that countries with liberal attitudes toward porn and sexual education have lower rates of sexual violence against women. Even in the US, the states with the most restrictive laws always end up with the highest rates of sexual violence...

So...If you want to unionize sex workers and work towards giving them equal rights and fair and equitable working conditions...great! Good stuff...Everything else is bullshit.

Lumping all porn together is disingenuous. Claiming you speak for all women is disingenuous, when clearly feminists are becoming more involved in sex work, and you marginalize their voices and perpetuate the Madonna/whore myth like Christian conservatives.

Stop with the whiny porn articles...statistically, morally and theoretically you are wrong. We know you are white, female and privileged, but quit telling people what to do with their lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What the heck is with the recent spate of anti-porn articles on alternet? If you believed the last three, the only porn to be found on the net involves "Gonzo" porn and degradation.

As a self-confessed porn addict, I can safely say that out of the thousands and thousands of images and videos I've stumbled upon, I have only once or twice found ones that border on what these authors have described. I found them abhorrent and repulsive. Nonetheless, if the net was so awash with this stuff, don't you think it would be a tad easier for a porn junkie trawling the web to stumble upon?

And finally, if you think that a society that allows free access to create or view porn is somehow more violent, then perhaps you should use some actual statistics, because I think you'll find that more often than not the most repressed, hellhole dictatorships have -much- higher levels of violence, particularly against women. So there's some "questionable" porn out there. BIG DEAL. In parts of Africa, women forcibly have their labia cut off with a dirty razor when they reach puberty, and in parts of the Middle East women who get raped are rewarded with "Honor Killing" by members of their own family.

Can we get an order of perspective over here at table "feminazi"?

Consensual sex on camera may encourage the viewers to f*ck more people, but to suggest it would encourage them to violence is ridiculous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too bad the author didn't include anything but her opinion. Had she spoken to some of those women, she might have understood that they were acting or role playing, and that none were there against their will or regretted it after the fact.

"why would images of women as merely body parts for male sexual use and abuse not have similar effects"

For the same reason that the images of men subordinated to women on the next page of the same web site or magazine don't lead to violence against men.

"It's high time to stand up against images sexualizing the degradation, humiliation, domination, torture, and even killing of women."

I wonder why the author isn't equally worried for the men undergoing the same "deradation". And nice one, suddenly conflating role playing with snuff films.

"It's time to ask why liberals who would run to court to ban images degrading members of a different race still think degrading members of a different sex is OK."

What? Who's doing that? What degrading racial pictures? Photos of Bu'wheat? Nobody's going to court over racist imagery. Yeah, if people are running to court to ban degrading racial pictures, it is time to ask why. Is there a problem there? Is there a market there for degrading racial pictures? Where are they? Or is this an imaginary problem, too?

"It's time to admit that the subordination of women perpetuates the very conditions of repression and violence liberals abhor."

No, it's time to recognize that BDSM pornography, just like the BDSM life style, is fantasy, and doesn't involve any more degradation or subordination than the participants enjoy.

And why is this men doing something to women, good or bad. Men (and a few women) are soliciting actors - other men and women - to play a part for the camera. I don't get this as a battle of the sexes for domination.

I basically support the feminists just as I support PETA. But both groups occasionally, with good intentions, go too far, and in so doing, hurt the cause. I believe that this is one of those occasions. It seems like the author just assumes her point. She certainly doesn't even try to make a case for it.

My guess is that pornography actually leads to less horny men walking the streets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The great male bastion emerges to defend it's position. Heaven forbid that they should have to listen to a woman's voice!

They love their porn, and they're alright aren't they? So we must be imagining the degradation, and the rape, and the abuse, and the harasment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Her books, Sacred Pleasure, The Chalice and the Blade and The Partnership Way are great.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article makes the usual (wrong) assumption of mistaking rough sex (BDSM even) with degradation or objetification. And as usual too, it only looks at women beign "degraded" and objetified. What's new is the attempt to link it to War, maybe to capitalize on the war opposition inertia.

But the author makes a few mistakes and overassumptions;

-There are already laws in your country that require for the participants of adult films that mix sex and violence, bondage or domination to activelly express their agreement with what's happening in the film. Characters (not just the actors, altough in the case of gonzo porn there is no difference) must vervally agree in a manner that leaves no doubt all is consensual. The idea behind these regulations is that while some (many) people enjoy that kind of sex, it should never be forced onto anyone. Thats the key: consensual sex between adults is never wrong, even if it disturbs you.

-For every film depicting women beign abused by men, there is at least one where it is a woman who holds the reins (sometimes literally). I have heard neo-puritans say those Mistresses or Dominatrix are alo victims of abject objetification to please men ego... failing to see that women have ego too, and a personal idiosincracy that can include a desire for that kind of relationship. both ends of the rope.

-Gay porn has a long depicted that kind of sex and relationships... do we infer gay men degrade and abuse each other? Are they more pro-war than other colectives? Or is it simply that gay porn cater to the fetishes and likings of its public?

While I agree there must be a greater control on the kind of porn that reach our markets (certain countries offer little or no legal guarantees), it is paternalistic to deprive women from their right to appear in porn films in whatever way they choose to. because, ultimatelly, it is only themselves they are representing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For example, we find these same images in the Church-commissioned religious art showing women accused of being witches sadistically tormented by Christian inquisitors.


Beign from a country that had a stablished Inquistorial Office well into XIX century and having formal education in arts, I am curious. Where can I find such art? It is certainly not in Spain so I guess it must have been stolen.

Or imagined.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear Alternet,

Can you please stick to the Iraq War, Globalization and the Environment. These sexual topics really really make you look stupid. They remind me of when I was taking the "requirements" in college (Women's studies, Black studies, History, Art etc) where every lecturer had an agenda and was more interested in forcing their agenda on us than actually exploring different ideas. I believe this is called "liberalism". If we're going to complain that the Right is shoving nonsense down our throats, let's not stoop to their level please.

It seems like all the porn articles decide that it's the "End of Masculinity" or that little kids are suddenly being sexualized (like they never were before - watch the Brady Bunch sometime). Or that porn leads to war.. One word BULLSHIT!!! I think I'll get my news from Fox from now on.

Anyway, what I want to add to this is that porn saved my life. That's right. I have 11 gigabytes of p40n on my "hard" drive, all downloaded for free via p2p, newsgroups and free sites. I never paid a penny for porn since the Internet. Some of it is BDSM and I quite enjoy it. A lot of it is weird stuff that I know I will never be able to do in real life. All of it is fantasy. (sorry - no kiddy porn so don't ask)

Thanks to my porn collection, I don't waste time anymore hanging out in bars trying to pick up women. I don't have any STDs, illegitimate kids or unnecessary soap operas in my life. Also, I was able to keep my mind focussed on my career when I was in college (as against getting drunk and smoking pot just for the hot babes). Do I objectify women as sex objects? Hell No! If anything, I now can look at a woman's character and personality and make a decision with my "big head" and not the "small head" so to speak. I am not ruled by my penis anymore. I think women should feel safer with guys like me.

I think the key word is FANTASY. Too many guys can't tell fantasy from reality. Too many guys thing that women want to suck their d**ks or be peed on on the first date. (also too many guys are still virgins at 30, 40, 50, 60) I think that's what we need to work on, distinguishing fantasy from reality not saying every image of female flesh is causing guys to go to war.

Look at Afghanistan or Pakistan. Those countries allow no female flesh to be viewed at all and look how peaceful they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The vast majority of porn does not fit the description in the article. Most of it is concenting adults doing what concenting adults do. Societies that are cool about that always have a freer and healthier attitude to women and their roles.

The way you address economic exploitation in porn, or in any industry, is the same way: encourage unions and legal rights. Marginalising women, or suppressing this stuff doesn't make it go away. You can find plenty of sexploitation in repressive societies, even the rigid Islamic ones.

When empowered women are left to follow their passions and desires free of the head trips this author has, then women behave pretty well the same as men. They like to get off and they like to have sex and see naked images. That's the real story. As for blaming porn for war is deeply offensive. As Lenny Bruce pointed out, the real pornography is war, not guy-guy, guy-girl, guy-girl-guy, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So all that domme porn I've been seeing is just a figment of my imagination? Or maybe it's there, but unimportant because it doesn't support the hypothesis that women are being subjugated?

A few points:

1) Men and women alike have sexual fantasies about submission and domination, in pretty much equal numbers each way.
2) There's porn out there for all of those fantasies.
3) Submission, even extreme "slave" submission, is voluntary in BDSM parlance. That is, people submit to another person sexually because they want to.
4) Slippery slope arguments are almost always ridiculous. They depend on a set of assumptions that generally don't hold water. The assumptions here - that all or even most porn depicting women in sexually submissive roles is inherently degrading - doesn't hold water in the face of actual practices in the BDSM community.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

because I would like to think any man worthy of respect would feel some concern for the human beings--male and female--involved.

Sure sex is amazingly powerful and human beings are curious by nature, but we also have the ability to be analytical and empathetic.

Porn addiction requires you to block those last two attributes. I think it was Eric Berne who said that maturity is being able to accept that other people are as real as you are.

The link then between war and porn (however poorly the author makes the point) is dehumanisation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That is why the planet is dying.
Neglect, disconnect, abuse, selfish use of the planet for the aggrandizement of the aggressive and selfish males at the top. This is so obvious.

Want to know the future of the human species? Look no further than the status of women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The article barely skimmed the topic; she could have said so much more. Like the methods we used at Abu Graib prison, putting women's panties on the prisoner's heads, etc., to humiliate them. The responses are frightening. Men don't even recognize pornography when they see it. Does it have to be a snuff film before it's distasteful?
No, women are not whores when left to follow their natural "urges". Women have much more to lose from casual sex than a man ever will.
Sensuality is wonderful. Erotica is awesome. Pornography is insulting, reinforces a hierarchical world view that benefits only the men who project their sorry selves into the scene and feel empowered.
Out of the woodwork, indeed. It's a wonder we (women) give you the time of day.
Let me tell you our little secret. We know you. We understand you and your motivations. In the same way that Black people know and understand Whites. Silly White men, with all the power don't think they have to know or understand anyone but themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sex and its expressions in fantasy and roleplay are not moral problems. They are deep rooted, ultra personal and universal. You will not ever change them by suppressing them, by telling people they are wrong and morally deficient if they acquire pleasure in still seeing their sexuality in terms of power and domination.

You can however explain that although the role of power and our animal past will never be fully removed from an act that will always be at its heart a primal expression of nothing but the absolute necessity of procreation, we are not just animals anymore.

You can argue for a position in which the dark side of human sexuality is seen as a crucial yet somewhat unpleasant relic of who we were as a species, a reminder of why we choose not to live that way, yet not suppressed as wrong, only understood that a heavy infatuation with it (like anything) might be a sign of personal problems that need to be worked out.

You cannot change fundamental parts of human sexuality by an "ought" argument any more than you can change the shape of the heart or liver.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The above article has so many glaring flasehoods, it's hard to know where to start, or where to stop. But let's not waste too much time with it.

First, I'd like either the author or one of her supporters on this site to explain why "porno" movies are degrading to women, but the very same sexual activities, done by millions of women (and men) across the world, are not? Obviously, humans have been having sex for a long, long time, and only the truly loony ever try to label it as degrading in itself. Yet because two people do it on film for money, the act itself suddenly becomes degrading? Sorry, but no.

And if the author and supporters still cling to their argument, should all women who enjoy sex and bdsm kink behind closed doors now be rounded up and "re-educated" out of their shameful ways?

News flash for the author -- It might be hard for you to swallow, but there are lots ands lots of women in the world who enjoy sex, bondage, fantasy rape, and all sorts of assorted kink, and who find it not one bit degrading. In fact, I'm sure most would call it fun and empowering, at least with the right partner. And when those actions are put on film, nothing changes.

Also, as has been pointed out by others, the author has redefined "porn" in her own unique and specious way. The rest of the world considers porn to be pretty much anything truly sexual put in media form, not just the brutal.

And it's also interesting that the author focuses solely on the degradation of women through porn, and ignores the men. Firstly, males in porn usually earn far, far less than women do, if they are paid at all, which many would call degarding right there. And secondly, the vast majority of money generated from the sales of porn comes from men. The producers make money of course (many of whom are now women), but the female stars make a killing. Take a look at the recent articles on pornstar Jenna Jameson and her multi-million dollar empire. If she ever felt degraded, it was by the years of drug use, made easy by the loads of cash she was making.

Like others, I'm surprised to see articles like this in Alternet. Please stick to important, fact-based news and opinions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

don't like it? don't buy it. you want to legislate intelligence by making stupidity illegal. if you want to help women, then educate them not to become involved in this industry, educate them not to dress and act like strippers, teach them to reach deeper for their strength and power than fashioning some stock way to attract the male gaze. but whining and pratting on about how porn degrades women? piss off.

the definition of feminism i learned in college says it is the opposite of imperialism: nobody gets to judge my personal meaning or interpretation of things, period. enough of this smug strutting about how female sexuality is so much nicer than the way males typically are. we have exactly as much right to be here as you do, stop trying to force reality to fit your narrow little definitions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"... liberal groups like the ACLU still go to court to protect violent and degrading porno on the grounds of free speech."

I'd rather have an ACLU fighting for porn than none at all. I'd also like to see a few examples of such cases.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There was never any war before pornography existed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some people have made comments about being porn addicts as if it's no big deal. But I've heard stories about men who say they can't have or maintain an erection or even some semblance of sexual arousal without pornography imagery--meaning, being with a sexual partner is no longer enough. I've heard some men who admit to being addicted to porn say that during sex, they always have to dissociate from the act itself and try to imagine pornography images in order to maintain their arousal. I'd be willing to bet this isn't uncommon at all among men who consume pornography regularly.

I think it's quite clear that pornography distorts our perceptions and experiences of genuine human sexuality. When a man has to dissociate from sexual activity in order to imagine porn images so that he can maintain his arousal, I think it's safe to say porn destroys our sexual relationships.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some how, the treatment of people ... women and men alike must reflect on the mothers ... I believe that much of the trouble in the world is the failure of mothers to model appropriate behaivior for their offspring to mimic. Which manifested first the idea of the fetish or or the theatrical fabrication of the fetish fanticies? Product goes to market not market to product ... Blaming inanimate manifestations of illusions for peoples behavior is in line with Toliban rational for the distruction of images and statues ... it's parrallel logic .......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Overly simplistic views from people who have NOTHING to do with S&M, bondage, etc... outside of condemning it without knowing much about it... and now they want to link it to war.

Lets be VERY clear about this.... porn had NOTHING to do with this war or any other war EVER. Thats a plain simple fact. It "contributed" to the war??? Ok.. you show me the proof that Rummsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, and Powell.. hell any single one of them... has ANYTHING to do with the kind of porn you claim had something nebulous to do with this war.

Say it with me now... Niche porn DID NOT start this war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm a woman, and I look for porn on the net from time to time. I haven't run across things that overtly abuse women. For one thing, I'm cheap; for another, I wouldn't go for those buzz words that would get you there. So I don't know what all is there to be found along those lines.

But I tell you, I can't get ANYWHERE before I start coming across phrases like "cum-hungry slut" or "whore" or "bitch." That sort of terminology is ubiquitous. You can't look for porn on the net without coming across it. There's your degredation of women right there. Men who go on with enjoying that site might not necessarily agree that those women are sluts, whores, and bitches, I guess, but they don't NOT feel that way enough to be turned off by it, as I am. Let me tell you, that is an instant mood-killer.

Is there anyway terminology like that can be justified? No, I don't think so, and I wonder what it comes from -- why is it that women who enjoy sex (or will let themselves be filmed pretending to) are sluts, whores, and bitches? Could it be that somewhere the men who write those things resent women for being able to have the effect on their bodies that they do? Is it the madonna-whore complex? Why does it even exist? Do some men NEED that kind of language in order to get turned on? They always assume that it's women who have the trouble accepting their own sexuality, but this kind of thing really makes me wonder if it isn't men who do.

Does porn have to contain that kind of disrespect? Obviosly not. But it usually does. There are other annoying characteristics - I mean, POV, activities, etc. are almost always about "servicing" male needs instead of female.

I go to X-tube. The only thing I enjoy there are the masturbating men. Look in the comments section there - they're mainly congratulatory, friendly, complimentary. It's assumed (and it's true) that they guys are there because they wanted other people to watch them get off, so they filmed it. There are occasionally comments about "too much shaving," or "your dick is too small," but overall, there is no condemnation about him as a person because he's there. Then go to the videos featuring women and read those comments. First, there's the issue of agency - it's assumed that she's there because she's being paid to be and somebody else is the one who put the video up. And in most cases, it seems true that she's not the driving force behind her appearance, so that detracts from any "empowerment" argument. And then, there it is again, the language: "slut" "whore" "bitch". Even at the same site, there is a completely different attitude about the stuff featuring men and the stuff featuring women, and women aren't getting the good end of it.

So I'm not talking about something as serious as violence, but let me tell you, it's still destructive as all hell. It is harmful to relationships between men and women. I don't mind being with a guy who just enjoys sexual films and images from time to time, like I do, but I have a real problem with a guy who can't understand why it's a bad thing that even regular porn has that kind of attitude attached. I'm not going to trust that guy. I want to be with guys who think it's GOOD that I have a sexual appetite.

Porn doesn't have to be that way, but it is. Since the whole industry is about giving people what they want, I find it difficult to believe that men, as a whole, couldn't change it if they wanted. It was certainly men who came up with the cliches and framework of the industry, and it's men who can end it.

If it were REALLY just about sex, people together getting it on, it would be fine. But it's not. To ignore the layer of attitudes that have grown up around it, the pornography "culture" that, indeed, views women as unequal partners, agents, and human beings, is just lying to yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm an extreme social liberal and I think this article is a bunch of hooey. It strikes me as feminist propaganda. Reason: Obviously this person has never heard of... DUN TA DA... MALE PORNOGRAPHY. There is a strong fetish movement dedicated to "punishing" males, and even going so much as punishing their genitalia with sounds (not audio, but metal implements), electrical stimulation, razor blades, nails, heat and so forth. Likewise there are magazines, websites and dominatrixes dedicated solely to demeaning and making submissive men of all types.

The idea that pornography implies violence is ridiculous. I don't personally view pornography that is violent. I do, however, view pornography as a means to a sexual end. It is nothing more. Sure there are deviants that prefer violent (or rather, mock violent) pornography. But.... get this.... there are WOMEN who get off on it too! It might BLOW YOUR MIND to think that a woman can be turned on by violence but I'm sad to report it's TRUE. Granted they are a minority but I posit that men who get off on violence is a minority as well. Secondly, the women (and men) that are in these pornographic films you mention are COMPENSATED and DO SO OUT OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, these people are doing this because they LIKE it (and get paid for it)? Now there's an idea.

This article strikes me as a conservative wolf in sheep's clothing trying to make a straw man argument. There is absolutely no validity in any of the points mentioned in this article. None whatsoever. It's a good thing is an opinion piece, because that's all it is... an opinion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seems to be a sudden peak in interest about stuff that is all over the web for anyone who wants it. There is no context to most of it. It's just there. This article doesn't say must of anything. It jumps to conclusions and becomes boring. It just seems pointless. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about actually proving your case.

The author has an opinion not based on actual physical, tangible, testable facts and wants all of us to take that opinion as true on faith.

Not on your life.

Liberals have to prove their claims every bit as much as conservatives do, they don't get a free pass cause they are preaching to the choir.

Alternet editors, try getting some real stories or lose out on real viewers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...just don't film it or you are making BOTH!!!?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why aren't you bringing up the violent images in gay porn and relating it to war? Why all the hate on straight men?

And why do you know so little about the porn industry and what women enjoy? Are you suggesting that they don't have the ability to enjoy being degraded like men do? They aren't tough enough? They don't have that sort of sensibility? The ignorance in this and the other porn article is staggering.

I'll say it again. Porn is an easy target for feminist and activists. Instead of attacking the real institutions that prop up sexism (marriage, the church, romantic love ideals and the industry that support them.) you attack marginalized sex workers and peoples taste in sexual activity.

Where does the writer get off creating a narrow definition of what "erotica" is? They are basically saying, "what turns me on (or what i propose turns me on, we have no real idea) is the only right thing and anybody else who enjoys violent themed sex is a sexist, woman hating animal."

Sounds like a crazy right wing republican to me. Or even more accurately another Karl Rove. We all know he pushed his gay hate agenda because of his issues with his own father. Maybe the person writing this article has issues with porn that have nothing to do with any real factual information.

And this article has no factual information. Just statements of opinion. It's another half-assed punk rock 'zine article with no facts or even statistics. Just somebody preaching their gospel of how the world should be and then somehow trying to link it to the war in Iraq. It's rhetoric like this that makes Iraq war debates so stale.


Women are human beings who can decide how they want to enjoy sex, even if you find it unpleasant or displeasing to the eye. The masochist uses the sadist as their tool to fulfill their desires, just as much, if not more, as the sadist uses the masochist.

Keep politics out of the bedroom please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Freedom of speech and expression is one of the cornerstones of our society, and this includes the right to view porn (or "porno", to use the dated, 70s era abbreviation that Eisler uses here).

I find it quite disturbing when anti-sex "feminists" work together with the usual suspects from the religious right to abridge the right of American adults to view porn. The right to free speech and free expression isn't limited to only what is "tasteful" or politically correct. Indeed, there's no objective way to even determine what is tasteful and what is not.

I also find worst case scenarios unconvincing. To point to an extreme of any particular phenomenon and to assert that this is a typical mainstream example of said phenomenon is illogical.

Similarly, I don't buy the "women are more virtuous than men" notion at all; the idea that they are or should be the guardians of a society's moral ideals. Women are no better and no worse than men in this aspect.

There are women who enjoy porn as much as some men do. While most porn caters to the male perspective, there is a small, but growing market for porn from the female perspective. And let us not forget that a large segment of porn caters to a gay audience and doesn't involve women at all.

Nor do I agree with the idea that the only proper way to have sex is to "make luuuuuuuuuuuuuuv". While that is all well and good when that type of mood strikes, people are aroused by and have sex for a variety of different, yet equally legitimate, reasons. Sometimes it's about love and emotion -- but other times it's just about getting laid and sating our carnal desires. It's all good -- one way isn't "better" or more legitimate than another if those involved are all on the same page.

And I find the "women-and-children" mentality tiresome, to say the least. That is, the idea that women are as innocent and free of responsibility for their own choices and behavior as children are, and must be protected in the same manner. Let's face it -- many women freely choose to be porn models, for whatever reasons. Unlike children, adults are free to make their own choices in life and to take responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

As long as there are no children involved and all the actors in porn are there of their own free well, I have no problem with it and think the government should not ban or restrict it.

Libertine's Blog

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author of this article makes a distinction between violent pornography and erotica, but this is a very subjective classification. Most people who object to pornography - Christians and those who see pornography as degrading to women - do not distinguish between a movie like Deep Throat or Debbie Does Dallas and those that are sadistic. They are all rated XXX.

I find any movies that glorify violence, including the teen slasher movies to be highly offensive, but I don't deny the right of producers to make them or the right of people to watch them. It really is about free speech. If we begin censoring what may be produced, we find ourselves with a fine line between what is and is not acceptable.

Is it fine when "progressives" get to decide what's too violent or too degrading, but not fine when "conservatives" get to be the deciders? What is offensive to one person is sometimes art to another, so we get politicians getting all bent out of shape about a sculpture called "Piss Christ," which surely is degrading to many Christians.

I used to be married to a porn addict. I watched dozens of triple X rated movies, and not one of them showed a woman being chained or killed. Most of them are really and truly silly. The acting is usually absolutely terrible, the story lines are nonexistent, the sensuality is forced and uninteresting, and the production values leave much to be desired. They are so boring and laughable, they do more to turn most people off than anything else - with the exception of the porn addict.

My experience with my ex was that sex and porn addicts don't really enjoy sex, so they keep searching for the experience or the movie or whatever will turn them on and truly be satisfying. It's much more sad than something to be vilified.

Yes, there are sadistic, violent sex movies, but there are also sadistic, violent non-sex movies, too. In fact, some of the current TV shows, like the CSI series (which I watch and like anyway) are pushing the boundaries between a good story and prurient, gratuitous violence. Censorship is a lot scarier to me than the possibility that someone might be turned on by the degredation of women, despicable as it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If we are made in the image of God and designed by God with feel good sexual hardware, is it God's fault that we have these problems with our sexuality? Why is it so many of us are disgusted with the sexual fantasies and actions of others and judge others as perverted? How did we ever come to the conclusion that sex is dirty and to view the naked human body is sinful? I feel that having sex is one of the most spiritual experience we can have. Seldom do we get closer to God.

I enjoy pornography, it is quite useful for foreplay when you have been married for fifty years. Most of the porn is Ok, some being tasteful and that which is below standard does not earn my interest or business. Most films show wholesome images of beautiful people performing normal sex. Normal acts are what is acceptable in today’s society that does not degrade or insult. My favorite films are what I also consider the most beneficial for society. That would mostly be instructional (health & safe pleasure) and artistic films. People who have had sexual hang ups, have been subjected to porn for therapy and it helps them accept their own sexuality.

Surely Sex is beautiful and God is good. God made us in his image and yet we are the only animal that covers itself in shame. At the same time we denounce body functions and pass laws to keep us in denial. When will we ever be able to deal with our own sexuality in an intelligent way? Is God a monster who gives us these body parts with their wonderful feelings and then tells us no, do not use them? It would be like tearing the wings from birds so that they cannot fly. If God is good and superior to man especially in the love and compassion departments, it is wrong to feel that he is offended by images of good clean sensuality. If God is so small that he enjoys tearing wings from birds or chopping off non-believers heads, our worship is misplaced.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think so many men take issue with this article and the previous one on porn for 2 reasons.

1) So many men view internet porn.
2) The authors don't present actual case studies, facts, statistics, PROOF, to back up their claims.

So many of the guys reading this article find themselves under the crosshairs, accused of degrading, humiliating, abusing, and raping women because they have viewed some porn videos.

We sit here wondering "What?".

"What have I ever done to mistreat a woman?"

When most of us good, upstanding, decent guys come back with nothing we take another look at the article which presents exactly ZERO facts to prove its case, just a bunch of opinions strung together.

We Alternet posting men are basically being accused of being responsible for everything from degrading, humiliating, abusing, and raping women to perpetuating war on other countries, torture, and all the worst evils of mankind.

Yet most of the people that peruse Alternet are the most anti-authoritarians in the world. Most of us would never dream of forcing others to do anything they didn't want to do.

We were against the war before it started, we are against the use of torture, we are against global warming and exploiting the planet, yet all the rage the feminists posting on this article have against all mankind is being directed at us commenters, guys who have your backs on all the major world issues.

Perhaps it isn't the porn, perhaps it is the general mentality of the individual that determines how he treats women, just a thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look at the facts, it's not just women that are being abused. Do you realize there are just as many submissive men as there are women? There are just as many dominant women as there are men. It's not about violence, it is a safe and sane way to get out those violent urges in a healthy safe way. It is a way to get those violent fantasies out of you so that you don't wind up raping or killing someone. Sadism and masochism have been around for ages. It's when it goes to an extreme that people get hurt. Pornography in itself is a way for two CONSENTING ADULTS to make money. The people who feel degraded by this generally aren't the ones participating in it. The Men and Women participating, are doing it because it makes them a WHOLE LOT OF MONEY! The people who feel as if this is degrading others, here's a tip DON'T WATCH IT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think we need to keep in mind that it's actually a minority of women who feel threatened or degraded by mainstream porn. Certainly some of the more vocal ones have found their way to Alternet, and I would hope the site's editors take note of how weak their arguments have been via these comments. It will only take a while before such silly statements as have been made here work their way onto the broadcasts of Limbaugh and O'Reilly, with the Alternet label attached. Remember the DailyKos smearing?

Please--pull them down before someone else notices.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The sexual reality ("drive") goes much deeper than the relationship between the "opposite" sexes. The issue of male-on-male domination is conveniently ignored here, as elsewhere.

"'Porno' reflects the acceptance of cruelty." The pivotal word here is "acceptance;" concomitant realities are not necessarily reflective, however many studies one may enlist to help make that point. Given the complexities of human behavior and the further complexity of individual behavior in the social milieu, it could as easily be argued that porn-as-domination could have a balancing effect vis a vis the actual horrors of that certain human interaction which is often handily juxtaposed with "porno"-- war. In any case, to lump all, or even any percentage of males into the category of acceptance is specious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These women who star in porn films are not shooting their scenes with guns pointed at their heads!

Pornography has nothing to do with war or even some secret war against women. It is simply another headline stealing subject designed to take peoples minds of the truly nefarious bullshit thats really going on behind the scenes.

Yes, porn is exploitive, cruel, sick and perverted and there is a fetish for every possible taste- and pornography isn't going anywhere. It has always been around and will always be around.

Blaming the bullshit of humanity on photographing or filming sex acts- or watching it and masturbating to it- is as stupid and as full of bullshit as humanity itself.

If you don't like porn- then don't buy it. Most of the people who complain about porn are so ugly that very few people would fuck them in the first place! Its true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet seems to be on a campaign led by Pastor Bob Jensen to put heterosexual men's fantasies back in the closet for Mom. Only lesbians, I guess, will then be allowed to have bad thoughts?

Pastor Bob, Pastor Bob? What are you going to do about those bad gay men that think naughty thoughts of pierced nipples and handcuffs. Their nasty porn is supporting military aggression against other peoples for sure! Or is it just the heterosexual crowd of depraved men that is your concern?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The last two articles on porn here at Alternet, left me totally dumbstruck both at the complete lack of actual facts and insight into the topic, but also by the hysterical tone of shame and condemnation at what is basically private sexual fantasy.

It is no exaggeration to say that the authors of both of these articles present the issue as if any man or woman who has any kind of fantasy of being sexually dominant or submissive, or any sexual fantasy outside the circumscribed comfort-zone of "correct" "inoffensive" sexual desire is no better than a rapist or murderer.

At no point in either of these pieces did the authors have any kind of serious discussion about the actual social science regarding the effects of pornography, and with good reason, because it would completely undermine their thesis that porn brainwashes all who watch it into woman-hating rape/kill bots. They refer vaguely to "studies" that "prove" how watching porn makes men hate women, but go no further than that, because in reality, it is very thin gruel to be ladled out in service of their completely fatuous thesis.

Nor did the authors talk to anyone who could offer a different perspective from the world of adult film or sex work. There is no shortage of bloggers and writers involved in sex work and pornography that could have been easily contacted (Susie Bright, Violet Blue, Tristan Taormino?) All they gave was the same purely anecdotal evidence of sex acts or porn that they were horrified by, no context, no evidence, just pure emotion and condemnation of other people. Why not just write for Townhall.com?

The author of this piece actually has the audacity to say that its somehow a betrayal of liberal values to view sexually explicit material and even worse, receive sexual gratification from those materials, yet in the next sentence bemoans that the ACLU actually defends the rights of Americans to decide for themselves what they find offensive or inoffensive. Guess what? Living with shit that you find personally repulsive is the price you pay for living in a free society.

But even more than just the basic first amendment right that I have to act as the sole and only arbiter of what I buy, read, view, etc. I defy anyone to name a society where pornographic material is censored or outlawed, that isn't also a living hell for the women that live in them. There is a direct correlation between how tolerant a society is of porn, prostitution, or other aspects of human sexual behavior polite society might frown upon and the position of women in general. To put it another way, do you think there is more sexual violence committed against women in the Netherlands or Pakistan? I'm afraid you can't have it both ways.

The puritanical and deeply childish, hysterical tone of these past two articles reflect as much deep-seated anxiety and fear of sexuality as the hardest right-wing Christian or mad mullah. Sex, sexuality, and just basic human desire will always be messy, dirty, and above all complicated. Both of these articles have failed miserably to inform or enlighten, choosing instead the travel the well-worn path of judgment, condemnation, and the substitution of personal feelings and morality for a much broader spectrum of human emotion and behavior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a sex-positive feminist, I am stunned by your arguments. As one of my peers (in the doctoral Human Sexuality Education program) commented, is Andrea Dworkin back among us?

I am a staunch feminist, and have been as long as I can remember, the daughter of feminists, and so on. Once upon a time, I too thought that porn (all of it) was degrading to women. And then I worked for a by women, for women porn site.

Just like everything is this world, nothing is black and white, or 100% good or 100% evil. Porn is the same way. Yes, it's true, there are unethical pornographers who don't pay their stars (male AND female) what they are worth, who re-sell their indie photos to mainstream companies (SG anyone?), who trick women into performing, or hire drunken women (GGW).

But that is not all that pornography is. Candida Royalle is one of the first feminist pornographers, and her ETHICAL porn is full of empowered women (both on and off screen) who honestly love having the sex they are having. Joanna Angel has started Burning Angel; an alt porn site for girls that don't fit the common image of a porn star, but want to have sex on camera. Belladonna owns her own film line, and while the films they make are intense, all the women have said over and over again how much they enjoy making them, how much they love having sex, how much they love being FEMINIST porn stars (such as Sasha Grey). Tony Comstock's films have won awards from all over the world for depicting relationships and sex together; sexumentaries, if you will. He shows real life couples (who are sometimes also porn stars, sometimes not) talking about sex, and then having it. These films are porn, art and erotica, and are shown at film festivals, events, college classes, and oh yeah, in the privacy of couples' bedrooms.

How dare ANYONE decide to tell women how to be feminists. I like sex. I like to be tied up. I like to tie people (of all genders) up. Does that make me any less of a feminist? I am asserting my own wants, needs and desires - that is what makes me a feminist. I am making me sexuality equal to that of the men and other women around me. That is feminist. These porn stars, directors, and other adult stars who have begun to make ethical pornography that depicts women as sexually happy, sexually fulfilled, and not sexualized beings? They are feminists too.

I have read McKinnon. I have read Dworkin. I have watched LITERALLY hundreds of hours of porn. Yes, some of it degrades women. Some of it degrades men. So does Cosmo and Maxim. But some of it is absolutely amazing, giving power back to women and other disenfranchised poplulations who have either never been seen as sexual (physically disabled people), those who have been sexualized (women) and those who have been labled as freaks (fetish people, trans people - check out Trannywood Pictures!), etc.

And I want to know how empowerment is a bad thing, an evil thing, something we want to do away with...because it sure sounds like a good plan to me.

BDSM in its true and safest form (the motto is SSC, which means safe, sane and consensual) involves a hell of a lot more communication than a "vanilla" relationship. You talk about what you like, don't like, what you'd like to try, triggers, etc. I've done that in all of one of my "normal" relationships...and let me tell you, a spanking or flogging that stings more than I wanted is a lot less emotionally scarring than reliving a sexual assault because someone grabbed my hair when was going down on them.

Sex is complicated. It is, simple as that. How can we tell anyone that it's not ok to like being dominated when secretly, pillars of the anti-porn crusade are sneaking in to see dominatrixes? Oh, if those walls could talk.

Just like porn, sex, especially BDSM, is neither black or white. It just is...and it's a lot of grey at that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And the degrading of women? Easy. Look to the societies that degrade women and produce the largest number of suicide bombers: The fundamentalist countries of the Middle East and elsewhere. They must be rife with porn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: Now what we're talking about here is pornography, not erotica. Erotica is about giving and receiving sexual pleasure. Pornography is about linking sexual arousal with the infliction or suffering of pain -- be it psychological or physical. Erotica (from Eros, the Greek god of love) is about sexual love. Pornography is about male control over women -- and even beyond this, about domination and violence as normal and fun.

Wrong.

The rest of the planet uses the word "pornography" to include what you're calling "erotica." And we're not gonna change that to suit you.

Yup, there's good porn and bad porn. Perhaps a move to discourage bad porn is a good idea, but anybody who starts by trying to redefine words for no good reason deserves to be ignored.

Bye.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I posted these statistics on the earlier board about Janzen's book linking the rise in porn and violence. I'll do it again here, because facts can be useful in a discussion like this one:

Some statistics from the Department of Justice website (number of victims per 1,000):
Year____Rape___Violent Crime
1973____2.5____47.7
1980____2.5____49.4
1990____1.7____44.1
2000____0.6____27.4
2005____0.5____21.0

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I thought Alternet would have learned it's leason from the outrage on the recent article "Pornography and the End of Masculinity." Yet this is just another repeat of that same lame, poorly thought-out, unsupported, rhetoric. You still supply no facts, just grand opinions based on generalizations. People who watch porn support war? Liberals who defend porn also defend the murder of women? That doesn't even make any sense! Seriously, where do you come up with your bullshit? I'm imagining alternet writers listing evil topics (war, poverty, genocide), placing these topics in hat, and every week picking something else to blame on pornography.

Here are some suggested topics for you article: All people who watch porn are pro-slavery. People who watch porn support torture. The reason why the US doesn't use the metric system is because of porn. Don't bother trying to find facts to support these statements. Just state these bullshit opinions, put them on the front page of alternet, then fill the articles with more bullshit opinions. There's your formula for publishing an editorial about pornography on Alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The link between Porn and War? Sounds like someone was up really late struggling to put those two together. What article are we in store for tomorrow- "The link between Puppies and Raspberry Jam"? Sorry, I just can't buy into this argument. Besides, the author seems to make the assumption that all pornographic material is basically a snuff/rape video. If women are being degraded so much, why are there woman-on-woman pictures and films? Why are female porn stars making so much money running their own adult film corporations? Is there some beer-gut toting, cigar smokin' guy standing behind them holding a gun to their head?

What's even more interesting are all these comments and flaring tempers that follow. Especially those that go to such great lengths to talk about how this is all so wrong and how porn should be abolished and whatnot. To me that sounds like some of you have some serious issues you need to hammer out with a therapist or counselor.

Whatever happened to the whole "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS" mentality? Why are more people becoming more concerned about what everyone else is doing? Don't you people have lives of your own? What my neighbors do in their bedroom is non of my business, and I certainly hope that my neighbors feel the same towards me. I enjoy a more laid-back relationship with my girlfriend, and I don't care for anything that could be considered "rough" or kinky. I know though, that there are people out there who would consider my own preferences and tastes boring and unexciting. That's fine! If they want to use whips and chains and hot wax, more power to 'em. The events that happen in someone else's bedroom are for those people to deal with amongst themselves, just like my girlfriend and I discuss our thoughts and opinions between ourselves.

I know there are some things out there that I would consider nasty and abhorrent, and you know what? I DON'T GO THERE! I don't seek this stuff out, and let it be to those that do. I might think twice about shaking someone's hand if I knew they were into some weird excremental sort of fetish, but frankly, I don't want to know. That's the price of Freedom of speech/Freedom of Expression, and I will gladly deal with it rather than the alternative.

Besides, as long as there are men and women alive, porn, in some form or another, will continue to exist. If you outlaw it, it will only go underground. The prohibition of alcohol didn't work. The use of marijuana and other drugs is prevalent all over the country. Just because you might manage to make it illegal doesn't mean you'll purge it from the population. Its there, so deal with it. Live your own life, and stop being damn nosy and concerned about controlling other people's lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Firstly, what is the difference between porn and erotica. Answer that question first before anyone starts up with the straw man argument about porn and war.

Let me point out, since we're talking causality here--that it WASN'T PORN white slaveowners used to dehumanize black Africans--it was the Bible. In fact, the Klan still uses the Bible to base their anti-black/anti-Jewish hatred. The same Bible was used to bolster the idea of "Manifest Destiny", which meant the near-genocide of the Native American peoples. The Bible has used to deny women equality, reinforce rigid gender roles, stifle academic and reproductive freedom, and yes, it has been used to justify war.

Sorry ladies, but the problem isn't porn. The problem is outdated notions of gender endlessly perpetuated by the society at large, and given religious sanction--porn may cater to it, but it didin't start it. Like it or not, porn is merely the ugly image of a culture that maintains antiquated and bigoted ideas of what masculinity and femininity are about. Change the overall culture, porn changes or perhaps goes away.

By the way--it's not just backwards Christianity at fault, but the two other big patriarchal religions--Judaism and Islam--that have fostered anti-female sentiments throughout the ages.

I'm not a porn apologist--most of what's out there today, especially the gonzo stuff--is just crap. Every so often though, I come across films that are hot and show women in positions of power (even should they choose to be submissive--and that's the key word here--"choose"). I'm actually more offended by slasher movies like Hostel and Grindhouse that show people being dismembered just for the hell of it. And I'm totally offended by the teen slasher flicks where the so-called 'bad' girl always got killed in the most horrible way simply because she had sex (where were my feminist sisters then?).

I don't believe in knee-jerk reactions just because some guy wrote an anti-porn screed. And I'm certainly not willing to link this imperialistic, greedy war with consenting naked people doing the wild thing on camera. For me it's about the bigger picture--the freedom of women's sexual expression, something that women like you do not realize you are endangering.

This may be news to you, but we women have fantasies--many of which would be considered "politically incorrect" by many of the sex-phobic amongst us. However, what about the many women I know personally who are members of the BDSM community who are Dommes? How does this equation fit with them? What about the vast numbers of female authors who write romantica/kink/slash and the female-owned companies that publish such works? Sweetie, we're so not talking your mommy's Harlequin anymore. We're talking stuff that would make even the most jaded porn-watcher sweat. I just finished a novel where the female character (a tough as nails space captain) enjoyed being triple-penetrated by two men (okay, a human male and a humanoid species a la sort of an elf with two penises)--written by a WOMAN. Is the woman who wrote this some type of woman-hating masochist? Or is she writing what turns herself (and quite a few women) on...including me?

I believe and abhor when women are forced into porn and prostitution and we should do more to protect them, but how do we draw that very fine line between what happens with consenting adults and the public good?

I've always accused conservatives of simplistic lines of thinking, but now I'm starting to see this in liberal circles too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The history of alcohol prohibition in the US, with its resulting widespread corruption, cannot be separated from the simultaneous fight for women's right to sufferage. Women got the vote, but we soon got rid of Prohibition.

When the fight for women's rights is tied to prohibition of fantasy sex (linking it to war is the ultimate desparation) it sets up the legitimate claim for ridicule. Talk about spitting into the wind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And a lot of you chumps fell for it. Instead of analyzing what was being fed to you, you simply accepted it as true, based on what I don't know, then linked it all to your own ideas on what is and what isn't.

This reaction sound familar to you? It should. This is exactly what all those fun time radio guys do, the smokescreen clowns. Feed a gullible, thoughtless, opinionless audience with ideas and opinions that are accepted without question as fact.

This author makes some interesting claims. However, rather than cite or link to any kind of proof to back them up, she simply picks out the most sensational example and props that up with your quick-reading head-nodding gullibility. The example about witch burning.....well how about you go back and read the article again, carefully. Slowly. With some critical faculty intact.

"Social scientists have shown that a rise in images of sexual conquest and domination historically presage periods of repression and war."

Okay, that's great. Have any proof of that? Where are the studies? Or are we all just supposed to believe this little blurb headlining the connection between porno and war?

The recipe is in the name. To headline an article making this link, then to switch it all around and say VIOLENCE instead of war. Is cheap. As is the content of the article. Now if the point someone has to make cannot get your attention on its own, and cannot stand on its own merit for what it is, what does that tell you?

Continued

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a *little* bit of difference between government-sponsored propaganda and porno-tainment (or whatever you want to call it). The question of whether pornography debases or abuses women I will leave to other discussions... what the point is here is the context. No one looks at porn to find out how our government feels about women. They will look at government propaganda to find out how our government feels about the people in other countries.

Pornography is a commercial enterprise, it is not sanctioned by the government and promoted as "truthful". It is instead a fictitious creation, tailored to a demographic demand. Government-sponsored propaganda, on the other hand, is passed off as factual, with the government's stamp of approval.

I do not purport to condone or support pornography, I simply think you have no grounds for your argument. You are comparing apples to oranges here. You may (a very qualified "may") have a valid argument about whether or not pornography affects how we treat women, but that is an entirely separate argument than one concerning the effects of government propaganda. You are essentially comparing a sitcom to a news broadcast (in terms of user perception of truth).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good thing we're not on the verge of a catastrophic recession or anything. So glad to see the mainstream media isn't vilifying Ahmadinejad, softening the general public up for a covert bombing run.

I've always been curious why Alternet dredges up these "This Just In - Porno Causes Cancer, Heart Disease and War" fluff pieces, particularly at such critical times. One doesn't normally associate Alternet with the MSM, but I find their tactics eerily similar regarding the divide, confuse and conquer tactic.

When times are good, economically speaking, people understandably broaden their intellectual horizons to accommodate wider social issues. Now should not be such a time. If Alternet wishes to do its readership a tremendous disservice, continue rolling out these rather trivial and all too predictable articles instead of focusing on the economic tidal wave that is about to impact us with such ferocity that questions of porno consumption will look truly microscopic in retrospect.

I know I'm biased where such things are concerned, but the American public seems completely disinterested and withdrawn from the untold turmoil, no, chaos that's lurking just beyond one more rate cut. Naomi Klein was a nice touch but we're well past the time when debating these issues will result in any qualitative results.

We have now entered the "cut and run", aka, get while the getting is good phase of economic survivalism. Time to stop worrying about these bullshit articles on Alternet. Time to get your affairs in order - sell the car the plasma and the stationary bike, buy some gold and hold your breath. And for the love of god, get your money out of the US banks and into Euros or Loonies.

I'm just trying to do everyone a favor. As an economist who has been inside the beast, I can assure you that these types of articles are indeed misplaced. You need to heed my warning! Shit is about to hit the fan and yet you're all doing exactly what they want you to do: busying yourselves with bread and circuses.

On the other hand, fuck it!! Halo 3 is here!! Now, back to sleep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War is caused mainly by disputes over land and property, and greedy people's desire to possess and control resources by any means necessary. Sometimes religious ideology plays a part too (mainly in rallying the troops), but usually at its base war is just an animalistic fight over resources. Certainly the Iraq war was not caused by men looking at porn, degrading or otherwise. Perhaps a more intelligent article would focus on the ad industry and our rampant consumer culture, which fosters increased consumption and a need for other nations' resources, particularly oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You have in the not too distant past made some changes to the way we debate, can I suggest some more?

1. Allow us to highlight users. There are some people out there making really intelligent and insightful comments on a regular basis and I would like some help remembering who they are.

2. Submit topics for articles. I come here more because I want to read and post comments than because you select insightful articles, and I imagine most others are the same. Please allow me to tell you what interests me and what writers I find write in a manner that facilitates discussion.

3. Action items. Aside from "raising awareness" we don't seem to be actually doing anything about most of the issues we discuss. An area, perhaps ahead of the discussion part, where specific actions to address the problems raised linked to a discussion below might be useful in stimulating your readers into action. Particularly good suggestions could be saved in a separate spot for further discussion and to allow others new to the site to immediately pick up the best of our wisdom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm gay. Can I still watch my porn, or does that oppress women somehow as well?

What utter horseshit. Number one, have you ever met people in the BDSM community? They're some of the most caring and respectful people you'll ever come across, and mainstream BDSM practitioners can tell you about how each encounter is negotiated with proper limits, safewords, and a long discussion beforehand.

Number two, our wars have always been economic in nature, or once in a very, very long while, acts of self defense.

Finally, tell me why the Dutch, who allow a great deal more pornography than we do are so peaceful and egalitarian?

Just be up front. You think porn is icky, and you don't want anyone else watching it. Now go join your buddies at CWA, with whom you have so much in common, including a lack of respect for the autonomy, freedom of speech, and sexuality of others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are so many meaningless generalizations in this article, what good point you may have been able to make has lost its credibility.

Librerals? Please ... that's a broad brush. Porn=violence, uh no. Some porn=violence, yes. Good porn, bad porn.

Violence towards women or anyone else tolerated is sick and feeds violence ... period.

Get specific about who is condoning what. Using the term liberal is limp and stupid ... means nothing.

And if you wish to be a bit more specific, look at the stats on who's way into closet & S&M & anonymous gay sex .... big time: lots and lots of so called straight Republicans. I lived next to the Bohemian Grove for 15 years ... all the local boys and their whips made lots of money when the boys were in town. These powerful Repubs also used to proposition the local children when they were around .. my kids among them. We were always glad to see them go ... wish we could get them all out of office as easy as it was to watch their limos leave town.

Bambi

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The facts are clear. Nearly 25% of all Internet traffic is related to pornography - that's a staggering amount! That means 25% of all the energy consumption dedicated to the Internet is caused by our unrestrained pornographic consumption. Not to mention 25%of all the infrastructure and manufacturing that is required to facilitate the Internet. Not to mention 25% of the massive toxic computer e-waste sites that are poisoning the earth!

And that does not include the worst cause of global warming altogether -- us! Our bodies: Let's face it; all that masturbation is generating trillions of kilojoules of radiation. Hell, if I can heat up a cold room all by myself in about 15 minutes with a good jack session, then just think of what the billions of masturbators in the world are doing to the atmosphere! That’s worth at least a 2 or 3 degree rise in global temperature. The Glaciers are melting, people! You are not only spanking the monkeys, you are killing the polar bears!!!

But we need to stop beating around the bush and grab hold of the root cause: its not the masturbation - its the SEX. Just imagine how much heat is generated by each sweaty, slippery, sticky, wet, humid and moist passionate encounter? See…my temperature is rising just thinking about it.

It's time that we end our shameful liberal denials. We know full well that the sex=heat connection exists. That’s why we say: 'Wow, that guy is H-O-T-T!' or "Man, she's SMOKIN'!" Well, these uncontrolled sexy people are destroying the earth with their Hotness! We need to throw them in jail, or at the very least, cover them up in ice-cold burkas.

The threat is real, people, and we only have a limited time to stem the tide of global warming. If we all stop having sex, then maybe - just maybe - our species will survive.

---

(posted by joe protester)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It seems every time a male makes a comment defending his right to view and enjoy images of naked people having sex, someone feels the need to point out how this proves the men are selfish and just don't get it. They especially note the hostility some of the men seem to present in their comments.

Well, ladies, imagine if you were relaxing in your bedroom, ready to go to work with your favorite "toy", when all of a sudden your significant other bursts into the room, points accusingly at your masturbatory aid, and screams, "This completely devalues everything I contribute sexually to our relationship! It is a personal affront to me, and it reveals deep moral flaws in your character; I don't respect you any more!" You wouldn't be exactly happy about it, would you?

Now imagine that someone you don't even know does the same thing. Since, of course, as a good liberal, you don't have a gun, you can't shoot the creep, but at the very least, you will be quite morally justified in yelling, "Get the F%&K OUT OF HERE!!!"

People don't really like moralistic, judgemental people telling them what to do. And they esPECially don't want them over their shoulder when they're jerking off. You call this selfish.
And the reason why they don't just ignore you? It's like the boy who cried "Wolf." Most of the people who peruse this site are moderate to liberal, and so when they see words like 'degraded,' 'exploited,' 'enslaved,' and 'tortured,' it gets their attention. It takes about five seconds to realize that it's just another anti-porn rant, but it's annoying, because most of us REALLY don't want to be the type of people to whom these words have lost all emotional impact, but slowly but surely, that's what happens. Does anyone really believe, if these porn studios were the type of torture factories so-called radical feminists claim they are, that they wouldn't be constantly subject to guerilla attacks in the way abortion clinics are by people who sincerely believe abortion to be synonymous with murder? So maybe porn can desensitize, but so can uninformed rants comparing the latest Britney Rears chapter with war propoganda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a debate that will never be resolved given the level of consciousness needed to comprehend Riane and her work. Most males and females for that matter fail to comprehend the way their culture has subtly en cultured them to objectify their sexual urges. The notion that we are sexual beings has been amped up and hyped up for both girls and boys – the truth is that we are NOT sexual beings, sex is only one part of who we are and yet it has been blown up out of all proportion so that today the sacred is forgotten and ridiculed and the profane is accepted as the norm

Culture enforces the mentality that women are for men’s pleasure which is why she is draped over and around everything from cars, motor bikes to cans of Pepsi and especially beer - girls on the other hand are also en cultured to WANT to be draped around the can, the car the bike so that she can get him, the hunk of her desire – desires are primary they sell, today this is evidenced via music videos where women and girls move in suggestive sexual ways, wear sexually suggestive clothes and taunt the audience - the race is a profane one where the sacred aspects have been religiously co opted – she is not coming on to me, another woman, rather her moves, her dress her style is all for him and she somehow equates this to sexual freedom

Riane has touched a nerve in the redneck male physce – judging by the comments in here - the leave my porn alone, half men living half lives - the sacred all but removed from their lives, that deep sense of emptiness being filled by a hand jack in the shower – porn is the product of a profane society whose knowledge of themselves as whole beings has been forgotten – war, violence, brutality, torture, and obscene acts of self aggrandizement through sex replace it

Thankfully there are a few men like David Deida for instance that understand the true nature of women and women like Riane who promote that nature in her understandings of how the patriarchal system degrades both women and men – debases them by en culturing such sexploitation - men loose and women loose we all loose which is why we live in such a F@#$%$d society where the male has become the worlds most dangerous predator

We are sensual beings, not sexual beings, sex is just one part of our whole nature, but in the profanely unconsciousness of a dead humanity it is given supremacy thus women become objects of his urges and they are becoming more and more violent, and she herself is joining him – if we were conscious enough we might just admit that we feel this loss deep inside, and many women/girls I know feel that the way sex is today something so profound is missing that few can really articulate it - but religion has co opted the sacred union of women and men, and turned it into a debasement of men over women – and porn is simply an extension of that - again many women/girls I know feel this but can’t articulate it – and no matter how far you go to legitimate it, nothing will ever change the truth that our sexulised world is but a world of profanity and an absence of the sacred.

Good on Alternet for posting articles like this – the suppression of the Divine/Sacred feminine in all her forms, as mother earth, as women as girls as gays, as men who nurture and feel, has been demonized and brutally oppressed for centuries and we need to see it – women didn’t just fight to get a chance to vote, something that men took as their right, but her struggled for over 300 years to maintain the right to exist in the world as free beings, not to be sexualized, not to be brutalized and not to be marketed as a thing but as equal beings – is still continuing, unfortunately equality to a world stepped in patriarchy has been to make girls as violent as him, as sexualsied as him and fool her into thinking that she has achieved equality and freedom. – what a joke

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I accept the underlying premise proposed by the author: pornography which degrades women has a desensitizing effect on those who view it.

But there are a couple of things wrong with this article.

The first is that pornography is hardly the only desensitizing factor in American society. Violent sports, violence on television and in movies, violent video games, even deer hunting are desensitizing cultural factors - and that barely scratches the list. So too is the relentless presentation of women in media as valued primarily for their appearance; racial bigotry; even capitalism's "greed is good" mantra, which needs losers, and needs to despise them, or the entire thing is pointless. Any of us could elaborate on this list ad nauseum.

We are a cruel, brutal society, and it is reflected everywhere we look. Police smashing perps. Brawls. Wife-beating. Child abuse. On kids' playgrounds. Road rage. Bigotry. Our eagerness to follow our leaders into wars.

Why single out pornography? It's irrational and unrealistic to focus so narrowly. If desensitization is a genuine concern - and it ought to be - why pick that one repugnant thread out of all the rest and propose solutions only for it?

The second problem is the author's delicate avoidance of saying, in explicit terms, what she wants to do about it. What she is advocating is, bluntly, government censorship.

Handing government the power to censor is handing it the keys to authoritarianism. There is no other way to regard the issue.

This is what censorship advocates never get. They don't understand that if the government can censor pornography, the 1st Amendment is gone. They can censor anything, and will. If you hate patriarchal cruelty in a democracy, I can't wait to see what you think of patriarchal cruelty under authoritarianism.

We're going to have to dig deeper if we want to tackle desensitization. A lot deeper. It's a far more complex problem than tha author has represented.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article totally ignores pornography in which women are the dominent partner. Men have been humiliated in pornography, by women, for as long as the genre has existed.
One example? "Venus In Furs."

Personally, I don't view deviant sexual behavoir as a freedom of speech issue, but one of freedom of expression. The acts described in the article, for the most part, involves role-playing on the part of the actors.

Finally, are all people little more than sheep, easily led to behave in certain ways because of what they're exposed to? Does suspension of disbelief exist only in-so-far as mainstream movies are concerned? If not, then I really, really regret having taken my son to see Transformers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Reefer Madness"!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"cum" -"hungry"-"slut"!

In the title of the film or a generalization or the film types the women you are referring to may not be "hungry" but is definitely consuming "cum" and get paid for the sex....which makes her a slut.

Would you prefer "male-ejaculate craving sexually promiscuous woman who gets paid for sex"?

Now that's just too damn long! Seriously. Get over it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Images of men chaining, whipping, torturing, and even killing women in the name of sexual pleasure"?

Huh? I'm no porn fiend but I have been known to view it from time to time and what you're talking about is at most 1% of the porn out there, if that. The majority has women in the dominant aggressor position. That is where the majority of male porn fans get their jollies. Women who want it as much as they do. Men are taught from an early age, and the "decent", "sensitive" ones really live it, to be ashamed of wanting sex. The overwhelming majority of porn shows women who are as lustful as your average male, as agressive as your average male, as willing as your average male, and will never expect the male to be ashamed of their normal healthy libido. It's a fulfillment of a simple fantasy: Not having to be ashamed of yourself because of your gender. It's not about power or domination or degradation. It's about not having to feel guilty (at least for the duration of the fantasy) for having natural desires.

BDSM is a very specific niche in porn. It's tiny. The majority of BDSM is female doms and sub men who are willingly made to look ridiculous. The male dom porn out there is so rare, it's not even worth mentioning.

Your facts are wrong. There is no other way to state that. Your facts are simply wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sex wouldn't be treated like a commodity if men and women were raised to regard it as natural and routine.
The idea that there is something special and precious about virginity and sex creates an unhealthy obsession with sex.
Killing someone is just plain bad.
men should see women as more than a bunch of body parts and women should stop acting as if they have something rare and precious in their sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And should you be a part of the erotica/BDSM or fetish community you do NOT count.

I'm thinking of all my female slash and kink-writing friends who are ardent feminists and how they would feel to be told by these reactionary females that they are supporting the patriarchy. I'm thinking about many of the women who write romantica with BDSM or triad elements being dictated to by a small group of women who are doing the very work for the same oppressors they claim to abhor. It's truly is a sad day for feminism when a woman's personal choices as a human being are suddenly put on trial for being "politically incorrect".

I'm not saying that violent porn doesn't have negative effects on people--but so do violent movies and video games. But lumping ALL forms of sexually explicit material and deriding those who enjoy such things doesn't help the conversation much. This war has NOTHING to do with violent porn and EVERYTHING to do with capitalistic greed and scary nationalism.

I am totally dismayed at the level of disingeniousness this article attempts to couch as truth--then we wonder why right-wing lunatics like Limburger, O'Really, and Ham-Hannity call us 'feminazis'. Yes, porn is problematic--sex itself is problematic (and it really shouldn't be).

As I said before, one woman's kink is another woman's "OMG, that's icky". Nor are there any simple solutions. We must look deeper and expose our fear-based, sex-race-gender-phobic society, that has done a lot more damage to women than porn could ever do. Magazines like Cosmo, Vogue, Glamour are in my opinion, far more damaging to women's well-being than the lamest gonzo porn. Not only that, these magazines continue to promote the white European standard of beauty (something my reactionary feminist sisters never quite seem to get because well, they benefit from that).

In spite of citing numerous instances of countries that have banned porn outright--violent or consensual--these countries also commit most of the most heinous acts of violence against women, somehow that doesn't matter. India, Iran, the Sudan--rape, torture, female genital mutilation, bride burnings, honor killings--and not one of them has multiple copies of 'Deep Throat' running around.

That's it--I'm starting up a new feminist movement that believes in the right of women's freedom of sexual expression (or even for women not to do so). I want a movement that's racially, gender-ly (I know not a word), and class-inclusive--not the whiny middle-class white woman junior league that it's become.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War profiteers and really lousy politicians are what bring about wars.
Like the one America is in now.
It's all about making big, big money off the suffering and killing of others.
That's been going on for decades now and yet people don't do anything to remedy the situation.
Afraid they might lose their defense-related jobs.

I do not see a link there between porn and war.
That's a bit far fetched.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have seen my share of porn over the years, but have yet to watch a movie that depicted women being killed, raped or tortured. The only kind of x-rated material that could ever interest me would be the consensual variety, and it seems to me that in these types of film the women are fairly in control.

And I am also unsure how the author arrives at the concept that "pornography" is violent and "erotica" is not.

It is a fairly well-known fact that many women, while they might not desire such in real life, entertain fantasies in which they are helpless or overpowered. Men do too.

Erotica is in the mind of the beholder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i have read some good and not so good comments. there are really too many to read them all. however, i'd like to see some discussion on an unrefined idea i have floating in my head that porn is a unconscious way to distract oneself from seeking self knowledge. in this it is the same as all habits that are used to assuage an inner longing for some comfort or pleasure that for most people is un-named. i am speaking from personal experience. i have found in my life that most of the time i get caught up in seeking a thing or experience in an unconscious way that when i step back and bring the light of present consciousness to the drive that what i am really doing is trying to take myself outside of being present with my current moment experience. more simply put i am trying to get away from my feelings of unease with myself. it has never worked to do this because shortly that feeling will return.

i believe that sex is great. i believe that material and experiential things are a essential part of life. i also believe that experience/acquisition without consciousness of why we do what we do can lead us to committing acts of evil against one another.

i welcome any well considered comments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The article points out the relationship between crass use of women as victims in todays hyper-porno media world, and demonstrates it's the most common form of degrading "I'm better than you, you're inferior" media or imagery.

Why is this so hard to get? For example, a war for oil is like porno for money... there will be victims.

The thriving porn market online is driven by fetishism and it's always a game to top what came before (no pun intended). Much is pure fantasy, sometimes degrading, and frankly has nothing to do with actual sex. I've no problem with an article that points out the hyper-porno prevalent online and is just a part of our (Men's) media lives. Man, I've seen it all... really, my fanatasy these days is a nice woman with brains (a cop of the Karma Sutra would help though).

This is a big part of our culture today and I applaud Alternet for publishing this. ... it's not like the MSM gives a toss (they make $ distributing it), pun intended.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm afraid the author loses all credibility with that comment.
Are we to assume that the internet is full of pics and videos of women being murdered while filming porn? that's simply pathetic. It is the product of a red faced rageaholic spewing invective at all targets.
The real problem is that women are often called "bitches" and "whores" etc which is degrading , I agree wholeheartedly and it does confirm the stereotypes of the neanderthal alpha male who gets off controlling women. But this is not limited to porn, its in all aspects of life - start with the mainstream religions, if you want to talk about degrading women step into a church someday.
Personally when I see porn that is degrading to women I simply push the little button which takes me to the next link. Its easy.
My wife loves watching porn as well, gee she must be a self loathing woman.
I think some people need to get a life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well I'm another white educated guy who happens from NZ. We have porn and the interweb but we aren't in any wars we do peace keeping with the UN.... We have a topless parade once a year for the erotica expo "boobs on bikes" if you want to google it... If porn cause wars NZ should be leading the charge....go figure?

I've been married since I was 21 and I've been married for over 10 years, my wifey is a year younger. We watch and enjoy porn and like the other people here.

Saying porn causes war is like saying clothes shopping makes women stupid. Britney wear's really expensive clothes... look at Paris what education does she have?... but look at her wardrobe!
Therfore clotes make women stupid!
This is the flawed logic of scare mongers... what's next after the "porn" war?

Here in NZ the worst time for Domestic violence is after a sports game. Banning sports would actually reduce the domestic violence stats way more than the tiny boogy man of gonzo/disrepectful porn than most people dont watch. Yet no one is bleating about that.

Like has been said over and over porn it's a symptom. It's the American culture that likes violence, some porn is a part of that. Look at the recent "culture" you have exported to the rest of the world. Hip Hop is the most outward mysoginstic "culture" I have seen appear in my life time 2nd only to religon. We have kids here calling them selves Crips and Bloods and killing each other. You guys should be looking at porn for the symptom it is and ask yourself why does Americ generate and export Violence, not just porn violence but pop culture violence, and even armies to out right commit violence. Have a look over war history of the last 100 years and you'll see American war crimes over and over yet you wont see mention of any NZ war criminals yet we have had soldiers in every western involved war.

CHANGE YOUR CULTURE OF VIOLENCE AND THE PORN WILL FOLLOW!!!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree that it's hard to be a critic of something you know nothing about, and I can say that as part of my volunteer work at a rape crisis center, I wondered where some people got some of the ideas they used in their attacks. One woman I helped had been kept in a hotel room and was slathered in baby oil and kept for hours, forced to perform sexual acts at gunpoint. It sounded very pornesque, so I went home and looked at what's online now-a-days in the porn world, and it had been years since I'd looked at Internet porn. Needless to say, I was amazed by the sheer amount of stuff out there that you can see and view without a credit card; I was horrified, wondering what children growing up viewing and reading this stuff "get" from it; all those inherent messages have to have some kind of effect over time, I thought.

That's the part everyone keeps missing here in these discussions--all the men come out full force defending their right to "enjoy" porn without stepping back to see it more critically. If you are a self-professed online porn addict, then you have definitely read the language used for all the links you're checking out. It's always dehumanizing and degrading and completely objectifies the woman--and the men, too, to a certain extent. It's always stuff like "cute brunette gets creamed" or "busty blond gets double-penetrated by big black cocks" ... there's alot of inherent racism in the language, too. Women are described by their race or size or shape of their bodies. Even without the violent gonzo images this article points out, even the "normal" stuff is very degrading. If you aren't noticing that, you are way too desensitized to it already. Now, imagine you are a 13-year boy old at a computer seeing and reading all the stuff that's out there ... is that not scary to anyone?

I also don't understand how completely manipulated images and scenes in a multi-billion dollar industry fall under the liberal guise of "free speech." Can anyone explain that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think there is a big difference between true feminists, who stand up for female empowerment and have traditionally supported pornography as the right to sexual expression, and the type of prudish "femi-nazi" posing as feminist who sees rampant sexism in every single expression of male/female sexuality and constantly sees males oppressing females everywhere. The author seems to overlook the fact that there are plenty of women who find BDSM pornography to be a turn-on, and enjoy this style of porn as much as any male. And what about the fact that women in porn are often paid much more than their male counterparts? What about the fact that there are many instances of males being whipped and chained by a dominatrix? It goes both ways.

I am very puzzled by the fact that Alternet cannot seem to see the difference between true feminism and its issues, and the type of anti-male prudery routinely spewed by the male-haters out there. Sexual expression takes on a variety of forms, and women should be allowed to choose what turns them on and what types of films to make rather than being compelled to find certain types of sexual expression to be "degrading." Only the lack of freedom of choice should be found degrading.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There’s so much wrong with this article it’s hard to know where to begin. Here’s just a few examples: She writes: “there have always been legal limits to speech. The basis of libel and slander suits, for example, is that you can't use speech to vilify and harm others.” Sorry, but the only limit to free speech is that you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater and all the logical extensions of the essence of that prohibition, namely causing a panic.

In addition, you absolutely CAN use speech to vilify someone even if it harms their reputations. Presidential candidates and their supporters do it all the time. It’s only prohibited if the facts of the speech can be proven to be FALSE.

It’s shameful and, in my view, un-American, to suggest any limits to any speech for any reason other than causing a panic. “Community standards” notwithstanding, censorship is censorship no matter how vile the speech may be.

She also says, “Porno vilifies and harms women. And it harms us all.” Okay, but war also vilifies and harms women and certainly we have enough present evidence that war also harms men. On the other hand, porn excites and entertains, war kills and maims. Which is worse? Guess it depends on your personal, individual point of view.

“It's not accidental that the period leading up to the Iraq war coincided with the proliferation of degrading and violent porno.” An excellent example of a non sequitur. If porn proliferated in the time BEFORE the war, i.e., before anyone knew there would BE a war, then that proliferation could ONLY have been coincidental, therefore accidental.

But in truth, lots of things proliferated in the lead up to the Iraq war. Among them, loss of our freedoms, privacy, checks and balances, competency in office, balanced budget, honesty in business and government, ad nauseum.

And finally, “Social scientists have shown that a rise in images of sexual conquest and domination historically presage periods of repression and war.” No, no, no, no. Social scientists have shown just the opposite, that there is a DEARTH of historical images of sexual conquest and domination prior to periods of repression and war . . . . No, wait. I have a better one: Social scientists have shown that a rise in images of sexual conquest and domination historically FOLLOW the release from periods of repression and war. . . . Okay, I just made up those last two. . . . I would rethink my views on this last point if the author would post at least one link to any social scientist who has published a study concluding what she asserts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I haven't read *every* post under this article, but I have read a large and I assume representative assortment of them, and I must say that this was *very* counterproductive for the women who want men to see pornography the way they do.

I don't know why men and women are so different on this issue, but obviously we are. But one thing that is clear to me (although I don't believe that many of the women would agree) is that both parties in this debate are sincere, however misdirected one or both may be, and as such, I feel badly for the women, who without realizing it, helped create a several thousand word document that screams, "we have no data", since the request for the same was made and disregarded over a dozen times. That cannot have been the women's intent - but that is what they have done.

I'm assuming that if I were a woman, I probably would get the women's point. And ladies, many of you indicated that we men (I was accused of this) are rationalizing and behaving defensively, implying that we are insincerely grasping at rhetorical straws to defend our urges. Please try to understand that if you had as much testosterone coursing through your blood as we do, you would likely agree with us. Nobody's trying to pull a fast one or is arguing in bad faith. Not us, not you.

But I've never seen a point of view in an extensive debate like this one get so badly routed as the women's, and I feel like we beat up on the girls (no offense intended, even if some is taken), and I don't feel good about it. I do care about you all even when I disagree with you, and I am upset for you. Even when I win when play Scrabble with my wife, I never want to trounce her or defeat her embarrassingly. And I can feel the women disagreeing and getting hot at what will be experienced by many as condescension, but ladies, you got bloodied here. I never did think that porno was harmful the way the article implies, but not only am I even more confident about that position, I think any objective reader reviewing this debate would conclude the same - these women are in a lot of distress over something that only they can see, and that not only are they unable to present anything but their urgent opinions, they don't even see the need to acknowledge the request.

Maybe you women can see that, maybe not. If not, I may be in for an excoriation here. But for Pete's sake, do not leave a trail of uncited, unreferenced angst like this behind you. You would have accomplished more (or rather, done your position less damage) with silence than with pitching a fit and spitting in the face of reasoned debate.

This didn't sound as sympathetic as I feel.

Can we try to see things through one another's eyes? Like, for example, even if you find this post objectionable, can you try to believe that I (and I am certain, most other men, too) mean you well and wish you contentment? That we don't like to see you so distressed, but that we just can't agree with you - not that we want to exploit you and disguise our deceitful intent with sophistry - at least, not me. If you are right, it is impossible for me to see, and insisting that you are repeatedly in a shrill and accusative tone without support or evidence makes that the case even more so. That is undoubtedly not your purpose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll have to agree with the men that this article really did miss the point. I can't say that I think pornography is responsible for war (whatever other societal wrongs it may be involved in, if not responsible for). Truth is, pornography is more like a little shop of horrors, a display of what is wrong with our culture. Just as we look back at ancient art and wonder about detailed reliefs of mighty kings and warriors killing and torturing humans, I think those who come after us will wonder about the images we leave behind. Pornography is a sort of cultural symptom. We can't blame it for society's disease.

I've borrowed an article from the site of a woman with whom I used to communicate. The address is here: http://www.ffiles.net/index2.html

I haven't really read through the article, I just trust her judgment and hope it will be of use to anyone interested. And now, since it's 3:30 am, I think I'll be toddling off to bed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At this moment, yesterday's article on Olbermann has 93 comments, Klein v. Greenspan has 87, the article linking antidepressants and youth suicide has a mere 22, and yesterday's article on medical marijuana has 47. And the feminist article connecting porn and violence has a whopping 344, many of them long comments from men about what a waste of time the article is. Hmmm. This always happens when there is an article written by a woman (or more rarely, a man) on a topic concerning women. You'd think women were over half the population, the way we think one article out of five or six isn't excessive. However, there will always be a guy to set us straight and remind us that unless the article is of direct interest to that man at that time, it is a waste of time, even if that means the sacrifice of reading (or not) the article and writing a long comment on it. I actually could tell pretty much what the article what about based on the title, and maybe that's the problem, maybe some of you just aren't noticing the titles. If you start reading them, you'll get a head's up on what you're in for, and thus move on to something of more interest to you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Porn is something most people enjoy. And as such, there are all kinds of porn. Why do you focus on only one kind? What about femdom porn? Denying a man orgasm over long periods, anally raping him with dildoes, penis torture....why do you mention none of these things? Are they ok? Is it only not ok when the woman is on the "bottom"?

The fact is that the vast majority of people in porn do it by choice, because they like it, and for the money. It's also a fact that women make way more money than men in porn. So what's the problem?

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's abuse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is the way that porn-lovers get so angry when anyone criticises porn. It's like they're not prepared to even have the debate. A large chunk of the posts are actually saying that this kind of subject is "none of Alternet's business". And why? Because "not all porn is bad". Sure, but then if a genocidal dictator is murdered we might say "not all murder is bad". That's still not an argument for allowing murder.

I think when so-called liberals are so bitter and angry defending their right to view sick degrading images of women, we very much need to keep the debate alive. Clearly this very much issue we need to be talking about. Makes me feel sad to read people insulting women and insulting anti-porn campaigners with such emotional hatred. If you have a point, make it, don't get personal. The face of porn IS changing, it IS getting more and more violent and aggressive. Lets have the discussion about how this affects us and how we deal with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author has an interesting definition for porn. Her version looks like something she made up. My guess is that this was done for sensational purposes. If you've got a bone to pick, be my guest. Making apples look like oranges is fiction not journalism.
Webster:
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction
Eisler:
Pornography is about linking sexual arousal with the infliction or suffering of pain -- be it psychological or physical.
I'm sorry but it makes the author look like a nut... I'm surprised AlterNet would publish such nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All of a sudden the Comments Section in Alternet sounds like the Rush show, complete with cries of "FemiNazis" and lesbian-bashing. Ho hum, the porn posse out in full cry again.

Reminds me of nothing so much as the climate change deniers, with their hissy fits over those damn red/green tree-huggin algore-lovin hippies trying to take away My God-given Right to Drive a Hummer! in other words, someone's invested their ego and their gender identity in a commercial product that has negative externalities (i.e. other people suffer from its production and marketing), and they are going to kick and whine and scream and turn blue in the face before they will relinquish one ounce of their precious privilege. Live in a smaller house? NEVER! drive a smaller car or ride the bus or a bike? NEVER! quit treating sex as a consumer activity and women as service providers and/or an extractable resource? NEVER! The American [Male] Way of Life is Not Negotiable!

The tone and content of much of this thread certainly seems to confirm the theory that habitual porn consumption diminishes empathy, courtesy and respect for others and exacerbates any pre-existing contempt for women :-) more than half of those who are whining about the author's not presenting adequate data for her thesis are themselves providing primary data for her thesis :-) so the irony is tasty, if not the content.

My $.02, bluntly expressed: What a hopeless bunch of spoilt brats. "Gimme my fast food and my WalMart low prices and my cheap gas and my free/cheap porn, and who cares who gets hurt, so long as I'm having a great time indulging every form of greed. And if anyone dares to point out that people are getting hurt, I'll stick my fingers in my ears and shout insults until they go away." Porn is All American all right. That's exactly why it's deeply connected to that other All American pastime: war. And that other American substitute for the real thing: fastfood.

And btw, war and porn do kind of co-date: some of the earliest porn is representations on Greek pottery of victorious warriors raping women and men of the "enemy" persuasion -- trophy pictures, just like the ones taken at Abu Ghraib and just like the ones being shared all over the Internet.

For those who are ready to come to grips with research and social justice implications, rather than just staunchly defending their personal consumer habits, some intro reading:

Trophy Pictures
Sovereignty, Bodily and National
Porn Capitalism

for stronger fare, consider a visit to Biting Beaver or I Blame the Patriarchy.

otherwise...
Enjoy the bread and circuses guys. Every hour you spend wanking to commodified voyeurism and vicarious misogyny is an hour you're not spending working to undermine the rule of the corporadoes who are feeding you the porn. You really think they don't know that? They know what they're doing. The System Works. You've bought it ... and it's bought you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Question for y'all. Is it repressive and censorial to try to kick recruiters out of schools and to openly reveal the kinds of abuses that soldiers are trained to commit? Is it repressive and bad to oppose militarism because some soldiers are nice people, or because today's army is all-volunteer, or because once upon a time there was a war that could sorta be called "good"? To persons protesting at recruitment centres would a progressive say, Hey, they joined up voluntarily, no one held a gun to their head, how dare you suggest they might not be having a great time, siddown and shuddup?

Is it repressive and nasty to point out that the Army/Industrial complex trains kids from the earliest age with war games and war toys -- or is our consumption of war games and war toys a purely private and secret matter that no one has a right to comment on, and besides they have absolutely no effect on realworld behaviour, so the more the better? Is it evil and puritan to suggest that we ought to critique the ways in which the army/indsutrial complex recruits kids for its own profit -- after all, we all benefit as consumers from American military dominance abroad, and the recruits are free agents...

Plus everyone knows those bleeding heart Libruls grossly exaggerate the body count in Iraq -- why I personally know quite a few happy Iraqis who are practising democracy, investing in free market enterprises and throwing rice and flowers at US troops. so don't believe all that cherrypicked data about casualties and rape and kidnappings. everything is just fine and after all we need cheap oil, so we have a right to it.

starting to sound familiar?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow, comparing porn and war, a few statements that need some references but zero references, and continually referring to "pornography" while actually referring to violent porn, which is a niche market for the few who like that. And snuff films too, hey let's throw this all together for a nice melting pot of reckless journalism!

Oh god... repeating the "women as body parts" jazz.

FIRST, we are all sex objects, men and women, whether you like that or not. When you say that we must recognize someone as a person, then you have to admit that sexuality and being a sexual object (an attractive physical body) are MAJOR parts of being a person. Our physical bodies, including sex, and our physical existence are very important parts of who and what we are.

SECOND, the objective of porn is arousal, thus EVERYONE involved in porn is objectified PURPOSEFULLY. They are sex objects. This includes the MEN as well. We're talking physical urges, thus we don't need much more than an objectified physical context in order to accomplish that goal.

Women as body parts. Guess what, women have body parts (and men do too) that are used in *gasp* SEX. Why are you complaining that porn focuses on the physical? Would it make sense for me to complain that a poem about a woman's personality fails to recognize her as a sexual physical being? Let's get this straight, humans are both physical/sexual and mental/emotional beings. In certain contexts, only the physical is represented, and in other contexts, only the mental is, and sometimes both.

Going on with body parts, the VAST majority of the porn I've seen almost ALWAYS represent the men as nothing but penis carriers, they are disposable and oftentimes you don't even see their faces, or hear them, or look at them. How's that for objectifying?

Why don't feminists speak out for these men in porn, who are doing it for the same reasons that the women in porn do it? Oh that's right, because these anti-porn women see this as a war between men and women, and must perpetuate that by only "standing up for" their "fellow women" and completely ignoring the fact that these complaints are even more applicable to the men in porn, I mean the penis carriers. And I'm sure some men do dislike how males are portrayed in porn! Tell you what guys and girls, how about you not watch or participate, then. Most of the people you're "standing up for" don't share your opinion. And the viewers? Most people watch porn for an OBJECTIVE of satisfying their sexual urges, however odd their particular urges may be, in a safe and personal way. The people who make and watch aren't going to agree with you. The people who agree with you don't watch or make porn (I guess). You're only going to preach to those who agree with you, seriously. This isn't one of those kinds of issues that people are going to be very mobile regarding their position at all. People like porn and people want porn, thus they're not going to stop enjoying it at your behest, and your loud but fairly low-in-number voices. The best you can do is aim for legislation against porn, which is of course the refuge of the fascist. Don't like something? How about you abuse the public systems so that your personal moral disdain for something can be enforced by people with guns and courts and fines and metal cages?

If any gender is more belittled by pornography, it is men. But the true majority of people who feel degraded by porn are the people who don't watch it, don't buy it, and wouldn't be in it. They want it gone because they don't like it, and because they've been taught that others should be hounded into sharing their prude views of sex... and it's that simple.

If you want to disempower pornography, then make sexuality more of a normal, everyday thing, just like eating, walking, or any other physical activity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After seeing how one of the writers demonized a videogame in a perfect example of ultra liberal paranoia I couldn't help noticing that the picture that acompanies the headline to this article presents a picture of a nude woman on the screen of a Playstation Portable gaming console.
Please cut the crap, trying to tie videogames and pornography to questionable moral postures, belicism, and violence is simply sad, and probably a consequence of an entirely subjective and biased perception of human nature.
Statistical studies have proven time and time again that people that watch pornography or play video games aren't any more violen than individuals that don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Last time I checked, Porn isn't being force fed to our children at schools, via harassing phone calls and TV ads. Comparing the free speech porn debate to the recruitment debate is fallacious. People must go out of their way to seek porn. The military is in our faces, everywhere we go.

Leave porn alone! I swear, porn is friggin therapy for some people who would otherwise be unable to control their temptations and fantasies.

What about porn where women beat men?

Only a woman can empower herself. Not crappy government regulations about what you can and can't watch. We have enough damn regulations. If you want to say no to sex, say no! If he beats you or rapes you, call the police. Or maybe you liked it? Sex is a choice. Don't forget that there are women out there who get off to sadistic porn as well.
Everyone have sex and be merry!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Meat-eating is the number one cause of violence. Meat-eating kills compassion in the meat-eater.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Looks like the nonstop harassment and misogynist obscenity posted to her site finally made Biting Beaver shut down. (Where is the Kathy Sierra Memorial Foundation when we need it, eh?) sorry about the out of date link.

try Charliegrrrl as an alternative resource

also Manufactured Contempt a site which address JUST the misogynist propaganda of one publisher: Larry Flynt (now attempting once more to repackage himself as a Free Speech Hero, after decades of making a living selling pics of women gagged and fettered -- you can't make this stuff up.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

would call himself a liberal. It's clear from the majority of the comments on this board that you are hated by the liberal minded people of the opposite sex. Put Hillary in office and this is the treatment you'll get everyday for her 4 year term -- constantly demonized, constant blame any and everything, constant shame for being born the way you are. Who the fuck wants that. Loving that type of treatment can only be described as a sexual perversion .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Liberals often defend images of men chaining, whipping, torturing, and even killing women in the name of sexual pleasure as harmless exercises of free speech. At the same time, they strenuously object to war propaganda."

Where? Cite specific examples please. I would like to know what self-respecting liberal has defended images of men whipping, chaining, torturing or killing women - outside of the purview of BDSM, which involves consenting adults engaging in a mainstream sexual fetish.

The irony is that there is one specific example you COULD cite, and it is one which I as a self-respecting liberal would fight tooth and nail to defend. I refer of course, to the publication of images of torture at Abu Ghraib, which were suppressed for quite a while - when they finally -were- published, there was an outcry and the military was forced into disciplinary action. If you built a system whereby such images were banned from public view, do you think that such instances of torture would be any easier to publicise?

"If linking sex with violence had no effect on behavior, why would savvy media professionals link sex with whatever they are trying to sell -- from cars to Coca-Cola -- to influence peoples' behavior?"

Linking of sex with advertising is commonplace, because as the author points out, people respond to sex. It is rare, however, that advertising links sex with violence. This seems to be a figment of the author's imagination.

"Many studies show that images linking sexual arousal with cruelty and violence desensitize men to rape and other gender violence"

"Many"? Where? Please cite SPECIFIC examples of such studies. Are they peer-reviewed? Do they represent the consensus view in such science?

"But porno itself makes cruelty acceptable."
If you say so. Opinion. Unsubstantiated.

"Erotica is about giving and receiving sexual pleasure. Pornography is about linking sexual arousal with the infliction or suffering of pain -- be it psychological or physical"

This is complete and utter bullshit. 95% of the population define "Pornography" as the textbook definition of pornography - graphic depictions of sexual intercourse. You cannot change the English language to suit your narrow argument, no matter how hard you try. I consume "pornography" regularly, and none of it involves linking sexual arousal with pain, psychological OR physical.

"Images that link sexual arousal with causing physical or psychological pain perpetuate repression and injustice across the board. They condition people to accept, and even want, relations of domination and submission enforced by violence."

Can you cite specific, peer-reviewed research suggesting that this is anything other than an assertion based on your own opinion?

"It's time liberals come out of denial about pornography. It's time to stop kidding ourselves that linking sex with cruelty and violence has no real effect."

Again citing a position the author BELIEVES to be true, but provides no supporting evidence to verify that indeed, sex has been widely linked with violence and cruelty.

"But liberal groups like the ACLU still go to court to protect violent and degrading porno on the grounds of free speech"

Where? Cite specific examples in Case Law.

"Social scientists have shown that a rise in images of sexual conquest and domination historically presage periods of repression and war."

An extremely bold assertion. Which social scientists? When? Where? Were their assertions peer-reviewed? Backed by data?

I could go on and on. I'm sorry but the "Opinion Piece" tag doesn't cut it either. This is trash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's time to admit that the author of this piece is not at the top of the heap.

"Pornography" is about "pain" suffering, abuse, injury?????

What the hell are you talking about.

There are different levels of interest in "pornography."

I am not aware of ANY "liberals" who openly support Sado-masochistic written of filmed material.

I am not aware of ANY specific political lable that can be applied to those who DO "get off" on the Sado-Masochistic froms of pornography.

If you have the capacity to distiniguich between "erotica," and "pornography," I would hope you could expand your thinking and writing to realize that there are many forms of pornography, and "liberals," as a group, do not defend ALL of those forms of pornography, and I resent you writing that liberals DO.

It is obvious that you have been educated. You are in print. It is also obvious that the educatioin was wasted on you.

The world population today does not distinguish between nationality or political party or religion or color, or sex, or age, when it comes to doing just about anything for MONEY.

Including writing articles that somehow place a guilt trip and burden upon "Liberals" for something which is perhaps denounced, but ardently used, by those who would see "Liberals" further degraded for political purposes.

This article is trash and not worthy of an educated person, nor exposure on Alternet.

The writer is ridiculous from any point of view except the writer's own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This woman purports to know the most important thing to men is that they are not women! This kind of simplistic, hateful, prejudiced thinking is throughout this thread. How many women hate men? I don't claim to know, but the ones here sure are vocal about it. It seems like Dworkin's view that ALL male-female intercourse is rape, has found root in the compost of these feminist minds. Many men are resentful because many women insist on payment for sex; not cash, but payment by dinner, a movie, a call tomorrow, or flattery. Many demand the promises of a relationship. Men begin to feel used. Many men want "no strings" sex, but fewer women do. That disparity creates conflict. Some tiny minority become so angry or lonely they become hateful, and say ridiculous things. I bet a review of this woman's past will show she was rejected by one or a few men, and now reject ALL men. Vengeance is not the way to understanding. Hate is not the way to love. Pornography is not the problem with these hateful women. They just don't like men. How can you define something you hate and don't understand?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The writer is right, through and through, about this article. Women are consistently humiliated and degraded in porn and we are in serious denial about it (all it takes is a look at your daily junk mail box to see the sadistic things being done to women every day in porn - it's relenteless). Imagine if minorities were humiliated, degraded, and abused for entertainment in the same way women are? We would be up in arms...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And if you try to use violence to take the porn away, you will get all the violence and war that you can stand, and then some.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]