Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sex and Relationships

Readers Write: Pornography and the End of Masculinity

By Don Hazen, AlterNet. Posted September 27, 2007.


From video games to historical art, and from sexual repression to violence against women, AlterNet readers have a lot to say about porn. Here's the first in a two-part series.
Advertisement

"Pornography and the End of Masculinity" -- the introductory essay and the excerpt of Robert Jensen's book -- produced an avalanche of interest and comments. Published on Saturday, by midday Sunday, the article was the second most read story and the first most discussed, and it has now amassed more than 500 comments. This "Readers Write" encompasses maybe 20 percent of the comments, those which came in on the first couple of days. We hope to publish more reader's comments, as well as more articles and a range of perspectives, like Riane Eisler's article, Liberal Denial: The Link Between Porno and War.

The comments covered a lot of ground; many were very smart and well thought out and ranged from skeptical to critical to supportive, including a number of writers sharing their own experiences of porn from various perspectives. While the comments are not easily categorized, they included concerns of censorship, skepticism that porn is really any different now, that it's damage on society may be minimal, and that experiences in other countries might teach us a lot.

Some writers asserted that the state of porn is symptomatic of larger themes and depressing realities that we all face in the U.S. today and in many other parts of the world. Other points were made regarding gay porn, women as porn consumers, commentary on the power of beautiful women, and even romance novels.

The big picture skeptics

PJ Tramdack gives us a very dark view that fuses the past with the present, suggesting Scandanavian countries offer hope, but then maybe not:

There are Greek vases and wall paintings in Pompeii depicting "rough sex." Sexual degredation was almost ritualized in ancient Rome...Societies today that repress sex always seem to be founded on some male-centered Stone Age myth where the women are the property of the men and the point is to keep the women for the exclusive use of their owners. My question about pornography is: when was it ever any different? Was there some golden age when women were on an equal footing with men and the men weren't exploiting women for something? There were 10,000 prostitutes in straight-laced Victorian England.

The internet and access to equipment and technology has put the tools to represent the sexual exploitation of women into the hands of every moron on the street. What makes the author think anything has changed?

Violence toward women (and the weak) is in the grain of society. I don't believe that the average human is more civilized today than the average citizen of Rome. We may not hold spectacles in arenas where people are impaled on sticks and eaten still alive by wild animals, but if we did, there would be sell-out audiences at $200 a ticket. In 15 years, I predict you WILL be able to witness any degraded, violent or sadistic spectacle you care to imagine thanks to the power of computing to create life-like simulacra of real events. As society skates toward the edge of oblivion, the psychotics and mal-adjusted will lead the way, as always.

The solution is tough. Look at the society with the MOST freedom and at the same time the LEAST violence and sadism....Is it Finland? Sweden? They have a commitment (albeit recent) toward liberal tolerance, a healthy respect for the individual, an egalitarian society that discourages excess of either poverty or wealth, respect for education and a common sense appreciation of human yearnings and suffering. It wasn't like this in Finland and Sweden 100 years ago, but it is now. It can be done, but it takes work. Is there any hope for us? I don't think so.

Big in Japan is also pretty skeptical, as is frantaylor, but for different reasons.

Big in Japan: "The book looks interesting and the article is well written. I suppose me jerking off to Bangbus videos and laughing about it afterwards should make me feel guilty. Yes, because of what I saw and enjoyed, I'm adding to the deterioration of American social values..... I live in Japan, and let me tell you, the GONZO film industry including BUKKAKE (where several men ejaculate on a girls face, etc.) was created here. There is NOBODY that gives a flying #$ck about it and I don't see Japanese society falling apart at the seams because of it. European films are as nasty as they "cum" but you don't see anybody pointing to pornography as a source for troubling social trends over there. I'd sure love, FOR ONCE, for AlterNet to just try to write an article about the horrible sexual REPRESSION that goes on in America (crap, now that I've said that, I'm sure there probably has been one too ... I'll look it up later). Maybe if people weren't all so scared of sex, or guilted into feeling that way by religion, etc, there wouldn't be a need for this guy to waste all this time and energy on a book about some dirty movies. All the points in this article are extremely interesting ... . degradation and violence towards women that aren't asking to participate in it because A) they like it or B) they desperately need the money is WRONG (pretty sure there's a lot of ACTING going on in those bangbus videos, and if not, why the hell aren't the police putting a stop to it????). But if you ask me, the fact that women are having to work for the porn industry at all, or the fact that so many American men out there have nothing but porn to run to for a sexual outlet ... . those are some big problems ... ."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: violence, abuse, misogyny, pornography, degradation

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
TV Violence & Porn
Posted by: TerryS on Sep 27, 2007 1:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would just like to point out that Americans
are spending over half of all their leisure time
watching TV/movies.

http://www.tvsmarter.com/documents/stats.html

And much of the TV/movies they are watching
is extremely violent.

For example: The Sopranos, The Wire, 24,
Deadwood, etc...

Is it any wonder that Americans are becoming
more and more desensitized to violence?

TV/movies consist of very beautiful people
involved in exciting, thrilling, edgy and
violent activities. Real life can seem pretty
boring in comparison. Even filmed sex is
pretty boring when you are used to endless
thrills. Hence the porn industry gives filmed
sex an extra thrill by adding edginess and
violence.

I don't believe in censorship, but people
should be aware of the effects on the soul
(and society) of passively watching endless
violence and thrills on the TV.

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

Miscalculation
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Sep 27, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, $10 billion a year and $25 a tape would mean 400 million tapes distributed each year. Over three per adult male in the U.S.

Bleah. Maybe it is getting out of hand.

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

It's about power...
Posted by: kwalls on Sep 27, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe an important role of porn is the vicarious sense of power it gives males. Sexual abuse, rape, domination, degradation... all about power - this is not about sexuality or physical satisfaction. Males tend to externalize rage and frustration; women tend to internalize their rage and frustration. Porn is all about providing an outlet for male rage and frustration in the guise of sex and it is extremely isolating. A person has to be cut off from other people in order to identify with porn (differentiated from erotica). Porn is simply one type of diversion from the real problems facing males in our culture - men are being degraded by the system, just as women and children and all people of color are being degraded. By combining this distraction with the very powerful sexual drive of humans, porn is another well marketed tool to keep everyone in their place and taking out their rage on one another, rather than challenging the system. It's a mass unspoken societal agreement amongst many other unspoken societal agreements that most never question, as indicated by most other comments I read in the responses to the article, which focus on the freedom of speech aspect or the sexual aspect, etc.

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

» RE: It's about power... Posted by: Smartcookie
» So why do dictators hate porn? Posted by: goldmarx
"The people have spoken". Yeah right.
Posted by: footman on Sep 27, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll be interested to see if "part 2" corrects a glaring omission in this compendium of comments : The torrent of readers who commented on the fact that the original article decrying the Liberal denail of the link between violence and porn cited absolutely ZERO relevant statistics and relied on assumption and personal opinion of the author to try and prove its point. On the recent series of articles about pornography, the Journalistic standards of Alternet have seem to have been surrendered to a minority of writers with an extreme and partisan agenda, which is at odds with logic-based arguments and has more place in the realm of reactionary religious propaganda.

Shame Alternet, Shame.

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

Slavery Today
Posted by: AnsweringPhaedrus on Sep 27, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not wrong to desire success, but when this desire leads you to cheat and kill, then it is wrong. Similarly, the appreciation of human beauty can be twisted into something grotesque. The link between pornography, prostitution and human trafficking/slavery is well documented. The most common reason for women/girls to be abducted and enslaved by traffickers is to force them into the sex trade.

There is a lot of talk about “consenting adults.” How does one know if the person in the image has consented? How is one sure that the “model” has not been abducted and enslaved? The fact is that you can’t know. You would smile nice too if you or your family were threatened with bodily harm. It doesn’t matter how professional the website or company appears – that just means that they have a slick PR department. And there is no guarantee that so-called “erotica” sources are innocent. Whatever sells will attract business. Even if the women are not enslaved, they are often young and naive - exploited by shrewd businessmen who are more than willing to use and discard them after polluting their lives forever.

When you browse a selection of thumbnails it is akin to purchasing something; akin to the slaveholders auctions in the pre-Civil War era; akin to the selection process in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. Humans are reduced to meat on a rack.

If you claim you are not affected by it you are gravely mistaken. The human sex drive is primal and anything that plugs into it has a profound impact. This is the instinct that drives a species to survive. This is the force behind a multi-billion dollar industry that has intimate links to modern day slavery.

The mindset of the porn addict is equal to the mindset of an alcoholic. Any and every excuse or argument is made to support their habit. Any and every important social tie is expendable. Any and every form of espousing one’s individual rights is loudly displayed to support the habit as the habit has taken over the roost of the addict’s mind.

The American Civil War produced nearly one million casualties. Many supporting the Confederacy felt that it was a natural right to keep and hold slaves. They were not all cruel plantation owners, yet they were accomplices nonetheless. It was a cultural mind-set, not a conscious effort to do something wrong. Yet indeed it was undeniably evil. Today’s porn supporters, now directly and indirectly support a global slave industry.

Here is the challenge. If you use porn, lay off of it for a month. If you can. Then when you are compelled, and you will be compelled, to return, remember, the image that your strongest instincts have been twisted into desperately hungering after might be the image of a girl that was stripped from her family and forced into the sex trade. You can say that the focus should be on policing and convicting those involved in human trafficking, but as we all know this practice is steeped in antiquity. Only when the demand dies will the business then die as well.

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

» uhh...what? Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: Slavery Today Posted by: ray burchard
» RE: Slavery Today Posted by: cheressemm
» RE: Slavery Today Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Slavery Today Posted by: goldmarx
Stone age myths / religion were for...
Posted by: Smartcookie on Sep 27, 2007 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... low status men, and other people in power to maintain social control. Low status men who can't get laid are dangerous to society. Religion (somwhat) tries to mitigate that by encouraging monogamy, although myths have been bastardized and changed so many times I mean really.

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

The fact that pornogrphy elicited such response vs. other issues is telling
Posted by: american on Sep 27, 2007 10:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Porn degrades both sexes. Men: See yourself for a moment, watching the video, getting off. You are no hero, that's for sure. You are not even alive. The worst kinds of people are those that do not care, have never cared, will never care and who act on that. The best are those that do care and act on that.

We are spiritual beings. Pornography and degradation are wrong. Watchers and sellers: you are despitefully abusing the rights of the US Constitution. The government exists in a society, and that society has a predominant cultural ethos: and the backbone of the ethos is moral. The majority is predominantly moral. They will seek to delimit the propagation of this brand of revolting pornography in time. This can only be done by tackling constitutional free speech and free press issues; if the nuance any new laws aren’t just right for the task, then general rights will again be restricted at another point—all this thanks to the lust of a the lowest level of society.

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

Alternet or Antiporn?
Posted by: MAD on Sep 27, 2007 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get on with it already and just rename the site.

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

Off the rails
Posted by: Hajoda on Sep 27, 2007 1:33 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, I'd just like to point out that the discussions of the recent articles on porn have tended to go wildly off the rails. I don't see that Jensen was ever advocating censorship - he seems to be simply proposing that the increasing emphasis on violence and degradation in porn may need to be more closely examined as a symptom of a change in society, or concepts of masculinity.

I, too, am against censorship (I actually think it's impossible in the cyber age anyway), but I do agree with Jensen that people who get off on fantasizing about violence and degradation (giving or receiving) need to take a serious look in the mirror - and if such fantasizing is becoming even close to mainstream, then societal attitudes that lead to this must, as Jensen says, be critically examined.

The article's detractors appear to make two main points.

First, that men, as sexual beings (animals) are genetically predisposed to being the 'dominator' in sex, and, if it can't happen in real life, they at least need to be able to fantasize about it.

As a man, I am personally insulted by that generalization. I have never, in my life, wished to dominate in a relationship (or submit - the other side of the same coin - for that matter). There is nothing sexual about violating or humiliating another human being. Sexual relationships (or any other kind of relationships, for that matter) between human beings is at its best when it is not corrupted by power dynmamics (an ideal, I know, but one I truly value).

The second detractors' argument is that fantasies are fantasies, and adults know how to tell the difference.

To those who make that argument, I would like to present the following scenario: A porn film is made of sex between adults and children (maybe even babies). As this film uses computer animation for all images of children (and the images are extremely realistic and lifelike, using the latest technology), no actual children are used in the film, so no children are harmed in its making.

Now I believe that this hypothetical film would be illegal now (correct me if I am wrong).

So, I have two questions to pose to the commentors that believe all fantasies are OK, because they are only fantasies.

First, would you openly (or even anonymously, in these forums) advocate for the legalization of this film (and others like it)? And second, if you answered yes to the first question, do you think that people who are aroused by this should take a long look in the mirror, as there may be something not quite right with their psychological makeup?

And as a corollory to that, is the degradation and humiliation of a sex partner somewhere above kiddie porn in the hierarchy of 'OK', keeping in mind that, even if consent is given, it is not advertised as given - quite the opposite, in fact?

For the record, I love erotica, and there is some wonderful erotica on the net (I'm finding less and less all the time, though).

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

» RE: Off the rails Posted by: suprmark
Ridiculous fear-mongering
Posted by: allusiv on Sep 27, 2007 1:53 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is fucking ridiculous. So violent media is not to blame, BUT PORN IS?

I'd like to let everyone know I watch lots of porn, even plenty of porn "degrading" to women, and I have never abused women, participated in war.

WTF is this crackpot shit doing on AlterNet??? America is so focused on bullshit instead of reality, no wonder we're in Iraq.

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

» RE: idiculous fear-mongering Posted by: footman
The Problem the Antiporn People Have...
Posted by: dbarber on Sep 27, 2007 2:36 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is that this is something they are completely powerless to do anything about.

Ban it? Then you'll just have an underground market, and every film of people having sex will have the label 'Amateur' on it. Not to mention CGI has made it so eventually everyone with a computer can manufacture any porn they want, and put anyone's face on it. You don't like the thought that a man is thinking about you "that way?" Not only can you not prevent men looking at you any way they choose, all he needs is a visual image of you, and soon your image will be functioning as his own personal, virtual Jenna Jameson. And even if he can't use a PC to make it a reality, he has the best PC in the world permanently attached to his eyeballs.

So your only option is to try to guilt men into not watching porn. Oh, I realize that words like guilt aren't favored by antipornies. No, you're all only trying to get people to 'question' and open up a 'discussion'. Personal information (and if one's preference in erotic material doesn't count as that, I don't know what does) is, for most people, exactly what we DON'T choose to share with the world. But in the antiporn mindset, if I refuse to discuss the type of porn I enjoy, I'm ashamed (and for good reason!), and if I discuss and even defend it, I'm shameless. If I want to have a discussion where the starting premise is that I'm presumed guilty, I can always have a conversation with a Jehovah's Witness!! The reason men aren't participating in the discussion is that there isn't one. There's just a series of assumptions that have been made, and the only possible way for a male to indicate they understand what the accusers are saying is to agree with them on every point. That's not discussion; that's what the North Vietnamese used to call 'reeducation.'

No, thank you.

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

» If the only choice Posted by: hurricane hugo
it's the world's smallest violin...
Posted by: DeAnander on Sep 27, 2007 6:00 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I want to have a discussion where the starting premise is that I'm presumed guilty, I can always have a conversation with a Jehovah's Witness!!

well then, if I want to have a conversation where the starting premise is that I'm a piece of meat with three (if I'm lucky) useable orifices and a price tag on it, then I can always talk to an habitual porn consumer... why is it that the guys who are getting off on this insulting sh*t are always so convinced that "poor little them" is the victim? are they the ones who are (and not unreasonably) afraid to drink from an unsealed container in a bar lest they end up roofied and, possibly, "starring" in some amateur copycat porn tape?

let's take a look at just one well-attested outcome of the goalpost-shifting that mainstreaming gonzo has accomplished:

Anal is the new 'third base'

this isn't about the merits of one sexual practise over another, it's about the attitudes of het men to sexual practise and their increasing preference for persuading, coercing or forcing women to permit sexual practises that het men describe as "dirty," "nasty," dangerous and so forth. as some astute commentators at a gay blog mused, why is it that gay men can discuss anal sex with compassion and concern for safety, health, and comfort, while so much of straightboy porn presents it as something to do to a woman without preparation or discussion or any concern for physical safety? easy answer: most gay men don't hate other men, but a lot of men (apparently) hate women.

when we see a very popular new genre of porn in which women vigorously sodomise men with beer bottles or other instruments, and a corresponding social trend for men increasingly to feel pressured into accepting this practise whether they like it or not, then perhaps we can talk about (a hellish kind of) pornequality between the sexes. meanwhile we've got a ratchet effect or arms race in the intensity of misogyny in porn, which like the ratchet effect in SUV size and home size, has serious implications for social justice. and it's about damn time Libruls got out of denial.

dickworship is a consistent religion, from GW padding his codpiece on the flight carrier photo op to guys getting off more on the sight of other guys' erections used tp punish women than on the bodies of real women. go look up the Destruction of the Herms and the effect it had on support for the war being fought by Athens at the time -- cf Lerner on The Creation of the Patriarchy. to those who think that "stopping the war" is more important than critiquing misogyny and violence at home, remember Abir and remember Commander Codpiece. wars may be fought for money and resources, but they are sold on testosterone, gender anxiety, and dickworship. deconstructing hegemonic masculinity is a strike at the root of war (domination and conquest = masculinity), rather than an ineffectual snipping at its twigs (Dems and Repubs).

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

» What a load of crap Posted by: footman
Porn, like so many things, can serve negative and positive ends
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Sep 27, 2007 6:12 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When your wife only makes love to you once a year, then there is a strong temptation to go find oneself a better deal with another woman, busting up another family.

But if porn allows you to blow off some steam couple of times a month, and spare your wife from having to mess with you, then what is the problem?

Go ahead and try to marshal the violence it will take to stop the porn. With an internet that spans continents, all you will get is more violence, more stings, more entrapments, more prisons, more hatred, more strife. Enjoy.

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

My choice of comment of the day
Posted by: footman on Sep 27, 2007 8:39 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
goes to ssegallmd, who said :

"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]

» On lust Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: On lust Posted by: Ames
» RE: go have a wank(?) Posted by: RixStar
» RE: go have a wank(?) Posted by: Ames
» RE: hormones are no joke Posted by: mr. joshua
STOP SLICING UP BABY PENISES YOU AMERICAN FREAKS
Posted by: Whitecliff on Sep 28, 2007 12:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is the barbaric practice of CIRCUMCISION that causes so many American men these days to dislike women. Yet American women across the board still seem to expect 'their' men to be cirumcised (mostly for cosmetic reasons).

This general dislike/disrespect of women is NOT nearly as prevalent in Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia where men are rarely circumcised. There is just something about slicing up a man's penis when he is a helpless baby that causes these men to dislike women more in the future.

Relations between the sexes in non-cirumcised nations is much more natural and easygoing...but in cirumcised nations it seems more stressed, forced, and unnatural (just like the brutal act of cirumcision itself).

Conversely, which groups are the most misogynistic groups of people on Earth? Muslims/Arabs, Jews, and Americans. What do these groups all have in common? CIRCUMCISION. Americans don't do it for religious reasons though. They just do it for cosmetic ones.

I am from Argentina where only the Jews there are circumcised and the Argentine men and women there get along MUCH better than in America where I now live, where most men are cirumcised. Still even Argentina I noticed that the men in Argentina who were circumcised often disrespected women much more -- they just seemed to be much more tense and weird toward women than the non-cirumcised men.

Decrease routine male circumcision in America and you'll see a corresponding increase in the respect for women. I guarantee it.

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

» Interesting theory Posted by: footman
» RE: Interesting theory Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Interesting theory Posted by: LMNOP
vickymiss2001
Posted by: vickymiss2001 on Sep 28, 2007 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was in porn after some events in my life left me in a disabled situation. The 3rd one i believe i was raped. As it was so violent yet. As porn actress you agree with your identification to what ever they are going to do with you. Even if you don't know exactly what it is. And then i really came to hate american men. As i found no one which would ever do anything for anyone out of kindness even when i was in my physically disabling situation just they want to hurt and exploit people. i think this is because of the selfishness of thier ideology.

As far as American men go they hate feminity to the point as if they want to kill it. (tom Leykis and his friends) In this I believe they are more gay because they only appreciate masculinity and hate the opposite.

By hating woman and everything that is a lady different then man they hate them. They promote woman who are only looking and acting like men (feminists) and woman who take on female characteristics they push them into distruction degregation.

From these abuses i don't want to return to USA and I am scared from most American males. I wish some one would do something but it is better just to leave the situation then to try to fight for dignity or rights in a country which will destroy woman who are like me.

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

» RE: vickymiss2001 Posted by: mjglow
the corporate boardroom invades the bedroom
Posted by: DeAnander on Sep 28, 2007 2:17 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(from the back-n-forth): No one can watch any pornographic video, from the softest core Skinemax to the most tasteless Max Hardcore endeavor, and think for one second that what is going on represents real life behaviour

izzat so? well then, why do so many guys pressure their wives and girlfriends to re-enact this corporate media BS in their bedrooms? if no one could think "for one second" that this is real life, then why is it becoming real life for many women to find themselves compared -- negatively! -- with porn stars, and pressured (emotionally or physically) to perform or submit to standardised, reified and unitised "sex acts" learned from the sexual equivalent of the Shopping Channel?

what does it mean that the neoliberal corporate ideology has invaded our bedrooms far more thoroughly than the Gummint ever could?

what ever happened to the idea that sex is an interaction between two people rather than between a consumer and a menu?

jeez, we don't just need a Slow Food movement, seems like we need a Slow Sex movement. less of this freezedried artificial coporate "convenience" fodder.

why is it, I wonder, that Americans are the world's biggest selfrighteous zealots when it comes to dissing and lecturing and discriminating against "fat slobs who eat too much," yet they defend unlimited sexual gluttony as if it were the merit badge of freedom? when a guy has become so desensitised that he can't even get it up w/o consuming some for-profit video, how different is that from the legendary "ultra fat American who has to use a motorised chair to roll down the aisles at WalMart"? and how different is his dependence on on industry that notoriously insults and abuses women from the WalMart shopaholic's dependency on slave-labour in China?

at least obesity's partly genetic and partly class-related; that is to say, there's less volition involved -- fatty-blamers don't have a very strong case for finding the obese fully culpable in their own condition. porn-obsessed guys OTOH have voluntarily handed over their sexual autonomy to the media machine. like otherwise fit people who have become unable to walk more than a block by enbracing an ultrasedentary lifestyle, they've voluntarily embraced the atrophy of their own imaginations and their capacity for sensuality to become dependent clients of the junk sex industry. sad if you ask me... and like automobile dependency, erosive of community and social capital.

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

RixStar
Posted by: RixStar on Sep 28, 2007 4:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So if I'm a straight guy and only watch "shemale" porn and/or only have sex with male prostitutes dressed as women, does that excuse me from being branded as someone who degrades women? Or how about if I'm a woman who gets off on lesbian porn. Does that mean I'm not degrading the actresses by doing so but the men who watch the same films are? Please explain.

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