Porn

[garlicbum]

Giving this another punt, since we seem to be doing civilised controversy quite well atm :)

I used to be fairly cool about porn, though never much of a fan. Now I feel:-
? Too much bullying & exploitation is used in its making
? It promotes too many rape-like fantasies
? Sexual objectification spills over into real life
? Porn gives boys and girls weird expectations of sexual relationships.
I'm sure there's more; just typing off the top of my head.

However, I am persuaded that sexual representation in the arts is not always porn. I've seen it said the Victorians invented porn - and think I agree. It was the Victorians who simultaneously labelled sexuality "dirty" and went looking for it in secret. Women and men have always enjoyed sexy art; it wasn't porn because it wasn't considered shameful.

I believe there is still a healthy stream of sexy art, but have a hard time separating it from porn. I've no idea how one would remove the Victorians' legacy of smuttiness from our appreciation of human sexuality. Dammit.

As a feminist, what do you feel about porn? How have your ideas on it changed?

I think fair trade and porn will never be natural bed fellows. I am anti-porn for very many reasons, too numerous and I think that porn exploits because all forms of paid employment exploit, where the employer (capitalist) seeks to make the maximum profit with low wages and poor conditions being a pre-condition to making profit when competition drives price.

If you share the profits and no one employs and it is modelled on anarcho-syndicalist model, that would at least be a step in the right direction?????? but why invest energy into making it ethical? it won't feed the world, it won't stop women being exploited on the Ivory Coast for 3p a day and it won't stop something like 1 child dying every minute.

The problem with porn though is that too many consumers have now been socialised to want porn that exploits and is harmful to women, will they buy ethical porn? Is there even a market for it with consumers? As you said the prevailing culture sets the tone and that culture means that people are angry, they are embittered and they lack empathy.

IMO, the porn culture has gone too far for "ethical porn" to be a realistic solution

People want more and more horrible shit. The likes of penetration with objects isn't even about sex, is it ? That's not people enjoying healthy shagging. That's about pain, domination, objectification and humiliation.

It's too late for fair trade in the sex industry, except for a very small minority of people. The market is actually niche for ethical porn, which tells us just how much damage the widespread availabilty of porn has done to society.

I think you might be right AF.

Although I would say, healthy shagging could include penetration with objects -- it's not for me to say what turns people on or not. Certainly there's a huge market for dildos and other sex toys. The problem is how this gets translated into porn memes, where you don't really see loving couples experimenting with each other but lots of women being violated in a very clinical and objectifying manner. (A lot of them seem to be, hey what kind of crazy stuff can we stick inside this girl )

I would like to think there was a readily-available source of movies that feature non-objectifying, realistic sex. Mainly for young people as I'm hugely concerned that the only models available to them are "women being violated in a very clinical and objectifying manner".

Even fake sex in movies pisses me off, as most - not all - of the time the woman does that back-arching thing while sitting on top of the man, which is just a way of making sex all about the woman's body. You know what? I like a fit, male body; I like a nice penis and I like it when a sex partner's excited by exciting me. I don't like sex "being done to" me. (Had to scrape my memory for this, but hey, all is not lost yet )

The first sexy movie I saw, age 16 (I lied), was an Emanuelle film. OK, they were rubbish but, at that age, I was transfixed and very turned on. There were lots of scenes with Emanuelle being stimulated by her partner and surroundings, and showing it. Ramming some poor girl's head onto your penis, or getting her stoned and shoving things into her, doesn't really make for a mutually satisfying sexual relationship but where are the films showing mutual arousal?

Disclaimer: I've never watched 'home video' porn and, for all I know, it might serve this purpose. Does it? Do kids watch it?

Genuine question: is 'porn culture' worse than than the former culture of repression and hypocrisy? You know, when rape victims were locked up in mental hospitals for being 'morally deficient' and women who became pregnant while unmarried either killed themselves outright or died from botched illegal abortions, and 'respectable' women lay back and thought of England on those few occasions when their husbands weren't raping the servants...

sgb, that question might only stand if we thought that porn had stopped those practices from happening

and I don't think that is the case

'cos it's kinda like saying prostitution lowers rape stats, and porn prevents ole Jim from next door from perving on my teenage daughter

not gonna happen

I said 'porn culture' rather than 'porn', as some people seem to conflate the two things. Porn ie the depiction of sex or sex-related/associated stuff for the purpose of provoking arousal is not inherently positive or negative, it's just another genre of media. The mistreatment of porn performers is a different issue from the idea that the existence of porn or the ideas portrayed in porn are socially harmful, same as the percentage of clothing on sale that is made by sweatshop labour is a different issue from whether or not women's clothing is pandering to the values of the patriarchy.

I don't think 'porn culture' and sexually repressive culture are opposite sides of the same coin, though, SGB. A sexually relaxed, open and responsible culture might be the opposite to both of those.

Yes I agree with garlic, both cultures are basically man-made and shit for women.

Keeping women in pinnies watching adverts for food mixers feeds the capitalist machine with free labour, encouraging women to take off the pinnies and make porn films makes money for the capitalist class. Two sides of the same coin.

Surely it is more about sex based oppression than class based oppression?

Pre porn culture - women's sexuality was defined by men (women don't/shouldn't like sex, they do it as a marital duty, Madonna whore complex yadda yadda.)

Porn culture - women are liberated and emancipated huzzah! Women's sexuality is still being defined by men (women like abusive, humiliating, painful, body punishing sex, Madonna whore complex yadda yadda).

Did women not like sex? hmmm, why were they socialised into not liking sex? who did that and why?

Why would men get married to women who didn't like sex? Why would men go to prostitutes?

"The legitimate wife was expected to put up with all this, but herself to remain strictly chaste and faithful" Origins of family life

Marriage came about in all societies as a response to man's desire to pass on property to his progeny. The first economic class within all societies to be married were the upper classes, this isolated upper class women and banished them to the home, at the same time historical records show that these classes brought about slavery. Later with the a steady stream of slave labour, poor women, and a healthy dose of religious doctrine it is hardly surprising we end up with the Madonna/whore complex where women from certain social classes marry for purely economic reasons and they are indoctrinated to not like sex.

The bible is quite interesting and backs up other historical references. In the old testament a wife can divorce her husband for not having sex with her. The jews married but children followed the Matrilineal line, just as other civilisations would have done before personal property and the exchange of surplus commodities to create wealth.

If you're saying that matrilineal heritage discouraged the accrual of wealth, I'd dispute that with sackfuls of evidence from history and present times.

If you're saying that marriage coincided with a cultural suppression of women's sexuality and denial of their libido, I agree as long as you recognise we're talking about marriage as controlled by religious entities. People married before religions told them how to do it; there's little evidence that those marriages went in line with sexual repression. Monotheistic religions attempt to demonise lust in both sexes, to be fair. Though they come down a lot harder on women for being sexual.

If you mean to say that marriage causes capitalism, I don't agree at all. I realise you are suggesting capitalism is bad, but we'll have to respect one another's differing ideologies on that.

I am not saying that matrilineal heritage is a bar to wealth creation. I'm not saying that marriage caused capitalism???????? I certainly don't think that people didn't pair up before monotheistic religion. They did. The Greeks did and marriage wasn't great for women then, so it isn't religion that's been bad, it's marriage and marriage came about because of competition for resources and wealth, pre capitalist society.

If you haven't understood what I was trying to say (I apologise if I am unclear) then I don't see how you can either agree or disagree.

I'm just saying that female sexuality has historically been defined and co-opted, by men.

Controlling female sexuality, and reproductive ability, is a cornerstone of patriarchy.

Porn doesn't change that. Rather, it just demonstrates it, once again.

(It isn't my personal opinion that women don't like sex.)

So did cave man hit cave women over the head and drag her back to the cave? When exactly did men decide and largely succeed in co-opting women's sexuality?

I'm not sure that we know exactly do we? Perhaps, it isn't an area I'm well read in. I know the theory is that it happened when it became of importance to control women's reproductive capacity.

Indeed I think that is pretty much what you said above; Marriage came about in all societies as a response to man's desire to pass on property to his progeny.

Property is the key to understanding why men sought to control women's reproductive capacity. Lerner went in search of the answer and couldn't precisely pin point it either.

The first humans were nomadic and it is thought that men hadn't fetishized sex or opted to make it a pass time because they had to keep the population down. Women would have given birth to children not on the long journey but when settled. Also women were hunters in some societies and pregnant women make useless hunters. To preserve the tribe and ensure everyone ate, everyone was engaged in hunting.

Did white people keep slaves because of an irrational hatred of black people? No it was purely driven by economics. That is why one tribe sold another tribe into slavery?

Patriarchy was born out of evolution and the need to eat! Everything that happens now is born out of the same need. There is no pathological hatred IMO, unless it can be proven.

Mini: I apologise for misunderstanding your post.

I think it's most likely that the discovery of agriculture led to divided gender roles and the beginnings of patriarchy - although nomadic tribes today split work by gender so maybe not, eh.

There was a human 'bottleneck' when, for one reason or another, the human population dwindled to a couple of hundred. That would certainly have led to a tremendous drive for reproduction. Whether it would also have prompted 'ownership' I don't know. The argument that this would have put women in a strong position is at least as persuasive.

Anyway, it wouldn't have provoked pornography!

Yes I think ownership is a founding reason for the desire to control women's reproductive capacity.

I think there is more to it than that though.

Just as I think there is more to white supremacy than slavery.

Patriarchy was born out of evolution and the need to eat! I would strongly contest this statement.

That sort of statement sounds to me like an argument that patriarchy is the natural order. That male dominance, force and violence are the natural order. That female subjugation, oppression and lower status are the natural order.

Would you say that white supremacy was born out evolution and need for slaves? Good luck with that sort of statement!

Anyway, this is all a bit off topic - we had a thread ages ago on the origins of patriarchy, it was very interesting with lots of posts from very informed MNers. Perhaps it is time for another one?

Did white people keep slaves because of an irrational hatred of black people? No it was purely driven by economics.

Oh I say you pretty much did say it, hadn't read carefully.

Are you arguing that white supremacy and black slavery were driven by a genuine economical need?

Or perhaps a desire to control and have more, and a sense of entitlement and superiority that made the ethics of the situation a nonproblem.

You all talk about porn as a stand alone sujbect. the following link talks about a few effects of porn which I thought was interesting. mrclm.blogspot.com.au/2008/10/great-article-on-effects-of-porn.html
Where I think the impact of porn should be considered is within the context of its use. there is a substantial body of evidence indicating that it can and does have an impact on the individual using it, but where this becomes really significant is in that persons degree of use and behaviour in regard to others in their life. Is he into it and she hates it, so it causes conflict? Does it effect her self esteem because she feels compared to those women or feels like she has to perform acts she isn't comfortable with to compete for his attention? Is there children who are at risk of exposure and she stays because the finacial alternatives are pretty bleak. I just don't think you can say porn is either good or bad without looking at the context.

I think there are a couple of misconceptions here:

The first humans were nomadic and it is thought that men hadn't fetishized sex or opted to make it a pass time because they had to keep the population down.

One thing that makes humans unusual is that we have evolved hidden oestrus. We don't come 'on heat' once a month - we're receptive to sex at any time of the month or year and men can't tell when we're fertile. This would suggest that sex has always had a recreational and/or bonding function for us.

There was a human 'bottleneck' when, for one reason or another, the human population dwindled to a couple of hundred. That would certainly have led to a tremendous drive for reproduction.

It doesn't work like that. In evolutionary terms, the drive is always to leave as many of your own descendants as possible, regardless of population levels.

I think a possible key to the beginnings of the patriarchy is the moment when men cottoned on to the mechanics of biological fatherhood.

We've come a long way from porn!

Sorry, Beachcomber, the need to eat statement was a short hand for economic and socio/economic necessity and evolution. When I speak about evolution, perhaps I should be clearer, I am not talking about biology but social conditioning. Our material and social conditions of our lives are closely linked to economics and the need to produce be it wealth, food or children are all socially determined.

Anyway, patriarchy exists, understanding why and what it's built on might help establish how we are going to do away with it I think there might be some truth in the fact that men cottoned onto biological fatherhood, which is something that is puzzling me but I'm not aware of any research into this. Anyone have any links or articles?

The first form of sex industry, prostitution. Seems to me that there is a link between marriage, slavery and prostitution other than subjugating women. The cause may be different than the effect, does that make any sense?

I was interested in a documentary that showed a female chimp very definitely withholding sex until she got bananas from the male suitor - prostitution. (The male nicked the bananas back after copulation.) It certainly seemed to show the chimps saw sex as a monetary transaction, with the female demanding payment. But that was the film-makers' predisposition.

Does the same transaction happen the other way round among chimps? The question wasn't even asked, let alone investigated. And bonobos just do it to say hello, to pass the time, to resolve an argument, whatever. There's no incentive to add ownership & money into their sex transactions.

My brain's on a go-slow and I've forgotten how this was going to connect up to human sex industries Posting anyway!