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.

I do agree that it would be a waste of time to discuss whether pornography is art - it's not.

Whether it is or isn't is entirely a matter of opinion. Plenty of eminent people have written essays on what is or isn't art and there is no consensus.

So it doesn't matter and I don't really care.

My argument is that there is no inherent problem with people doing whatever they want to do on camera. And I believe that some women and men may want to do things that other women or men may find repulsive or wrong. I don't think anyone else has the right to judge whether they are right or wrong, healthy or unhealthy in wanting to do those things. I have spent a lot of time looking at art as catharsis and artists like Kira O'Reilly have worked profoundly in this area.

For example, the Daily Mail had a field day with a recent piece which saw her naked, holding and cutting a dead pig on stage. Now it's pretty easy to take their approach and say, "Yes, it's a woman and a dead pig. It's disgusting exhibitionism"

Or maybe she's saying something about cruelty, catharsis, objectifying women, her own sense of feeling objectified... Nah. Just a naked woman with a dead pig.

Carmen I understand your argument about artistic expression - I just don't see what it has to do with filmed prostitution.

But then I don't have to because I'm not making that argument.

Sorry but it just doesn't make any sense with regard to what real life porn actually is.

I'm on Carmen's side here, i think, she's made some interesting, intelligent points that have made me rethink my position on this subject.

But many people would describe Kira's work as pornographic.

Thank you, Lemon.

Actually, I /asked/ why sex wasn't just like any other kind of work. The only answer which didn't have massive holes in it is the one claig put forward about it having more sacred/spiritual meaning than any other use of the body.

I think this is really worth exploring and isn't an excruciating argument at all.

And the consent argument still stands. If a woman has a right to say 'No' and be taken at her word, she also has a right to say 'Yes.'

But apparently because Dittany disagrees, those discussions are failed, demolished and worthless.

(Amazing that someone arguing against oppression can negate other women's words so rapidly and completely.)

Robert Mapplethorpe's art was described as porn. There was a debate about that
www.independent.co.uk/news/are-his-pictures-art--or-merely-porn-1148157.html

The Islingtonista queue up reverentially at the Tate to look at art that is very near porn, and Ben Dover himself says that porn is not art.

www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2002/nov/05/turnerprize2002.turnerprize

Nothing surprises me with the Islingtonistas. I can just imagine them one day, in their postmodern wisdom, describing porn as art, just as they spend large amounts of money on other crap that a critic describes as art.

There is an argument about freedom, but I think we all agree that there is a line somewhere. Even Carmen would agree that there are some things which should not be shown. The argument really comes down to where you should draw the line.

I see both sides here yes there are areas of porn which are terrible and those of course should be stopped when the participants are unwilling. However not all is like that and there are some areas of pornography which don't appeal to many people but as long as all participants involved have agreed knowingly then that is their right. People may regret their decision afterwards but that occurs in all aspects of life and is what is called a bad choice.

Carmen has asked some very important questions and I think they even get to the heart of what is different between women and men. Not many people campaign against gay men being objectified or degraded in gay porn, and not many worry if they have been coerced. People generally view men as making their own decision to participate, as active participants, and as Carmen said, many people do not accept that some women participate willingly and women are viewed as passive participants unlike men. I think this is due to a huge difference between women and men, and is again linked to the sacred aspect that Carmen introduced with her questions.

Carmen don't the facts that sex leads to STDs and pregnancy count then?

There are lots of shitty jobs but I can only think of two where pregnancy or STD is a risk for the women - prostitution and porn.

Sex is a highly culturally charged within a patriarchal system. Women are routinely objectified as the 'sex class'. Sex and gender are routinely manipulated in ways that undermine women's right to the status of equal human beings. Porn feeds into and feeds on these factors.

You may have difficulty understanding why paying someone to have sex is different to paying them to wait tables but your lack of understanding does not makes those observations invalid. If paying for an activity made it ok it would be just dandy to sell hard drugs, sells one's organs and make and sell snuff movies (of consenting adults of course!).

Porn does not happen in a political, cultural, financial or social vacuum.

You express an interest in art - I would have thought that would make you interested and empathetic to the experiences of others within the parameters of an unequal society.

"Carmen seems to think that as long as a pornographer can coerce, force or trick a yes out of a woman that he's in the clear, even when the woman afterwards says that's what happened to her."

Oh dear. You can keep saying that's what I think and it doesn't make it true.

If you accept that a compos mentis adult woman has the ability to say "no" and be taken at her word, then she also has the ability to say "yes."

Fairly obviously there are laws in place to stop contracts being made under conditions such as blackmail, force, intoxication etc. etc. and I wholeheartedly agree that this should not happen and anyone who does so should be prosecuted.

The argument about "Oh well, she's only agreeing because she got abused as a child" is offensive because it means that you can use a woman's history to argue that she does not mean what she says AND that she is incapable of choosing what to do with her own body.

No. If she is an adult and legally sane, then she can consent to whatever she wants.

Beachcomber.

Wait, I asked a question. I haven't said sex IS the same as other work. I have tried to determine why it is different.

Yes, I think the pregnancy argument is interesting too - but that's sort of hand in hand with the sacred/spiritual argument. And I think this is a really valid, useful argument.

One could answer (from an objective point of view) that pregnancy is bodily harm. I wouldn't. I would suggest that the possibility of pregnancy and the role sex plays in human reproduction to be the most convincing arguments that sex IS different from other work. Because pregnancy/reproduction is a sacred event in human experience.

(Surrogate parenting might be a problematic issue here though.
)
The STDs, I'm less convinced by because other jobs stand a small risk of infection (medical work, particularly). And many jobs stand a small risk of death. You could minimise the risk of STDs in pornography (or even just film established couples) so this isn't an inherent problem with mediatised adult material. (Although it is a problem with many current implementations of it.)

"I would have thought that would make you interested and empathetic to the experiences of others within the parameters of an unequal society."

Yes. Very. That's why I'm here actually talking about it.

It is true what you say Carmen - a women is capable of consenting

However, I think the problem is that many many women in porn are coerced into consenting, unreasonably - by what you say - blackmail, force, intoxication etc etc

So, we are probably all agreeing

Noone is saying there should be a ban

But there should be more control and protection for the 'actors' involved in porn - and yes that does include the men.

Also, if a women consents to a rape film, I don't think there is any reason this should be legally pedalled as wank material. I just don't - even if the woman involved in the film agreed to 'act' raped.

"Also, if a women consents to a rape film, I don't think there is any reason this should be legally pedalled as wank material. I just don't - even if the woman involved in the film agreed to 'act' raped."

While I understand your point of view, I think in practical terms this is impossible to enforce. It's impossible to look at a picture of two people having sex (or engaging in any sexual activity) and determine what kind of consent has taken place, let alone when you factor in playacting.

I think the difference in our arguments is that I agree that informed consent should be carefully enforced and regulated.

But some posters believe this isn't enough and women have been so 'conditioned' by society or their childhood to a point where they are incapable of giving consent.

Thanks for your answer Carmen but you are ignoring this;

"Porn does not happen in a political, cultural, financial or social vacuum."

You are ignoring the well documented evidence that in order to do their jobs, prostituted women, and women who work in porn, (same thing to me) dissociate from their bodies and suffer psychological damage as a result.

Most porn is not about selling depictions of sex - it is about selling depictions of female degradation within a political and sociological framework which treats females differently to males.

This whole subject is much more about politics and equality than it is about sex or expressiveness.

"It's impossible to look at a picture of two people having sex (or engaging in any sexual activity) and determine what kind of consent has taken place"

Exactly.

That is what makes porn consumption such a dodgy practice.

Carmen has said it. The real reason that taking money for sex is different to everything else is because sex is sacred due to the link with pregnancy and birth. All cultures and societies understand that implicitly, which is why both prostitution and porn are discouraged and kept hidden in most societies apart from permissive ones. The difference between women and men is also the difference in sacredness. Women are more sacred than men due to pregnancy and birth, and that is why few people really care whether men are degraded in gay porn movies or in heterosexual BDSM porn movies.

very interesting piece on women working in the porn industry here

Traumatic re-enactment? I'm aware of it. What do you want me to say about it? Yes, it's horrible and it sucks for anyone who is locked in any kind of self-destructive cycle. But I'm not going to argue that pubs are inherently bad because there are alcoholics in the world. Neither am I going to argue that porn is bad because there are people who have an unhealthy relationship with sex.

"Nobody has said anything about women not being able to say yes. However women in porn are routinely tricked, coerced and forced into saying yes, something which it suits you to ignore. "

Really? I have said over and over that any illegally obtained consent should not take place and should be outlawed and regulated.

"Anyway you continue to hide behind women's "consent"."

Hiding? For heaven's sake. I'm on a feminist board arguing that women know their own minds and should be able to speak for themselves on how they use their own bodies. That's hardly hiding.