Math Magazine and 'good' porn.

[MrsToddsShortcut]

While I can see what she is trying to do, is the concept of 'nice'/'good' porn still not skirting around the same ballpark as all the hideous, damaging degrading stuff? It's still effectively saying porn is okay. Or would you say this is closer to erotic writing, I.e no real people involved? Is it just the wide end of a very nasty wedge? Genuinely not sure how I feel about this.

Huff post article about Math magazine

That kind of argument is a slippery slope to pro paedophilia. People can and should be able to control their sexual kinks.
It's not equivalent to homosexuality. Homosexuality is about a lot more than a sexual pull and it's demeaning to gay people to line their gayness up on the same category as people who like BDSM.

Thanks Felas, that's what I was trying to get at. Also those sexual activities that people get up to in person (like BDSM) you have a better chance of ensuring everyone involved is consenting fully

It is also possible that many of the people who do not watch porn on ethical grounds would very much enjoy it, and feel its "pull", but choose not to because of their ethics. Rather than shrugging and saying helplessly "well it's my kink"

I am lumping porn with other sexual activities because it is a sexual activity. Why is it demeaning to link being gay and BDSM? I have no problem with either, I am not judging.

The reason I mention being gay and BDSM is that have both (still are?) groups that have been condemned and told to ignore their sexual urges.

Slippery slope argument - its a continuum- all sex is a slippery slope to something. This issue is where do you draw the line - l think I have explained my compromise argument in some detail.

I would not presume to judge other people's sex lives, as long as they have made efforts to ensure they are safe, sane and consensual. Please refer to my previous post re consensual porn. Mak

Because being gay is not a "sexual urge" any more than being straight. There is a lot more to being gay than having gay sex. There is not a lot more to watching porn than watching porn.
It hacks me off that people co opt other agendas to make a point on these kinds of controversial topics. To make it appear if you are anti-porn you must also be anti-gay. Its incredibly annoying.

Because being gay is not a "sexual urge" any more than being straight. There is a lot more to being gay than having gay sex.

Exactly.

Besides, it is really easy to figure out that homosexuality harms no one, while BDSM is all about harming people, either directly, or implying such by roleplaying out power differences that in reality lead to people being harmed. (Yes, we are told that doing it right is about doing a limited amount of harm to people, but even if no marks are left and everything is alright some hours later, things that cause pain still harm.)

There's lots of lesbian radfems, and there's lots of radfems who feel drawn to BDSM erotica.
And there is a reason why lesbian radfems are in happy relationships with women, but tend to be critical of BDSM.

There was a scene in Alison Bechdel's "Dykes to Watch Out For" where Mo, her hopelessly well-meaning heroine, is about to starve to death in a supermarket. She's saying something like "Organic here, fair-traded over there--what can I do to be saved?" Fortunately a friend arrives to distract her and the story moves along.

It's irreverent to think this, but mass-produced food allows us to be extremely well fed comparatively cheaply. ("Live well for less", where did that come from?) We can fret over organic this or that, but in fact life expectancy is over 80 at this point, so whatever we're getting isn't killing us very fast.

And regarding pornography, it's such an intellectual morass if you really get into it. We can say "Let's get rid of all of it" but that turns out to be involve vague definitions and telling people what they ought to want, and I don't think much of a consensus is ever going to happen. Maybe that leaves most of us in the position of helpless liberals.

"Because being gay is not a "sexual urge" any more than being straight. There is a lot more to being gay than having gay sex."
Well, we've all seen the previous attempts to draw false analogies between trans folk and gay folk, but I can't recall seeing it used before to defend use of pornography............

I can perhaps understand though how historically this false analogy arose, given that before gay men could start worrying about pension rights and marriage, they first had to campaign to get male gay sex made legal in the first place.

And of course we have the latest example from the dear old CofE which weirdly enough seems to have not so many problems with the other aspects of being gay and coupled, but a hell of a lot of problems with the SEX bit, to the extent where a gay bishop has to publicaly state that he has agreed to be celibate. They can do everything else but not the jiggery-pokery................

Actually a recurring theme, the any and all (including the ones you have to go and look up in a BIG dictionary/internet and then wish you hadn't) sexual practices should not just be allowed, but never judged, because if you do, you hate gay people.

And still a bit of a red herring, because what someone does singly and privately to satisfy their sexual urges is rather different to pornography anyway.

t. We can say "Let's get rid of all of it" but that turns out to be involve vague definitions

Huh? How so? Getting rid of just some kinds of porn would involve vague definitions, but getting rid of all of it? That's pretty clear.
We don't have to tell people what they ought to want. Just what they ought to not do.

know lots of pro porn arguments focus on how dull, grey and joyless people who oppose porn are.

I think I would argue the opposite. People whose lives are happy, sexually fulfilled and joyful don't have the time, need or inclination to seek vicarious jollies from watching synthetic sex produced by, probably, bored actors simulating enjoyment and ecstasy to earn shedloads of cash (or their next crust).

Stop right there! It was a sloppy message first thing in the morning. I had hoped having read my previous posts there may have been some level of inference by the reader.

I will clarify when I have had my tea.

I know being gay is not just a sex act but I do believe some members of the community indulge in them.

"The reason I mention being gay and BDSM is that have both (still are?) groups that have been condemned and told to ignore their sexual urges."

This is what I wrote. Exactly how is this confusing? They are groups that have been judged and it seems like the BDSM community is still being judged and that is OK apparently. The gay community has suffered greatly from the 'peodophile' argument. Best avoided.

Felsa "There is not a lot more to watching porn than watching porn" that's right and I think I have bored for Britain on this point!
I wasn't co opting agendas I was attempting to draw an analogy.

Grimbletart - I would not pressure to comment on anyone's sex life in relation to whose is better. It's not my business.

Buffy "But I think you're kidding yourself that what you're doing is in any way to the benefit of women, overall." Brilliant, yes, exactly. You have teased out the issue. It is not feminist porn but it may be ethical porn. As I said previously my back ground is political not sociological and so I conflate the issues. I can live with that compromise as long as I am doing other things to support feminism. I make no claims to moral perfection. Many thanks for your erudite contributions and for helping me reach a muddy compromise.

I don't think my compromise is the only realistic action. It is my realistic action. If we are all making small chinks in the wall it will crumble in the end.

"And if you don't like porn that doesn't make you frigid, miserable or morally superior."
This is what I said. I would never say any sexual proclivity is better or worse than another. I would never throw the 'frigid' argument at anyone, and I have not done that. It is sloppy and intellectually weak.

Can someone explain to me, perhaps Bit what Ethical Porn is?

Being liberal regarding porn use is a fudge. Being liberal regarding sex work, for those who access it, is also a fudge. The riposte of prude and pearl clutching doesn't cut it any more.

People who enjoy a healthy sex life do not need to use porn.

Well I might have personal preferences I could rank, but not here and now. We could save that for Christmas.

I hope no one thinks I am talking about 'the usual' illegal ones, peodephilia, animals etc. (bloody spell check won't work on those words)

Safe, sane and consensual. Your kink is not my kink or no kink at all. I'm not judging.

Elendon I have attempted to do that at some length previously. For the sake of everyone's sanity don't make me do it again.

"The riposte of prude and pearl clutching doesn't cut it any more"
That's right which is why no one has said it.

Technically, a lot of BDSM practices may be illegal as under English law you can not consent to being harmed.

I can't remember the details but there was a case some years ago where a man had consented to his penis being nailed to something (odd I can remember that). The man who did the nailing was prosecuted and found guilty despite the fact consent had been given.

Strange it was the 'penis' incident that was prosecuted.

If consent was given. I would not condemned it. You?

Pearl clutching sounds like some bizarre sexual practice.

Don't worry I'm not judging.

"I can't remember the details but there was a case some years ago where a man had consented to his penis being nailed to something (odd I can remember that). The man who did the nailing was prosecuted and found guilty despite the fact consent had been given."
Operation Spanner, a major case and campaign to clarify issues of consent as regards BDSM. MAJOR!

A bit of a red herring, I think, this kink/BDSM line. Except in those cases we are talking about consent as regards 2 (possibly more) people for specific acts at a specific time in private. Whereas porn, if we are talking about consent, involves a person supposedly/presumably giving consent for anyone and everyone who may chose to watch them for ever and ever amen. Rather different!

As regards Spanner, given there was consent, I don't think it should be illegal -- but I do bloody well disapprove! I don't think it is a healthy sexual practice.

And frankly, when I look at it clearly, wanting to watch total strangers having sex is actually rather weird, consent aside (and given the almost totally open-ended and limitless nature of the consent in the porn case). The consent cases above and the BDSM case are after all in the private realm, whereas porn is public, the ones supposedly consenting have no control whatsoever over who views them. They haven't just consented in private, they have totally renounced all control. It realy isn't analogous in any way that I can see. Hence red herring.

Technically, a lot of BDSM practices may be illegal as under English law you can not consent to being harmed.

This is weird. If you cannot consent to being harmed, then surely, prosecuting rape should be a lot easier?

But I suppose judges' interpretation of what constitutes "harm" differ widely. Urinary tract infections or other side effects of piv, even severe injuries that could be assumed to be the result of "vigorous" piv are probably not counted. As long as it is a man harming a woman, I bet most judges turn a blind eye.

That's interesting actually because sometimes injuries in alleged rapes are explained away as "likes rough sex" by the defence. If its impossible to consent to harm, how is that a possible defence?

Perhaps because in the case I quote it was a penis being harmed?

As Buffy is pointing out wider societal norms influence legality and how it is applied.

SomeDyke "wanting to watch total strangers having sex is actually rather weird," well yes it is, but that's not the point. Sex is all a bit odd really.

I won't call you frigid if you don't call me weird. Although you may well have a point.

Disclaimer - I am calling no one frigid. It was an example. I don't think it and I don't believe it.

And frankly, when I look at it clearly, wanting to watch total strangers having sex is actually rather weird, consent aside

I'm glad someone has said that out loud. I've been thinking it for most of this thread.

Sex is all a bit odd really

No, not really.