Porn

[msrisotto]

Tentative!

Um, the way I see it is that a lot of porn (I have heard) is appallingly violent and degrading for women. This stuff, ideally wouldn't exist and should be banned (how, I don't know, but ideally).

However, the porn that I have seen or enjoyed is not. I wouldn't enjoy porn that is degrading.

So, why is all porn bad? (in some people's opinions?) If it isn't degrading and is equal in its approach, for the entertainment of others, then I don't see any harm.

Is the argument that you don't get the 'good' porn without the bad?

Don't flame me please, I really want this to be a considered conversation.

Carmen many women choose to stay with abusive partners who rape them and kick the shit out of them.

I'm guessing that you must be just fine with this sort of situation because the woman has chosen it, and you respect that choice.

Many feminists would of course argue that the woman is being coerced and manipulated. How dare they be so patronising and oppressive!

I don't think you've demolished my argument at all. You're just spamming cut and pasted emotive stories which have little in common. Some are rape, some are women making very poor choices which they regret.

Beachcomber, you've taken a massive leap there. No. They haven't chosen it. They are being /forced/ to stay through threats and violence. And having an abusive domestic partner is quite different from applying for a job on a porn movie.

I don't see how you can legally 'trick' someone into double anal sex. She knew before it happened that they were going to do that. She didn't have to consent.

I really can't understand this argument. You want women to have the right to say "yes" and "no" to things which happen to them, but then you argue when they say "yes" that they don't really mean it. Do they really mean "no" then?

Carmen many ex porn performers talk of how they turn up on a set having agreed to one thing and are then told that a change has been made and the scene is now more hardcore. They are pressurised into doing the scene or they will not get paid for all the scenes before.

A lot of these women say that not only did they need the money but that they felt so utterly shit about themselves anyway that they went along with it because they didn't feel they deserved better.

Doing porn erodes at a person's sense of self worth - this means they stop thinking there is any point in saying no to things they don't want to do.

I'm not saying that being in a porn film is the same as being in an abusive relationship (although curiously the two do often go together). I'm addressing your argument that women choose to do porn so that makes it ok for the rest of us to masturbate over someone else's degradation.

So women in abusive relationships are being forced but women who are abused on film have 'made poor choices'.

I will NEVER understand why some people will defend something because it was filmed and money exchanged hands that they would never defend otherwise.

You haven't demolished my arguments at all. My argument is logical and valid even if you may not agree with it.

You never answered the paradox of how "no" means "no" but "yes" doesn't mean anything.

I completely agree that perpetrating any sexual activity (or any activity) on a woman who has not consented or who has withdrawn consent is wrong.

However it is rape (or making anyone do anything they have not consented to) which is wrong. It is not the act of making movies for adult enjoyment, whether those be made by big corporate men or by amateur couples in their bedroom. It is the rape that needs dealing with, not the vague 'porn' industry.

The act of paying someone for something they would not freely give is also moderately wrong in my world view. No. I still don't distinguish sex from other activities. I wouldn't want to give myself a sore throat telemarketing all day (that would make me 'irritable' the next day too). I wouldn't want to get my legs blown off in Afghanistan.

But the argument goes round and round and is getting boring now. Good luck to you.

Beachcomber, again you have made a big leap.

Women in abusive domestic relationships are forced in a lot of ways that I don't really need to detail here.

Women may well be forced or illegally coerced/tricked to make pornographic movies or to take part in activities in those movies that they may not want to.

Both situations are wrong and illegal.

However women may choose to make a pornographic movie then find it an unpleasant and regrettable experience that they went along with.

Yes, that's horrible and very sad, but that's what comes of having free choice and free will. We make mistakes, sometimes huge ones. There's nothing illegal there and there shouldn't be anything illegal there.

Carmen there isn't a big market for videos of people telemarketing for consumers to masturbate over AFAIK.

I'm sure there are some sick fucks who would masturbate over someone getting their legs blown off but it is probably a niche market.

I'm not really sure what much of what you are saying has to do with pornography TBH.

I was very unconvinced by your 'Nike are exploitative bastards too' argument.

The argument against being anti porn really just comes down to 'some people want to consume porn and it is a human right to do so, eat shit (literally) to women who make 'poor choices' (although this argument only appears to be used for porn and prostitution, otherwise the woman is a victim of force and coercion) and people who are anti porn are inhibited and want to spoil everyone else's fun.

And the above utterly lame bullshit justifies all the violence, pain, fear, degradation, rape, misogyny, racism, humiliation, unwanted pregnancy, STD, PTSD, depression, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse in porn just how exactly?

Prolesworth, the problem with that is you are dictating what is good and what is bad sex. I don't know how you define whether a woman (or a man) has been degraded in a movie or picture.

For some, drinking piss is a horrible, soulwrenching, life changing experience. For others, it's a good Friday night.

That's flippant but it's true. There are plenty of amateurs out there doing BDSM and fetish stuff. I can't judge what is good for society and what isn't good for society sexually. Is licking a shoe ok? What about having sex with a grumpy expression as opposed to a smile?

You have two practical choices - ban all mediatised/staged displays of sex, which is a huge slippery slope to Victorian censorship. Or start setting rules about what is or isn't acceptable. Outside of setting rules about child porn (which is measurable by considering the age of the subjects), this is very difficult to do - almost impossible to look at a photograph of sex and determine whether it is rape or consensual.

Carmen simple question if you would be so good.

If a woman consents to make a porn film and 'then finds it an unpleasant and regrettable experience that they went along with' do you think it is just fine for others to masturbate over that woman's images?

Imagine that the woman has a history of sexual abuse (very common in both porn and prostitution), imagine that the woman caught a STD during the film, imagine that the woman originally said no anal but then agreed to double penetration after being threatened, imagine that the woman is called a slut and a whore and a bitch, imagine that the woman is dressed up to look under age, imagine that the woman is in pain and frightened, imagine that the woman drank alcohol or took drugs to get herself through the experience. Do you think it is morally acceptable in civilised society for some people to make money from the images of this woman and for others to wank over them?

I don't.

What I have described above is very very common in porn according to the woman who have experience of this so called 'industry'.

I don't really care what people masturbate over, Beachcomber. I'm not the thought police.

I posted that last comment before I read your last post. Xpost.

Let me finish reading...

Carmen you do realise that people in porn films are acting don't you?

These films are not films of people acting out their sexual fantasies, fetishes and love lives - they are following a script.

Stop pretending that we are arguing against what people do in the privacy of their own homes with partners they have chosen.

Beachcomber.

Morally acceptable is a tough one. I don't really know what that means in practical terms.

The woman has not consented to what happened (drink, drugs, threats) so she has been raped and a crime has taken place. Those involved should be prosecuted and the photographs removed from circulation. Of course, this isn't necessarily possible on the internet.

If you know you are doing anything to support crime (downloading pictures profits them) then yes, that behaviour is morally wrong.

The problem is, with the internet, pictures get circulated so much you have no idea whether they are taken by a happy couple enjoying themselves or a woman who has been abused.

I'm in favour of what Leningrad said - regulation of the industry. Professional pornographers are employers and should be bound to professional employment standards.

The word moral has a really simple meaning - it just means whether something is right or wrong.

I think it is wrong to masturbate over the images of someone being degraded and hurt regardless of the choices that person has made. I think it is wrong to sell those images.

Do you?