Article about feminism and porn.

[DeleteOrDecay]

Thought this might be of interest here. I think the article makes some good points.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/17353836?utmhpp_ref=uk&

There was a thread a few months back, user, where we discussed quite a lot of this in the context of filmed porn versus written erotica. My line with filmed porn is that the problem is two-fold. There's the issue of entrenching a cultural belief that violence against women is okay. And there's a second issue, namely that at the point of consumption the viewer has no way of knowing, 100%, whether the film was made and/or shared consensually. For me, that second issue rules out all filmed porn.

Written erotica (I read and write fanfic) incidentally has a big culture of people writing to prompts. It also (primarily written and read by women) has a fairly sizeable niche culture of women who are into rape fantasies, BDSM, depictions of violent and rough sex. The reasons for this are multiple, IMO, from internalising the surround misogynistic male culture, through writing clumsy fantasies which are meant to be about giving in to irresistible sexual urges but (due to age old repression of female sexuality) the writers can only conceptualise as rape fantasies, through to some women who are themselves rape victims who write as a kind of DIY therapy (re-imagining and re-writing their trauma, thereby taking control of it). Some of it is down to the sex pozzy shite women get fed from late childhood/early teens onwards, but that's not the whole story.

But written erotica avoids the danger of non-consent in the real world.

It also has a very strong culture of writing to reader-supplied "prompts."

Another thing which gets to me about the "consent" argument when it comes to pornography and other similar "work" is that it disregards the impact that choice has on the majority of women and girls. Even if the women in pornography are making a free choice to take part in the acts depicted (which isn't necessarily the case anyway), other women and girls growing up have no choice but to be part of the society on which the pornogrpahy they're in has a huge impact. No choice about the impact it has on so many boys, no choice about the degrading acts depicted being viewed as normal sex, no choice about Teen Vogue running abysmal articles such as that which being discussed, no choice about living in a world in which girls and women are seen as sexual objects for male gratification first and foremost.

I agree with that, NoLove. I do find the extent to which young women have been trained up to internalise, eroticise and then celebrate their own oppression an absolutely tragic feature of modern society in general (and my small niche in particular). And the women (from happy hookers through to that writer and the editors of TV) are complicit in this.

I definitely agree Hedgehog. Pornography and the objectification/commodification of women is so normalised and all those people have contributed/are contributing to that. It's terrible that many women and girls have internalised it but understandable when the messages are so pervasive and very much suits a patriarchal society to keep women aware of their "role" within it.

What about non-written erotica?

And there's one other problem: not all female fantasies are non-violent or devoid of sadistic and pathological elements. Anyone familiar with Nancy Friday's work knows that there is a population of women - how big we don't know - who have fantasised about animals, children, rape or some other form of unethical or deviant act. Female fantasises are not all fluffy and nice. Furthermore, lots of women claim to enjoy pornography as a masturbation aid and that number is growing, with something like 30% of the big tube sites' audience being female.

What I'm asking is whether there is a problem with pornography produced for men or a problem with any form of pornography produced for anyone? Should people have licence to express their sexual feeling is a deregulated space like the internet? I'm not sure.

Patriarchy is part of the issue with porn, but does not address the full full ethical and political question of whether any form of human sexuality should be turned into a consumable product, stripped of all human and moral context.

No, I don't think feminist porn is actually possible for two reasons.

Firstly, we'd have to live in an egalitarian society which was not burdened and distorted by thousands of years of fucked up attitudes to women's sexuality, and that was not organised on the back of theexploitation of women's sexual and reproductive labour.

Secondly, porn doesn't just happen against that backdrop, it's part of it- porn is not solely about sex and never has been - it eroticises subordination, if you like, by making the (nominally) male viewer powerful while others (generally female) perform for his gaze. That male gaze is part of patriarchy - women are valued for how they look. Porn is the marketing for how our society sees women, in many ways. In our egalitarian society, women wouldn't be valued for how they look, the power dynamic would be completely different, there would be true sexual egalitarianism, so what would porn even be for? It just wouldn't exist - it would be weird to have to market sexuality like that.

So no, feminist porn can't exist in this society, and it probably couldn't ever exist because it's an oxymoron.

Firstly, we'd have to live in an egalitarian society which was not burdened and distorted by thousands of years of fucked up attitudes to women's sexuality, and that was not organised on the back of theexploitation of women's sexual and reproductive labour.

But just suppose we did live in an egalitarian society - would it be ok then? If some sort of rad fem lesbian collective made their own porn which they only distributed amongst themselves would that still be morally problematic or not?

In short, is porn inherently immoral or only immoral in the context of a patriarchal society?

By the way, I'm defining porn as visual material designed to sexually stimulate. No more. Are all possible manifestations of such a thing in whatever context ethically and politically problematic?

It's not a question that I think needs much time spent on it, user - my approach to it is in my second point. I don't spend much time on it because it's mostly used by the pro-porn lobby to say "ah, but if we can just ignore the context, then the content is fine, yes?". But we don't live in that egalitarian society, and we won't get there unless we tackle the problems that porn causes in this society. The view of porn when (if) we get to our utopia might look very different, but let's get there first. It still wouldn't be feminist porn, because that society wouldn't need feminism, so that concept would be redundant. I've no idea what it would be like, to be honest.

It still wouldn't be feminist porn, because that society wouldn't need feminism, so that concept would be redundant. I've no idea what it would be like, to be honest.

That's a good point, but I would all the same argue that all porn - whether in a patriarchal society or not - is wrong. This is the point: porn is not just bad for being patriarchal (though it is for that reason) but is is bad in all possible manifestations in all possible societies.

Feminist porn - or porn that isn't patriarchal - does arguably exist already due to the gradual subversion of the porn industry by open communication networks and user generated content. Of course a lot of the platforms this material ends up on is still run by big, male dominated business, but the fact remains that less and less porn is being produced in studios for exclusively male consumption.

Think of this scenario, one that excludes men completely from the production, distribution and consumption of pornography. Two lesbian women meet and exchange sexual pictures and videos of themselves with mobile phones. Now, that is pornography. It might only be pornography with an audience of one, but it's still porn. It's the generation of visual material for the purposes of sexual stimulation. We don't think of it like that because we're still in thrall to the old model of porn.

We have this idea of porn as being stuff made by slimy businessmen in LA, and of course much of it is; but increasingly people are making their own 'porn' and distributing it on open platforms.

I don't think feminist debate is properly engaging with the changing nature of pornography and the growing role of tech in people's sex lives.

As the internet is not going to go away, people are going to use it to express their sexualities, for better or ill. It's not just a case of closing down porn sites now because, as I say, porn is flying around on Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, email, text etc etc - it's been totally decentralised. And you have to admit that some of this porn is being created by women - and not because they've been pressured into it by a shady porn industry but because they're exhibitionists and derive a thrill from it.

You've then got two options. You either accept the dominance of porn try and encourage less patriarchal expressions of it, or you clamp down with a China/Iran level censorship To be honest, I'm not entirely averse to the latter option if it means children aren't harmed and human sexuality isn't reduced down to just another form of technologically assisted instant gratification.

I don't think the "decentralisation" of porn tells us anything about whether it's moral or not. Whoever is watching still has no idea of whether the participants consented or not, so nothing changes at the point of consumption. You have no idea if you're watching a rape, or a consensual encounter, or someone enacting a rape, or an encounter which is consensual, but the consent was given reluctantly, or with threats, or whatever. So there's not much there that feminists need to engage with, is there?

then the second concern of feminists, which is the damage caused to all women by porn, doesn't change much either because even if it's women who are making it, and even if those individual women consent, life for all women against a backdrop of porn is worse than it would be without that.

And you have to admit that some of this porn is being created by women - and not because they've been pressured into it by a shady porn industry but because they're exhibitionists and derive a thrill from it - I don't have to admit that. I have to admit that women make porn in a society that tells us that a large chunk of what women are for is being decorative and sexually pleasing. I have no idea what women would do in a society that didn't tell us that, but I have no doubt it would look like nothing like porn as it stands.

Regardless of all of this, the topic was "can porn be feminist", not "can porn be pro-woman". I think the answer is "no" to both. Feminism has the goal of the liberation of women from the strictures of patriarchy and porn subverts, appropriates and finally undermines this by telling us porn is about sexual liberation, when it is about sexual exploitation.

So (and I'm playing devil's advocate here) who in the lesbian couple who are exchanging racy videos is being exploited, and by whom?

Furthermore, how does the lesbian couple exchanging those videos relate to the 'backdrop' of patriarchy?

I'm not sure about your argument that sexual exhibitionism is inherent to patriarchy and would simply cease to exist in a post-patriarchal society - that, in other words, in a completely equal society there would be the internet, cameras and phones but no one would feel compelled to express their sexuality with that media? That's quite a stretch.

Furthermore, no media exists against a 'backdrop'. It is part of the backdrop.

The problem you have is not one of porn as a means of production that oppresses women, but a new economy in which there is no means of production and even intellectual property is becoming redundant as a concept. Eventually, theoretically, all the sexual media out there will not be owned or controlled by anybody - least of all men.

I really don't know where you're going with your thought experiment, and I've no real interest in taking it further, user, but good luck with it. I know what my position on porn is now, and we'll see if anything that occurs in the future affects that.

It's a question of how the problem of porn is to addressed in the context of the information society and the platform economy. Far from my points being part of a 'thought experiment' the changes I refer to are all already happening.

Anyway, I don't want to push the discussion if other people aren't interested so I'll leave it there.

Well it is a thought experiment, because you're saying "say porn wasn't porn", aren't you? Porn is not two lesbians deciding to film themselves having lovely consensual sex and then sharing that with their close friends and knowing it never goes further than that. It's "teen sluts get their arses smashed".

From your recent posts, user, I will eat my hat if you're not a man, and when I am on a feminist talk board, I have a finite store of patience to explain to men how feminists see porn, particularly when men explain to me that my problem is that I just haven't understood the topic fully. That is now the sense that I'm getting from your posts.

Porn is not two lesbians deciding to film themselves having lovely consensual sex and then sharing that with their close friends and knowing it never goes further than that. It's "teen sluts get their arses smashed".

I disagree. 'Teen sluts get their arses smashed' is indeed patriarchal - but it does not follow from that the lesbians sharing their videos are doing so in a way that does not involve any exploitation or objectification. Why would it necessarily?

So in a sense you're saying some forms of porn (the gay women exchanging videos) are fine and others (teen slut get abused) are not, yes? So surely that is an argument for a form of feminist porn or whatever else you'd like to call it (if the definition of porn is visual media designed to sexually stimulate)?

I don't want anyone to explain to me how they see porn. I'm just explaining how I see porn. My questions are rhetorical.

To clarify, I'm against all porn by the way. Literally all of it. I'd ban the lot.

So in a sense you're saying some forms of porn (the gay women exchanging videos) are fine and others (teen slut get abused) are not, yes?

NO! That's what YOU'RE saying! I am saying nothing of the sort.

I've now ASed your name, and I understand. Yes, you may be against porn, but you're also against feminists, so...

I'm really off this time, this is irritating me and I don't think it's going anywhere.

To explain a bit further, one of those women might be a lot older than the other - or one might have a learning difficulty, or be an employee of the other. There can still be a power imbalance in other words.

And therefore, because such a power imbalance is always possible then any sexual exchange that takes place outside an immediate, empathetic, relational context (and the production and exchange of such imagery is definable as such because the two parties are not present to each other) can lead to commodification, abuse and degradation.

So, what I am saying is that all porn - whether that's 'barely legal slut gets abused' or the two women sexting is wrong. Not only is feminist porn an oxymoron, but no reduction of a human being to abstracted sexual imagery can be anything other than detrimental to sexual culture.

Do you agree or not?

Ah, Pooch, you've inspired me to do an AS. It's that poster. The one that thinks class analysis and identity politics are synonymous. Ooookaaaay then. (Backs away slowly, musing on the interesting point that Pooch says she doesn't want further interaction, immediately to be met by a demand for said interaction. Boundaries, sir, boundaries. As in respect them).

My grandson had a sex education class this week - he's six .

I don't think feminists do want an end to sexual exploitation, they just want to have a different kind of sexual exploitation.

I know what women are capable of. They're not as different from men as you think. Many human beings are vile shits I'm afraid, and they need controlling. But now we have moral anarchy and it'll only get worse. Read 'Animal Fram' and 'Lord of the Flies'.

Just wait and see how the revolution turns out.

So, what I am saying is that all porn - whether that's 'barely legal slut gets abused'

Perhaps it's just me but there's something a little odd about your persistence in using this kind of language. I find it abhorrent. I can possibly understand it when once making a point about how misogynistic pornography is but there seems to be no reason for you to keep repeating this.

I don't think feminists do want an end to sexual exploitation, they just want to have a different kind of sexual exploitation.

How bizarre.

Perhaps it's just me but there's something a little odd about your persistence in using this kind of language.

1. It was in inverted commas.
2. I was using it in response to Pooch who first used it.
3. I used it to emphasise the vileness of this kind of stuff.