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.

Larry your point about freedom doesn't address the question about why people exercise their freedom to masturbate to films of real women being sexually exploited, abused, humiliated, used, harmed, hurt, degraded and objectified by men.

It doesn't address the question about what sort of society are we when we let people exercise their freedom to make money from these films.

It also does not address or even appear to have the slightest interest in the fact that these freedoms are exercised within a political and social framework that refuses to grant women equality - a framework within which sexual degradation, rape and battery of women is shrugged of as not only inevitable but considered to be acceptable.

It would appear that this discussion is being dragged back to the 'but some women consent so tough shit on all of humanity 'cos we got a get out of jail free card' level. Shame.

Sprogger,

Fair and interesting point.

We all believe we look through "clear" glass I guess. However, I would still prefer to try to objectively find some "clear" glass rather than turning it into a "red" versus "blue" discussion.

interesting points being raised.

beachcomber- creating and distributing films featuring the abuse of women, men or children is illegal and i doubt anyone here would support or defend it. you cannot however prosecute a thought crime.

for me, the main issue is finding new ways to prohibit the wide distribution of such films on the internet... the uploading and downloading of films featuring abuse is something that needs to be addressed more aggressively, in my opinion. less films would be made if fewer people could access them.

"beachcomber- creating and distributing films featuring the abuse of women, men or children is illegal and i doubt anyone here would support or defend it. you cannot however prosecute a thought crime."

I don't understand what you mean blinks.

Porn not only features the abuse of women but it blatantly markets itself as such - are you suggesting otherwise?

You've lost me with the thought crime stuff - I think it should be illegal to pay someone to have sex with yourself or a third party/parties. I think human beings should have the basic decency not to wank over the sexist exploitation and degradation of others regardless of who consented to what and when - doesn't seem too much to ask.

I fail to see what that has to so with something abstract like thought crime. People are not thinking about making, distributing and buying porn - they are doing these things. The women in porn are real and the words written to describe the films are real. They are not the figments of someone's imagination or thought crime.

Even if porn apologists wish to try to wriggle out of things by claiming people in porn are acting, following scripts, etc, the blurb to describe most porn is abusive and describes abuse.

Most of the time the consumer is being told that this stuff is abuse for crying out loud. (see various quotes upthread or do a quick google search if you've got the stomach for it).

Good god we've got a long way to go if we can't get beyond basic first bases - getting our heads out of the sand of what modern porn is about, what it features, the context of inequality within which it happens and what it says about our society that we normalise and fetishise sexual power and abuse of one gender over the other. (and then turn it into a commercial transaction FFS).

I wish you'd answer my direct questions Carmen. You're looking as though you have lost the argument and are using spurious accusations of being called inhuman, to avoid engaging.

i was referring to masturbation over abuse being a thought crime, beachcomber.

Beatitude. I'm not really interested in 'winning or losing' - I thought this was a discussion.

The only direct question I can find that you've asked me is this: "Oh and a quick question Carmen - do you defend the right to free artistic expression of racists, paedophiles, anti-semites and homophobes? Or just that of mysogynists?"

Don't know about 'artistic expression' but I think everyone should be able to speak, write and perform freely within certain boundaries mostly defined well by the law (i.e. not performing adult work to children or yelling fire in a theatre).

It's a hard call because much of what you suggest here could move into hate crime and it's complex. For example you mention 'racists', I think people should be able to question the hijab in a public forum or even to have the right to protest outside a mosque. But they should not have the right to run up and shout in Muslim women's faces.

So this really doesn't have a whole lot to do with pornography or anything else. Other than I think if people consent to make something and people consent to see something then yes, there should be free expression all around. I have faith in society that we won't all turn into paedophiles or homophobes or racists because one is allowed to publically state their case.

You also asked about contracts. Ok, let's say a soldier deserts from the front line. He breaks his contract. It doesn't matter if he has suffered PTSD or seen his best friends die or whatever. He signed up for it.

Personally, I think that's a horrible, horrible situation and I don't think it should happen to anyone. But at the same time, I think that soldier has both a right to sign a contract and a responsibility in doing so, and so does a porn star. With rights come responsibilities. I know you'll disagree with me on this and I understand why but there you go. I haven't deliberately avoided any questions - I've just had rather a lot of them fired my way (and quite a lot of personal abuse too so I'm pretty weary of all of this).

So signing on the dotted line means a woman has a responsibility to undergo rape and torture. Can you not understand why some people find that a simply horrific world view?

I also disagree with you about PSTD, btw, that is a real case where the patriarchy harms men.

And also the idea that my question had nothing to do with porn is wrong. Don't you understand that a lot of porn is hate speak - against women? The only reason that hate speak against women is legal unlike some other hate speak, is because er, we live in a patriarchy.

"Can you not understand why some people find that a simply horrific world view?"

Yes. Absolutely. I feel the same way about military desertion, Gap using sweatshop workers and plenty of other things. I don't like seeing people suffer.

But I don't believe in forcibly protecting people from themselves. I agree that there should be education about the porn industry so that people can make an informed choice. I agree that it should be well regulated to make it as safe and fair as possible. But each individual still has a right to commit their body, mind and time to whatever they choose (and take the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of your choice) whether it be fighting on the front line, being a medical guinea pig or fucking Ben Dover. (Actually with any of these, you could walk out but you probably wouldn't get paid. Oh well. Why should you get paid if you walk out?) Here, I am talking about someone making an INFORMED CHOICE. I understand that the porn 'industry' often doesn't work like that but it /could/.

"A lot of porn is hate speak"

Interesting viewpoint and probably a lot of truth in it. Some of the quotes above definitely show hateful speak about women but 'hate speak' as a label is difficult to define even outside pornography. Whether or not it fits the legal definition, I have no idea.

Dittany: Then they're probably breaking a whole lot of employment rules. Hence why I say that the pornography industry should be regulated as much as any other industry.

"But you do agree with using legal force and coercion to enforce unreasonable contracts that would lead to rape or death."

No. In my 'fantasy' world, everyone would give their resources and services freely.

However we don't live in that world.

I agree with you that people make agreements under duress and this is wrong. I agree with you that people make agreements without being properly informed and this is wrong.

However if a woman (or man) of sound mind makes an agreement which they understand and are educated about, they either need to carry out the agreement or deal with the consequences of breaking it (jail, fine or most likely not getting paid).

If you don't want to have sex with Ben Dover, don't sign a piece of paper saying you're going to have sex with Ben Dover.

(And yes, I know you keep telling me that's not what porn contracts are about. But it could be)

Carmen of course it doesn't fit the legal definition of hate speak.

Hate speak against women is part of our culture. Our law-makers don't see a problem with it. We're going to have to work very hard to get the word "slut" to be as socially unacceptable as "nigger".

I must say I really don't understand your world view. Why are contracts so important in your mind? More important than people's humanity? It is simply bizarre.

You know, under English law there is such a thing as an illegal contract.

If a contract is seen to breach fundamental human rights, it is illegal.

So for example, you cannot try to enforce a contract you've made with someone, however sound their mind is, which says that you have the right to whip them every day in return for allowing them to live in your house.

Even the patriarchs who made the law, understood that basic humanity trumps legalistic contracts.

The contracts aren't the important bit.

The important bit is that I believe an adult person of sound mind has the legal right to choose what happens to their own body even if that choice is harmful to themselves.

Contracts are just one way of articulating that choice.

I have things to do and am tired of the cross examination.

Feel free to post about how you've won or I've lost.

Enjoy your evening.

But it's not a cross-examination.

It is a genuine attempt to try and get you to examine your opinions.

Because they are mad. IMHO.