Not All Porn: Why the good parts don't matter

[AskBasil]

This is one of the best articles I've read about porn. It just says everything so well

stoppornculture.org/2014/10/21/notallporn-why-the-good-parts-dont-matter/

really good article basil

Sorry but this is certainly no silver bullet as far as arguing against sex positive feminists with regards to porn. The fact that it links to Gail 'Mary Whitehouse Mk2' Dines sets alarm bells ringing, before even reading the article. It certainly doesn't disappoint with coming up with the usual nonsense we have come to expect from the anti porn lobby. As soon as he makes the claim 'This is porn that exists, right now – and statistically, it’s what most men are watching' He fails right there. Porn is such a massive spectrum with millions of sites encompassing all kinds of genres, erotica, softcore, erotic fiction etc. To make such an assumption like this is disingenuous. I would like to see where he gets his stats from about what exactly people are looking at?

watch out there claire, your agenda is showing

Well by calling Gail Dines Mary Whitehouse Mark II you've immediately ensured you lack credibility. MW was a right wing moralist, GD is a feminist. Accusing anti-porn feminists of being moralistic, anti sex, anti enjoyment, is a very well-worn man-pleasing tactic. Hey look at me, I'm one of the cool girls, not like those pearl clutchers over there. It's only works if the people you're talking to are impressed by shit like that.

Google porn (without the filters). It is the most popular search engine on the web and it works by showing a list of sites in order of popularity. Have a look at what the most popular stuff is. See how many misogynist, violent, sexist sites you need to wade through, before you come to the liberated empowerfulising stuff. Good luck with that, see you in five years.

It's a really good article. I particularly liked that he didn't trawl through to find the worst stuff, but went to the first page of the most popular p0rn site on the web, and it still brought up the kind of hateful misogynistic crap the "sex positive" feminists would like us to believe is far out of the mainstream.

I hardly think googling porn is a very scientific way of knowing what the most popular sites are. I think People are far more specific than that. Its like googling the word music when you want look at your favourite band. Also i thought google tailored its searches based on your personal history? And also puts up the sponsored links first. So its not going to be the same for everyone or going to be even slightly accurate.

They are exclusive of each other Buffy.

porn as it stands and the porn industry harm women. either you care about that or you don't

So basically, you have nothing to add, but are happy for women to be degraded for your titillation.

You didn't answer Buffy's question, that's for sure.

I suspect "claire" just got lured into posting on FWR again because of the gamergate thread. Perhaps there is some klaxon sound when someone posts about games here.

I couldn't remember where I'd seen the name before, thanks Briar.

Yeah Buffy i did read the whole article. No need to be condescending, or is that your usual style? You are not Julie Bindel are you? I have heard that she posts on these forums? If you really want to see what people are viewing then maybe go to a web traffic counter and see actual stats. Yeah they are not that accurate but they provide a far better method than the one you are trying to deploy. I hadn't even noticed the gamergate thread. I just popped in here to see what the latest anti freedom of speech/ censorship campaign was this time!

And are you going to answer the question about how much sexist, misogynist, abusive shit is OK?

Ah, so being able to watch the degradation of of women is freedom of speech now. Who's I wonder? The women being exploited or the wo/man commenting here?

Which part of a porn clip could be considered "speech" anyway? Is it the misogynist viewpoint of the pornographers shown through actual brutality towards an actual woman that is the speech that needs to be protected?

Very interesting article.

I mentioned Julie Bindel last night as she wrote a piece in the Guardian which pretty much shares the majority of views on here. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/24/pornography-world-anti-porn-feminist-censorship-misogyny. Good to see the commentators don't agree with her.

Hang on, Claire... Are you saying people commenting on a guardian article written by a feminist disagree with her?

Well, dang, that just never happens regularly...

Lol it's only possible for one woman at a time to have Julie bindel's views. Anyone who agrees with her must BE her

LOL,you are presenting the contributors of CiF, who are known to be misogynist trolls, as some sort of voice of reason in contrast to the shrill feminist haterz?

Oh dear, you're scraping the barrel there.