Amateur porn - is it wrong from a feminist perspective?

[Bennifer]

Just a general question. There's obviously porn that is "professional" in a sense, and it relies on the exploitation of women. What about amateur porn that's done between consenting couples who put stuff on the internet (or couples we assume are consenting)

PS, I don't want to include amateur looking porn that is professional in this category

Dittany, why should I say what I don't think? I've said that I think women being abused is wrong.

Dittany what do you mean by objectification? Let's take a clearer example. Are fashion models objectified?

I don't see how it's rude to ask questions on a discussion forum. The clue's in the name.

Ok, is it sexual objection rather than objectification you object to then?

Well, I don't particularly see how it's rude to disagree on a discussion forum either. It's possibly ruder to assume I have a pro-porn agenda, when I was asking about whether porn was wrong if no-one was exploited and whether porn was intrinsically wrong (ignoring the exploitation that I object to).

I'll have to look up on the more theoretical objections to porn, but I'm not yet convinced by it as the case seems a little weak.

That must be why so many fans fork out millions of pounds each week to watch them at football matches or on Sky I guess. Because they just don't care.

Yes but you have to admit Footballers seem to spend more time on adverts selling soething or in the tabloids the masses seem more Interested in that as everyone knows, that what I was saying.

Um Haughty, I think most footballers spend most of their time playing football or training. You're talking about a side issue.

Its not a side issue really how much time is spent talking about what good footballers they/public scandals its ususally the latter people focus on.

Dittany, from the threads I've lurked on, most of the anti-porn arguments seem to quite reasonably come from the abuse/exploitation angle. It's for the very reason that I don't think the objectification side has been discussed a great deal that I brought it up.

I don't think that Amateur porn is a reality, I think it's just a cheap genre.

For me porn and the involvement of women is always going to be a blind choice, if she does it she's expolited even if she wants to. Possibly not even true for all but until we stop objectifying women we never know if porn stars have a true free choice.

Dittany,

You're going on a step here from the basic premise. When you ask do I think it's ok to be treated like that, yes I do think it's ok for women to have sex. Why wouldn't I think it's ok for women to have sex. I'm not talking about abusive porn, I'm starting with the question "is it wrong to watch people have consensual sex?", not "is it ok to watch people being abused?"

So, yes, I'm happy for my Dad to have sex, I'm happy for my daughters to have sex, sex is ok with me. Please also note, I'm not accusing you of being anti-sex.

I can't think of any good analogy for pornography.

When we are talking about pornography we are talking about sex. Issues exist about negative aspects of sex that are different to those of footballers or women working in the pharmaceutical industry. It would be nice if these issues did not exist around sex, but they do.

Women and children are not trafficked all around the world for the purpose of being made to play football. Women are not abducted, made to play football and then murdered. Being forced to play football is not a common reason for launching a police investigation. Social services and paediatricians do not spend a great deal of time looking for signs that a child has been forced to play football. You will not be accused of putting yourself at risk of crime or encouraging others to commit a crime simply because you put on a football strip. People take children to football matches all the time. In short, football exists within a completely different cultural context to pornography.

With regard to the drug analogy, it is true that there are many women (and children and men) whose labour is exploited in the production of many goods that we use. We have some options to choose products that do not involve the exploitation of women, but we cannot be sure about every single thing we buy. But we do have to eat, wear clothes and sometimes take drugs that stop us becoming seriously ill.

The other difference is that the wellbeing I receive from taking medication is because of the drug, and not directly because of the exploitation of another woman. The same is true for clothes; I enjoy being warm, not the fact a woman was exploited. If the clothes came with a video of a woman being exploited, I would have difficulty appreciating the benefits of the garment. The direct benefit from pornography is sexual enjoyment of the exploitation of another human being. That is going to have very different psychological impacts on the viewer and their perspective on people in general than the impact that using (possibly unethically produced) ventolin has on me.

Actually, I feel it is a bit absurd that I should have to justify drug use and explain why it is not the same as somebody masturbating to pornography.

Funnily enough I am going down the street this weekend with my genitals on show (I'm involved in a naked protest!).

I wouldn't be super-happy, but I wouldn't be horrified if my daughter put a consensual sex video between her and her boyfriend on the internet.

The answers would be the same, I wouldn't be super happy but I wouldn't be horrified. The truth is I wouldn't know about it as I don't watch porn.

Men in the street is entirely different though, that's a poor analogy.

If you're saying that fundamentally, you don't like the idea of people looking at naked bodies and people having sex, that's quite an interesting stance, although it does seem a little puritanical

You almost admit it's a bad analogy because as you say, people don't just start shagging (or masturbating) in the city centre.

What you're saying is that you're opposed to viewing of any sex that goes beyond the privacy of the two (or three or four) people involved, even if they consent to other people watching. That does sound quite puritanical I'm afraid.

I have to add, when did using "our culture" as a defence for anything work? I thought "our culture" was patriarchical.

Dittany, this isn't disingenuous. I've seen some porn, but that's not what this thread is about. I asked a perfectly valid question. Is it ok to watch people having consensual sex, if those people have consented to you watching it?

You don't seem to think it's ok, and therefore are opposed to any form of eroticism, tout court.