldn't give a shit about what people enjoy in private and with their full consent. They acknowledge that eroticism and human sexuality is complex and that what turns one person on, might leave another cold. They do however care about people who fear being called a prude more than they fear sustaining pain, or staying in an abusive relationship, or having crap sex lives with a partner who prefers porn.

People like the OP (should she ever come back) who cannot even tell her partner or her friends that she has unease about porn and the effect it is having on her life.......

RuderBarracuda: Yes, BDSM porn does tend to feature a lot of men in the submissive role. Actually, at the risk of going off at a complete tangent, BDSM porn is often more suppressed than mainstream porn, perhaps because it features men in the submissive role (just as porn aimed directly at women and featuring naked men has far more hoops to jump through...)

SirCLiff/Charbon: I have noticed threads on here in the past when a woman says that her partner has suggested trying some kind of sexual activity that isn't vanilla heteromonogamy and asking for opinions, there is always a kind of howling chorus of 'He got that eeeevil idea from eeeevil porn, throw him out NOW!' even when the woman is saying that actually, she finds the idea sort of interesting but wants to know if anyone else has done it.

I am seriously considering, for the new year, having a root around some of my old contacts and seeing if there can't be a setting up of some sort of Fairtrade Porn certification, or at least the publicising of the concept, partly to say to those out there who are being hurt and exploited: No, it doesn't have to be like this. If you want to be a porn performer, you are entitled to safe working conditions and respect. Because it's not wrong to want to make porn, or to buy it, or to look at it, it is wrong to hurt and abuse other people. Same as it's wrong that other people are hurt and abused and killed so the rest of you can have your cheap clothing and your shiny new technological toys.

The diamond industry's been sorting its act out WRT ' blood diamonds' and the clothing industry is starting to take notice of consumer pressure as well.

Relevant employment law and health and safety principles are probably already applicable in theory, Charbon, but at present porn actors can't join performers unions, and while there are organisations that try and support porn actors, these are few and far between.

The fact that porn actors are barred from unions means that there is virtually nowhere for them to go if they need advice and support, and stigmatises them further.

Also, there will always be women who are happy to be involved in making porn. However unrepresentative they may be of the majority of women who are used in making porn, the voices of pro-porn women will always drown out anti-porn arguments because they will be used to prove 'the feminists' wrong. And I do think that by refusing to acknowledge these women's arguments, anti-porn feminists shoot themselves in the foot, if only by appearing prescriptive and unrepresentative of women, IYSWIM.

I agree with you that it's sad and unsettling that many women feel obliged to 'like' or to feign cool indifference to porn and the behaviours that it probably supports. But referring to this in the same (figurative) breath as saying you don't give a shit what goes on between consenting adults undermines your arguments a bit too.

Also, with respect to legalisation/regulation - porn itself is already legal, so I don't see how that argument has much logic to it. I think that the Amsterdam example shows how negligent law enforcement agencies are where the needs and rights of (foreign, trafficked) women are concerned. The same can be seen in the UK where trafficked women are simply sent back to their 'home' countries, rather than there being proper investigation into the crimes that have clearly been committed against them.

Perhaps if porn acotrs were able to join regular performers unions, or if it was acknowledged that there needs to be very specific attention paid to what actors genuinely consent to do or have done to them in productions, then this would be a start. It wouldn't even be that complex.

If there's not the approach of starting with looking carefully at the conditions under which porn is produced, then what's the alternative?

And yy to what SGB says about the disproportiately censorious approach to porn that is seen to 'emasculate' men/'empower' women. Good point SGB.

Unionisation wouldn't make a scrap of difference on the internet Plumpdog, where most of porn is available and consumed. Porn producers would in any case reject union performers in favour of the wider labour market and the most vulnerable in society - and there are no laws to dictate that they must give preference to a union member, especially as the performers will always be freelance and not employees.

I don't agree that showing a lack of concern for what truly consenting adults do in private, reduces my arguments. That is none of my concern and demonstrates the difference between prurience about private lives and concern about wider societal impact and especially the effects on young people.

Some of what happens in porn is certainly not legal. In many cases, it constitutes grievious and actual bodily harm. The fact that performers are too scared to report those crimes, does not negate their occurrence. I am astonished at how the average consumer denies what he or she sees when they look at their computer screen. These are real women who are really torn to shreds by the penetration that occurs, with many suffering anal and vaginal prolapses thereafter, numerous eye and throat infections, not to mention sexually transmitted infections. This is not trick photography - everything apart from the woman's feigned enjoyment is real.

The misogyny is also absolutely blatant in porn and merely reflects the profile of the user - people of both sexes who either dislike women or regard the women on their screen as in a differerent category to themselves, or their wives, sisters, mothers or women in their 'circle'.

Charbon I agree that what goes on in some - probably quite a lot - of porn involves the actual assault of actors. If anyone is in doubt about that or about its prevalence and how difficult it is to prosecute for what it is then they should have a look at the Paul F Little case.

But I think the existence of unions or the acceptance of porn actresses into existing performers unios could only be a positive thing - probably not a cure-all, but at least it would help create a benchmark for what does generally get consented to, which would in turn make it clearer what doesn't, which would make more difficult the sort of denial from many porn users about the fact that they may be watching someone being assaulted - not 'drama'. So I think it would help.

My argument about porn being legal was not that the ways it was made were legal, simply that (prima facie) porn itself is legal - so not really comparable to pre-regulation brothels.

I don't say that your argument that you don't give a shit what happens between consenting adults undermines your wider argument, just that when you closely accompany that with another argument that shows that you very clearly are concerned about this, then it looks a bit inconsistent.

It's circular to keep repeating that porn is generally misogynistic and often what users are watching is a genuine assault on vulnerable women. Everyone who has any knowledge of the porn industry already knows this.

So re. my last question: if you want to address the ills of porn and you don't start with looking at how it's made, where do you think you should start?

I wonder just how many porn stars are in the union...... and who the shop stewards are.

The thing is women is today alot of porn movies are writen and directed by women. It really doesnt bother me if my partner wishes to watch it or not if he does i hope he invites me too. If not then so be it.
What bothers me more is the web cam sex that seems to be the norm now days. I have had this issue with my other half and i have told him he can watch porn until it comes out of his ears if thats what he chooses to do but as soon as he gets in on with a woman online then its cheating, especially when email addresses are given out and it becomes 1 on 1 even in a virtual sense.

It never ceases to amaze me the level of naivete about actual porn, the actual people involved and the actual harm. having seen it first hand, it just makes me want to put my head in my hands.

once the naivete is gone, the next thing is the disassociation, the denial, the "its only pretend and its for entertainment.... thats like saying stunt men dont get hurt in holywood, and they chose to do it... etc etc. Stunt men get broken bones and a few burns occasionally, they are insured for that. besides, every possible precaution is taken to make sure no-one gets hurt. In porn, its the opposite: they are not happy until the acts are as painful and injurous as can be, and its an industry that thrives on men wanting to see someones face in pain mixed with a fake smile.... is there health insurance in the USA that covered prolapes, hep=c and clamidia treatment for folks in that line of work? Come on now, say it with me... YUCK, who can get turned on knowing that is happening? the dots are there, most of us a deliberately NOT connecting them.

These are real people, really getting slapped, really getting raped, really being degraded, humiliated, really catching infections, and really suffering from anal and vaginal prolapse, really having drug addition problems, really killing them selves (or finding jesus) and really having a tough time at the end of thier careers. Rarely do any of them state that the money was worth it, its usually all gone anyway.

Its not art: thats also just plain BS.

The so called "soft" stuff just leads its way to really really nasty stuff. its truely a gateway. if there were no demand for really nasty rape sites, then "bang bus"- a site dedicated to conning women on to a bus where they are essetially coerced into sex acts at the opportunity of money, then dumped on the street afterwards with no money to the sound of the men on the bus laughing whilst driving away calling her a whore- to name just one- would not exist.

There is demand for rape scenario, huge demand, and porn fills that gap willingly. how is this to be enjoyed by your nigel and you? what does it say about not only your nigel, but YOU? Nige is watching it with one hand. I dont think he wants you to see it, its unlikely, as a real woman with real feelings and flesh and bone would enjoy watching it. but hey, if that fills your bag,... (Stay away from me)

Also, im always blown away when people bring up bdsm as some sort of erotic fun thing, as if allowing someone to spank you in that terribly eaton kind of way and inflict pain on you is empowering... and this concept that it is a sex act: its just not. its just a power trip. its about power and domination and that is it. power is an afrodesiac, but its the power that we are watching when we are watching bdsm, not some sort of sex. (more often than not there isnt any sex at all, its pretty lame and boring)

Not to get all religelous on ya, but how is tying someone up and slapping them related to procreation? How is gang rape and anal prolapes related to raising a good family? because, really isn't sex about making babies???? and isnt making babies an 18 year journey, because, like puppies, they aren't just for christmas. (hunkers down for incoming projectiles and logs off computer.....)

I wonder just how many porn stars are in the union...

None, lubber - at present they are barred from existing performers unions.

... and who the shop stewards are.

Check the unions' websites?

yeah, it was a tongue in cheek post, not a real question. pretty sure that the industry doesn't want unions and will always find away around it, not that it will be hard. The screen actors guild drives hollywood crazy, and they don't even come close to the profit margin of porn....... and look how much money hollywood makes....... And thats what folks should be trying to get their heads around: its a massive massive industry that systematically coerces some marginalized people into dehumanizing themselves so that nige can have a wank, because two hot girls kissing just isn't enough anymore.

Even if there were an effective union, there will always be more marginalized performers to scab fill the gap of anyone who were to say "right, thats it, t!t's in, pu**ies down, we are going on strike!"

doesnt bother me whatsoever, i like looking at porn from time to time, i think most people do to some degree. Some music videos/films are not far short of porn

nope, each to their own. if you want to look. look. Doesnt phase me one iota

I know, lubber - but I thought it was still worth a straight faced reply!
And as I keep saying, even though there'd still be marginalised performers, this would be more apparent than it is now. I think it could at least create a situation where the boundaries of contracts and whether or not they were freely agreed to would be clearer, rather than porn in general being an anarchistic sub-culture where ordinary rules don't apply - and aren't expected to.
A union - or any exiting performers unions who at present don't allow porn actors to join - would also be more aware of actual investment in production companies than (often very young) 'independent' actors are, which could in turn very much reduce the extent to those who invest in porn happily turn a blind eye to abuses that go on. Which would probably change the market quite a bit.
And unions don't only work for those who have subscribed to them, they raise awareness more generally, so they still set boundaries on a wider basis.

Of course lots of porn makers would try and get around this - as they would try and get around ANYTHING that potentially restricted their activities and placed some responsibility on them, so this argument could be made to reject any strategy.

What's the alternative?

• existing!

Plumpdog the GMB Union has had a sex workers branch since 2003. I have no idea whether Equity accept porn performers, but a quick check of their website today surprised me about the diversity of work they accept in their membership. Do you know for sure that Equity for example, doesn't admit porn performers? Given that there is a large union already in this country that will accept porn actors, it doesn't seem to have made a jot of difference. Whether that's because there is low take-up rate of potential members, or the union itself doesn't campaign very vigorously?

I honestly think the only way you could make union membership attractive to performers and producers would be if you could not work without being a member. Can you see porn producers signing up to that, or our current government returning to the days when everyone had to be a union member in order to work?

And again, regulation doesn't stop abuse. The majority of US porn is made in California and the industry is regulated. Performers are meant to wear condoms, but the trade regulation body acknowledges that this safeguarding measure is frequently overlooked and that there are increasing cases of performers with HIV working in the industry.

Like I said a few posts ago, improving working conditions for performers doesn't solve the problem, or counter other objections to porn. I'd prefer to see people like Max Hardcore and his ilk prosecuted and their assets confiscated. It wouldn't matter to me whether they were prosecuted for money laundering, tax evasion or any offences that removed them from society and took their ill-gotten gains away from them. I would prefer it to be a criminal offence to post on the internet, any 'free' porn that depicted violence or aggression. Forcing people to pay money to watch violence won't stop its production overnight, but I do think it would build in a deterrent factor and demand would reduce. If the casualty of that is that there is no 'free' BDSM porn available, so be it. I would never presume that BDSMers don't have their own concerns about abuses in the porn industry.

Having read lots of research about regulation and censorship on the internet, I acknowledge that it would be near-on impossible to remove porn in its entirety from the medium, but I do think it's possible to restrict the type of porn that is available, so that young people especially can be protected from seeing violence and degradation as easily as now.

These are discrete measures connected with porn, but IMO this is part of a much bigger landscape involving misogny and patriarchy. But I have never been the sort of feminist or political woman who took the defeatist line that because the problem is so huge, it's not worth tackling one aspect of injustice. I've got no time for people who trot out the tired mantra about abuses in other industries, such as food/clothes/diamond production and I refuse to accept that just because there are abuses in other industries, we should not try to halt them in one.

The big difference for someone objecting to other examples of nastiness in society, such as the Murdoch effect, Reality television, animal cruelty or sweatshop conditions is that it's politically fashionable to do so. No-one will shout "prude!" if you object to the X factor, or claim that to disapprove of it points to a puritanical dislike of entertainment.

It's not the same for people who have the courage to say they disapprove of porn and the damage it has caused.

I really couldn't care less about it. I think women that get angry at their OHs for looking at porn have a lack of empathy and inability to accept differences between men and women. TBH I think they are doomed to face constant disapointment as they put men on a pedestal and then are crushed when they act like men instead of whatever mythical creatures the anti-porn women expect them to act like.