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.

No, I'm telling people to come up with arguments that aren't completely hypocritical. I never said anything about placing conditions on my discussing the subject. I said why it's a difficult thing to do when you're talking in support of something with a group of people who can rarely support thier argument without vitriol.

It is my fervent opinion that abuse applies ONLY where a person is actually abused. Saying that someone doing something freely is abusive to them doesn't gel at all.

ANd why is it only the porn industry which you are incapable of seperating legitimate workers from abused workers? Why do you not take this stance with every other industry. Becaue abuses exist in all industries.

But there are plenty of people making porn with willing performers that's about exploring sexuality and giving pleasure. It's not wrong to want to watch other people having sex, nor is it wrong to engage in sex-as-performance to entertain others.

Abigail all sorts of abuses exist in the arts and entertainment industries? That these industries place pressure on us and our kids to be a "certain way"? Or is that not important beacuse it's not just about women. And while we're talking about jewelery, you do know about blood diamonds don't you?

All I see here is pure hypocracy.

First off the non abused, non exploited workers are few and far between despite the "happy porn performer" myths spread around. Most porn performers have backgrounds of sexual abuse and/or rape, most are on drugs once they are in the industry.

I suggest you read Shelley Lubben's website for more details.

Secondly abuse and exploitation in other industries doesn't lead to someone's rape on film for someone else's enjoyment. That's the bottom line here. You're masturbating to someone who could be being raped or abused. For example a whole lot of people got a great deal of erotic excitement out of Linda Lovelace's rapes on the set of Deep Throat. Rapes that were turned into a multimillion dollar film that brought porn-rape to the mainstream.

Thirdly pornography promotes the abuse of women. Read this article by Robert Jensen about the contents of mainstream pornography if you are unaware of what it is like these days:

uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornography&cruelty.htm

Autumn, why are you trying to take the focus off the porn industry? That is what we are discussing here. There are plenty of other threads talking about the exploitation of women in other industries such as media, music,medicine, clothing etc. Even better, start one up yourself if that is what you want to talk about. Most of us are more than capable of caring about (and do care about) more than one issue at once. It is not hypocritical to focus on porn though. Just as it isn't hypocritical to focus on breast cancer rather than lung cancer or cancer of the liver.

However as Nyac said porn actively promotes the abuse of women. it is their aim to do that. And the amount of ethical porn out there in no way outweighs the amount of damage the majority of porn does.

This had been said before by others but I'd like to live in a society where porn doesn't make sense.

Porn is innately problematic*. The making of clothes is not innately problematic. Making of clothes does not need to include exploitation, it might do but that is not an innate characteristic of it. Whereas it is in porn.

Autumn if you're genuinely interested, the arguments you present are in no way new and have been discussed plenty. Google some feminist material on porn and you'll see them discussed. Or even some threads on here.

*Happy to revisit that statement once we don't have patriarchy.

Alice My comparison with abuses in porn to abuses in other industries was very much relevant to my support of legitimately made pornography. It is not to detract from the topic, it is to say how a very large part of the anti-porn argument makes little sense to me. It would seem though that since other abuses don't involve rape or prostitution that they are not relevant.

Furthermore, I don't clai$ that my philosophy on the subject is new But I don't see how the unoriginality of my viewpoint negates it.

Although I will read some of the materials you suggest

Autumn, I didn't pass any comment on whether your argument was relevant or not. Nor did I say that it being unoriginal negated it. I said if you're genuinely interested, the arguments you present are in no way new and have been discussed plenty. Google some feminist material on porn and you'll see them discussed. Or even some threads on here. This would help you if a very large part of the anti-porn argument doesn't make sense to you. I pointed out that your arguments were not new, so you would know that you could find the counter argument to what you're saying, it you want to. That would save you trying to find answers on a forum you are so very critical of and find difficult.

I think it was Sheila Jeffreys being interviewed (never been able to find it: source of great annoyance) that made the penny drop for me.

She explained that while we have a patriarchal status quo, sex can never be truly equal. Men wield power in all sorts of ways - under those conditions, the notion of female consent is inherently problematic.

ker-thunk

There is nothing wrong with wanting to watch others have sex. But in a patriarchy it will never be an equal or unproblematic exchange. The harm is also extremely well-documented.

OK if people are arguing from the viewpoint that it's not possible to have any kind of sex under the patriarchy without it being an abuse of women, I'm going to back off from the thread because it's about as productive as arguing with the devoutly religious.

sgb that's a shame because it isn't the only pov being debated

Yes SGB we won't ever agree on that one. We start from a different, and completely incompatible, political starting point. Neither are more like religion than the other, but we won't ever agree for sure. Would be like expecting a Marxist to agree with a capitalist.

Of course once we've got rid of patriarchy, who knows.

Bet you could get a Marxist to agree with a capitalist. If they were both men, and you suggested to them that the trouble with feminists is that they're so aggressive and strident... bet the two of them would agree then .

FFS, I didn't say anything about abuse of women. I said that the sex exchange is inherently problematic in a patriarchal set-up. Which it is. I hardly think it is controversial or dogmatic to say so.

Anyone who wants to make ethical porn is going to have to work extremely hard to do so. Even if they acheive it (and I'm prepared to believe that someone, somewhere, has) they are still working within a paradigm that is inherently misogynistic.

The misogyny of mainstream porn taints everything it touches; this includes attempts to redeem or reclaim the genre.

But NEVERMIND THAT. Let's just portray one another as unthinking, uncritical drones and have done.

AutumnSummers wrote - "Finding legitimately made porn is not difficult."

How can anyone verify the validity of claims that some porn is legitimate or "ethical" and not abusive?

Is there an independent porn classification board or a health and safety quango that has observers checking throughout the entire production cycle of those porn films or magazines? Or is it just a case of having to accept the unchecked claims of porn producers and consumers that "no person was harmed in the making of this film"?

The mere fact that this issue can be sidelined (apologies if that's wrong term), or pigeonholed as a feminist issue, shows that men don't feel it is something that needs taking seriously.

That, in itself, should say everything about men's general attitudes, no?

I have been tinkering for a while with the idea of setting up some kind of 'organic/fair trade' body for porn at least within the UK. The majority of the producers and performers I know and have worked with are not interested in harming people, they want to have fun and make money, and some are working within porn from a politicized viewpoint anyway.

Oh and do bear in mind that not all porn 'involves harm to women' because not all porn involves women in the first place. Or is someone going to come out with the fuckwitted nonsense that the men in gay male porn 'represent' women?

Well, it depends, doesn't it, on whether you consider gay relationships and interactions to overturn heterosexual conventions, or whether they mimic them.

Both make sense: given that heteronormativity is a founding assumption of much social interaction, there's never really been a safe, neutral space for gay identity (and therefore relationships and sexual interactions) to find their own way.

Whoops, there I go, being a fuckwit again. And there I was thinking that I was just thinking along the same lines as the thousands of other women who are all thinking about issues like this.

I'm a fuckwit too then because I agree totally with VictorGollanz.

VG: That sounds awfully like you want to ask every gay couple 'which one's the man.' Which is regarded by most gay people as thoroughly fuckwitted and extremely rude.

Yes SGB, that's exactly what is sounds like, doesn't it? That I'm a fuckwitted bigot with no sensitivity with regard to gay relationships. 'Which one's the man', FFS.

It's got nothing to do with the fact that, as I quite clearly stated, gay relationships (just as het ones) have gender roles harmfully inflicted upon them from their inception. None of us have the space to truly develop our own sexual identity outside of patriarchy. There's also the small matter of it being a POLITICAL analysis, and therefore not only would I not be so rude to ask the question you accuse me of, but I actively think it's irrelevant.

With regard to pornography, which is what we're talking about, does the inclusion of same-sex pornography overturn the harm frequently found in the paradigm, or does it reinforce it? Does the fact that it's a man being penetrated wickedly subvert the inequality inherent in penetration, or does it position him in the role of the 'sex class'?

'Lesbian' pornography has of course been frequently bent and twisted to serve heterosexual interests - the intended viewer is a man, bringing men into an act that, by it's very definition, neighter involves nor wants men.

Anyone wanting to make ethical porn has this minefield to negotiate.

I haven't made this up - this is current debate in queer theory and certain feminist circles. I've tried to capture both sides of the coin in my posts, and I'd really like it if you'd stop calling me names.