New left project: Is porn hijacking our sexuality?

[WidowWadman]

3 part debate between Sarah Ditum and Gail Dines on the topic, very interesting reading.

Must say that I tend to agree more with Ditum than with Dines. And also found Petra Boyton's quote very interesting:

?The evidence base on the effects of pornography is not particularly clear, given that many studies are limited by small samples; riddled with experimenter expectancy effects and demand characteristics; poorly designed and poorly reported lab-based research that often features male undergraduates who?re not representative of the wider population.?

Boynton continues: ?It?s not to say all porn research is bad, but because the majority of studies are so flawed it?s very difficult to draw any clear conclusions from them ? particularly around direct causal links between images and actions. Unfortunately this confusion leads to both pro and anti pornography groups cherry-picking particular studies to suit their respective agendas.?

It supports my view that, whilst porn admittedly is very problematic, the world isn't simply black and white, and neither the pro nor the anti porn argument is without flaws.

She'd need stronger arguments backed up with facts than that before her assertions would stand.

Petra Boynton is a pro-porn activist:

www.backlash-uk.org.uk/boynton.html

I've got a lot of respect for Petra Boynton, as she makes evidence based arguments rather than sweeping statements to fit an agenda.

To dismiss her as a "pro porn activist" instead of engaging with her just shows that you're not actually willing to examine anything which may be contradicting your own views.

I'd be interested to see any evidence she has. Not just generalised claims.

She's not even able to accurately represent anti-porn research. A great deal of it is into the contents of actual pornography, not the minds of male undergraduates.

Why would you want to hide that she's a pro-porn activist. Gail Dines doesn't pretend she's anything except an anti-porn activisit. I find it weird, these people who hide their political agendas.

What are your politics as a matter of interest WidowWadman?

I think porn is more than problematic and that it is not seeing the world in black and white, to find it horrifying that a large number of men regularly access films which almost invariably refer to women as sluts (IE dehumanise us) and find the sexual torture and humiliation of women so delightful, that they jack off until they reach orgasm.

Trying to argue that it's all too black and white to want to ask why men find the torture of women such a turn on that porn, most of which is misogynist, is one of the biggest industries in the world, is just accepting that men have the right to de-humanise women. Accepting our de-humanisation, isn't a feminist position, it's just head-in-the-sand bullshit. And no, I can't be arsed to engage with arguments that accept misogynist bullshit either. Particularly at this time of night.

I'm not hiding anything, you use a label to discredit her instead of engaging with her argument.

As for my politics - I'm lefty libertarian. Why does that matter?

It's just not necessary to engage with her arguments.

Or with those of anyone who accepts men's rights to jack off to images of women being sexually tortured and refuses to engage with why that might not be a valid way to get your kicks.

Off to bed now, refuse to waste valuable sleep-time engaging with woman-hating bullshit.

Well I'm pointing out her position. If that discredits her that's her lookout. She makes arguments on behalf of the porn and sex industries and also in favour of BDSM I believe, so why pretend that's not the case. She has a political postition just like the rest of us.

Also what I really meant what are your politics with regard to feminism and in particular the sex industry?

So would you support the Swedish model of prosecuting people who buy sex whilst decriminalising prostituted people?

Would you agree that prostitution is violence towards women and an abuse of human rights?

Do you agree that pornography is hate speech against women?

I've found it's much easier to have cards on the table at the beginning of these types of discussions, so there's no dodging around.

So as not to put you just on the spot my answers are yes, yes and yes.

Did you come out somewhere near Gandhi? I think most Europeans do.

I do think porn is hijacking sexuality. So do Anti Porn Men as well as lots of feminists who have thought about it, read about it, watched it and talked about it. Porn is harmful, both for those being filmed and those watching. And for those who have to live in a society with those whose frames of reference have been shaped by porn. I'm not open-minded about it - why would I be?

I think the Swedish way of doing things isn't bad, neither is the German way, where prostitutes can work paying taxes, into a pension fund and get health insurance, rather than being forced to work on the black market.

It is unlikely that the sex industry will ever cease to exist, therefore I favour regulation and thus minimising harm over an attempt to ban which will just drive it underground and thus most likely increase the potential for abuse.

I have not pretended Boynton doesn't make those arguments - but you seem to frame it in a way that just by making these arguments she is immediately to be discredited. And that's weird. It's impossible to have a debate with anyone who goes "only my world view is correct and whoever contradicts is a whatever activist not worthy of discussion".

What you employ, dear nyac, could be called silencing techniques.

Seriously expand her arguments. There's nothing to engage with there. There are no facts, just assertions.

You haven't answered my questions. Why not? The rest of us here are very open on our positions on the sex industry and pornography. I don't think it's possible to have a reasonable argument if one person is hiding their political position.

Maybe I should make the question shorter.

Do you think men should have the right to be able to buy women's bodies for sex, either through pornography or in prostitution?

Nyac I believe men and women should have the right to exchange sexual services for money if they wish to do so under their free will without coercion (coercion through people or economic needs).

Anyway, I don't see the point summarising someone else's position, when you've already posted an extensive link to it yourself. You're not interested in an argument, and I'm bored already.

Maybe someone will trundle into this thread who's actually interested in discussing the topic. I certainly hope so.

You started this thread with a quote from Boynton which you said supported your position. The fact that it's simply full of weak assertions makes me wonder why you think it's so useful. But I guess it's up to you.

Thanks for telling us you're pro prostitution. It didn't seem terribly easy to get you to state that.

I guess the other thing I'd ask someone in a discussion about porn is if they themselves are a porn user, but that does seem to offend a lot of people. I don't understand why really, when porn users think that porn is such a great thing. It's funny not to want to talk about it.

I have no problem talking about porn. I've produced it, appeared in it and enjoyed it for more than twenty years.

And that Ditum piece is great stuff.

Nyac it's not that people don't want to talk about it. It's a difficult subject to raise on forums such as this where sweeping statements advocating femenist propaganda are rife. Why enter a debate when the other side is more interested in torches and pitchforks than an actual conversation?

I've very recently been called a "supporter of filmed sexual abuse" which is an example of such propaganda. I found that very alarmist. To call porn filmed sexual abuse is inflammatory and screams of a viewpoint that cant be discussed. I am not for one second denying hat some women AND men are abused in porn but I find it a flimsy argument against porn in general. I asked if people using this argument would boycott buying clothes all together just because SOME manufacturers abuse children and women by using them as slaves paid on a pittance to make them. No-one replied.

It seems that the general consensus against it is one of exploitation. Yet it never occurs to people using this argument that these women and men themselves are exploiting a good market to make money and that they came to this choice of thier own free will. People who freely enter the porn industry are deemed an embarrassment to the human animal and a disgrace to the female sex. I find this deeply patronising and very limited.

Well I don't like being told what makes a woman a real or worthy women by EITHER sex. Finding legitimately made porn is not difficult.

Rooting out the abusive element in porn is something that I wholeheartedly encourage. But I will NOT condemn an entire industry on the back of it.

The thing is Autumn, people need clothes. No-one needs porn.

I thought that someone might say that Abigail but I still find it very hypocriticcal that people will buy clothes knowing what happens to children and women the world over. You might need clothes but do you need to buy them? Do you? If the abuse saddened you as much as abuse in porn you would go out of your way to biycott it. but you don't.

And, for the record, the fullfillment of sexual needs is recognised widely in Phsychology as necessary for a healthy mental state. So I refute that too. I'm npt saying that people "need" porn all the time but, for many, there is no other outlet.

People don't need porn at all.

And you don't NEED to buy clothes. But you do.

All I'm saying is that I do with porn as with any other product. Know where it comes from!

I agree with Autumn. People may not need sexual entertainment in the way we need food and shelter and clean water but we don't 'need' art or music or jewellery either. Yet the world would be a more miserable place without them: people should try to base more of their consumer decisions on whether or not the desirable item (shoes, new mobile phone, porn DVD) was produced by people working of their own free will for a fair wage.

It's not propaganda Autumn, if it's true.

Pornography requires the prostitution of women. Prostitution is male violence against women and inherently abusive. It's not possible to separate out the pornography from the abuse.

Basically you're saying that you want people to shut up about the truths of pornography or you won't discuss your support of it. I don't think that's how discussions work.

Well there we differ SGB. I think the world would be a far happier place without porn. It isn't art or music. As a rule art, music or jewellery don't harm women. Porn harms real women. The women who are involved in it and the rest of us because of how we are viewed and treated as a result of it.