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.

Beachcomber. I am completely happy with your definition about defending women's right to be treated as equal human beings. But my interpretation of what that means is very different from yours.

I don't think either of us is any less a feminist (not that I really care what label you stick on me). We just have different views.

There are plenty of eminent, well educated people out there who have differing views on issues of consent, pornography, the value of sex and so on. There isn't a mythical consensus.

I object to all the shouts of misogynist, woman-hating, anti-feminist.

There most certainly is a party line. You and Dittany want me to agree with you on what being an equal human being means. I understand your point of view. But I disagree.

Ugh. My post was very badly written.

I think consent is one notion at the heart of our disagreement.

I think the ability to consent or not consent is what makes us equal, grown up humans. I think it is very, very important that we do not remove that ability.

You think that women may consent under circumstances that are bad for them, so those circumstances shouldn't arise.

Different viewpoints. Different interpretations of feminism, but probably both with women's interests at their heart.

Interesting debate. But I've personally had enough.

"There's no evangelism here, there are strong arguments, but then there need to be strong arguments given the entrenched woman-hating that is such a strong part of our culture."

This what I mean when I say there can be no watered down feminism. There can be no ifs nor buts nor didn't really mean its.

Carmen,you haven't argued the happy hooker myth but you did argue its first cousin the 'consenting adults strawman'.

"It's not our job to help you find your humanity"

This is probably the most woman-hating phrase that has been used over and over again on this board.

Because a woman disagrees with you, she is inhuman.

"This what I mean when I say there can be no watered down feminism. There can be no ifs nor buts nor didn't really mean its."

I don't understand this. I have a different interpretation of women's equality to you. It's no more or less diluted than yours. It just focuses on different issues and aspects of the problem. What does 'watered down' even mean unless you're pushing black and white thinking? Again with the goodies and baddies.

Carmen,

Personally, I think you argue very cogently.

Some of the argument re consent reminds me very much of "Animal Farm". There seems to be the idea that women are not capable of making their own choices, bad or good, and bad choices made are the responsibility of the "patriarchy". However, someone has to "decide" what choices a grown up woman can or cannot make. And, from what I read, certain people on this board would like themselves to be the arbiter on this.

"Then he looked through the windown and the pigs had stood up, and were walking on their hind trotters" (or something like that, have not checked the quote). One of the most sinister lines in modern literature.

Everyone should be able to make good and bad choices, within some reasonable protective framework. That is what the law is for.

As adults, though, we do have a duty to protect our young. That is where I find pornography to be very damaging.

Prolesworth, I'm not debating porn any more. After all, why would you be interested in the opinion of someone who is apparently inhuman?

Yes, Larry.

I have no wish to label you and I don't want you to agree.

I'm just putting arguments across which defend my stance and point of view and trying to have a discussion about porn that goes beyond 'women watch it too' and 'consenting adults'.

I know some hard things have been said to you on this thread Carmen but I think your (possibly badly worded) arguments about sore throats and telemarketing shocked a lot of people.

If I have judged your comments as callous it is because I find them to be so, not because we do not agree.

You are being challenged because in a feminist context your arguments are not convincing - not because we are big bad bossy boots who cannot tolerate being challenged.

Beachcomber, I think you should perhaps speak for yourself rather than 'a lot of people.'

There is no one 'feminist context' - indeed, you are saying 'we.' Who is 'we'? Who has defined this feminist context? There are some people who have agreed with me on this thread and who have said my arguments are convincing (lemonmuffin, blinks, larry.) There are some people like you and Dittany who don't. C'est la vie.

Prolesworth. I have put forward numerous arguments. Some people have found them convincing. Some less so. I don't really need to be talked to nicely but I think telling someone that they are not human is foul.

Enjoy your day.

Prolesworth,

Short of a utopia where everyone is rich and can make comfortable free choices, there are always going to be people who have to make unpleasant choices. Some of them are men.

Some people are freer than others but that does not, in the main, split down the sexes. It splits by class and opprtunity. No woman I personally know cannot make entirely free choices as they are from the fortunate end of society with degrees and, generally, economic independence. To speak of hidden influence of the "patriarchal" society is to demean the intelligence of the majority of women. Most can see through it and make informed choices.

It is important to make laws to protect the weak but infantilising women is no way to protect them or achieve equality.

Prolesworth,

What you are actually debating is the meaning of the word "free". I feel that if someone is free, in law, to make a choice, then they are free to make it. Now, clearly, some people are frightened or otherwise pressured, and maybe that does apply more to women than men. However, by my definition, they are still "free" to make a choice, even if it is a scary and difficult choice to make. I feel that the law is there to protect those who make those difficult choices and it is their obligation to use the protection it affords.

You are saying that people are not "free" if they feel pressured of influenced. That is where I think that you have to respect the idea that someone is an adult and adults sometimes have to make tough and unpleasant decisions. However, I clearly see that you disagree with this.

The point is, how are you going to create better conditions without, effectively, telling women what choices they can or cannot make? Some women may choose to be lap dancers (to choose a contentious example) and, even if she numbers just one woman, should she not be free to make that choice?

TheButterflyEffect,

People have a right to see things from whatever perspective they want to. I am a believer in "rights from" rather than "rights to" (as per the original American constitution). However, if you look through red glass, everything will look red. It does kind of stifle meaningful discussion.

The humanity quote does not mean that you being called not human. It means you are defending or justifying in some way the treatment of women as lesser beings and that those who have repeatedly pointed out that that is what you are doing have given up.

A feminist context is one which looks at things from women's perspective and the perspective of women achieving equal human status. The existence of patriarchy, male privilege and female oppression are a given.

This is why your 'consenting adults' idea is problematic.

I already quoted this but because I think you are a good 'un Carmen I'll post it again;

"The pornographers want to label any collective discussion of the meaning of intimacy and sexuality as repression. They want to derail any talk about a sexual ethic. They, of course, have a sexual ethic: Anything goes. On the surface that seems to be freedom: Consenting adults should be free to choose. I agree they should. But in a society in which power is not equally distributed, ?anything goes? translates into ?anything goes for men, and some women and children will suffer for it.? Any society that claims to take freedom seriously must engage in a discussion about power, and take steps to equalize power. That means taking steps to end men?s domination of women."

Join FFE if you want Carmen but read please the articles on here too.

uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/articles_gender.html

larrygrylls "However, if you look through red glass, everything will look red. It does kind of stifle meaningful discussion."

That is exactly why I want to see quotas for MPs/the cabinet/boards of directors/public institutions.

Whilst there is a majority of men in these positions; these institutions will inevitably looking at the world through the eyes of men - this does indeed stifle meaningful discussion of women's issues and indeed leads to inaction on sexual inequality.

"Far better to get a consensus of people of both sexes who fear for the effect it is having on their children. Then you might actually achieve something."

Campaigning to ban porn can run alongside campaigns to remove access to porn for children! They are not mutually exclusive!

Tabouleh,

I don't like quotas as it assumes the choices people make and can cause discrimination in the other direction. For example, let us assume that more women do CHOOSE to stay at home as mothers than men as fathers, and that this is not necessarily a result of discrimination. I am not saying that this is the case but it certainly might be. If you then impose quotas on the remaining men and women, it implies you will be discriminating against men relative to the ability pool.

I am not sure men and women do need to see the world through a "feminist" or "male" perspective. It assumes that there is no objectively fair way of looking at things. I personally just believe in fairness and equality.

Agreed re your campaign. I will certainly get involved.