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, Patriarchy and Power

By Alex Jung, AlterNet. Posted September 29, 2007.


Our discussion on pornography revisited. Second of two parts.
Advertisement

The comment thread on the article Pornography and the End of Masculinity is tipping the scales at 500+ comments. We already compiled one Readers Write, but because of the proliferation of responses, it seemed unfair to just do one.

Many commenters pointed out that pornography exists within a larger framework. Readers differed on what, exactly this framework was, but a unifying thread of patriarchy, misogyny, masculinity ran through them. Some also used a queer critique, noting the absence of queer porn from the larger discussion. Others commented on the media landscape and the larger system of capitalism. At the center of the discussion were questions about what it meant to be woman or a man in a society where everything, including sex, has been commodified, packaged, and sold.

Posters like athamandia just called out what they saw: "The answer is the same -- men don't like it when women share the power. So, porn that is degrading and humiliating to women solves that problem. Men are still in control and it's still about power and dominance. Love has left the arena." But athamandia was careful to nuance the statement by writing: "And you know, I don't even like saying "men" here. It's that the power structure supports the hyper-male view that dominates the world now. Women's voices are marginalized and ignored. This is just one more example. But it's not just women's voices. It's the voices of all (including some men) who don't share the dominant power structure view that are degraded and marginalized."

The reader bluebirdella was unsurprised and moved from discussing patriarchy to a societal misogyny that inherently saw women as objects. "It's no secret that the majority of men view women as receptacles to be used and tossed aside. It's no secret that we live in a culture that gets high on torture, degradation, and abuse. It's practically enshrined in this country, to treat people badly whenever you're in a position to get away with it. You don't have to watch porn to see that -- all you have to do is watch Reality TV, and the news. Being a woman means being viewed as less than human. This has been true for my entire life. I'm treated like I exist for no other purpose than to provide sexual release for males. I look forward to the day I will be too old to even look at -- although I realize, due to the rapes of elderly women, that day may never come. It seems it doesn't even matter how unattractive a woman is -- sexual harassment never ends.

The reader andiii sees pornography as a reflection "of the social circumstances its consumers are living in: dependence, exploration, abuse, humiliation are natural conditions of our industrial lives, because the structure of companies and administration we are working in and depending on isn't democratic at all." Furthermore, andiii connects the female experience with capitalism:

"My guess is that women appear as objects of abuse because their nature has never been fully compatible to "male" capitalism. Femininity though may be a main force of a dawning new era, but for now has to "suffer" symbolically for the currently dissatisfying circumstances. For this kind of humiliation, which place could be better than the shows of an industry which produces nothing but the pretension of satisfaction?

"Maybe it is the destiny of every upcoming social force, as long as they are not strong enough to rule themselves: Their first role is to play the scapegoat for the failure of those still in power, as at the same time they are constantly told by the old forces: See, you'll never make it!"

The system of patriarchy extends its reach and influence into areas beyond simply pornography, such as mass media in general. The poster thoughtcriminal points out: "In a word: advertising in a consumer society relies primarily on sex. What's really amazing to me is that neither the article nor a single one of the above comments mentions this basic fact." Thoughtcriminal then ends with the advice, "Don't let the advertisers push your buttons, in other words. In fact, you really ought to just notice when someone's trying to push your buttons, and not respond."

Poster daniel347x agreed that there was simply a larger systemic problem of media representation of women. "If we had a world ... in which women in the media were treated with their sexuality balanced with other aspects of being human -- we'd have a world without violent degrading porn. But keep the media culture as it is -- violent porn will be inevitable."

"... When you tell men (or women) lies about the sexual rewards they will obtain if they play by the rules, they will become diseased on the inside. They will want to degrade the women whose own degradation by the media culture -- devoid of balance with other aspects of being human -- has been held up as a shining spotlight of what is the only way to engage sexual desire in the public world, namely by being a responsible, successful citizen confronted constantly by hypersexualized images of women while behaving with them based on a forced illusion that they are exhibiting other aspects of being human besides sexuality. The images of women in the fashion industry and in the media at large strongly act to eliminate or hide every aspect of women's humanity besides their sexuality. I think this latter point is hard to deny."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: pornography, patriarchy, misogyny, media, capitalism, sex, dominance, power

Alex Jung is an editorial intern at AlterNet.

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:
Interesting comments this time out...
Posted by: dbarber on Sep 29, 2007 1:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I especially found the ones about homophobia striking. Obviously homophobia is responsible for a lot of violence in the world, not to mention family strife, and idiotic attempts by young men (and sometimes women) to conform and 'prove' their heterosexuality.

But I don't think hard-core pornography can properly be called 'homophobic'. Discounting so-called lesbian scenes, which are filmed by-and-large for the pleasure of men, although usually the women in them are bisexual, there is a lot of content in male-female porn that would be repulsive to an extreme homophobe.

The simple fact of two naked, sexually aroused men in the same room together, which is a VERY common element from threesome scenes to gang-bangs, would send most homophobes running for the hills. But much porn doesn't settle for them in the same room. Men are often shown having sex with the same woman, at the same time, even to the extent of sharing the same orifice!

Please understand, my point is not to claim that such scenes are liberated or positive. If anyone reading this is repulsed, or simply wants to view it as nothing more than male domination, they can feel free to interpret that way. But I think defining such scenes as indicative of homophobia is nothing short of laughable. Male porn actors cannot succeed in their chosen work community with homophobia. If nothing else, they must allow themselves to be comfortable with the naked sexual presence of other males. Some, such as Ron Jeremy, may even perform acts that, while self-stimulation, are the antithesis of homophobic! Viewed from a homophobe's perspective, much non-gay porn is still far too gay for them to tolerate.

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

What a load of crap
Posted by: biginJapan on Sep 29, 2007 2:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cannot believe that these are the comments you chose to post here....is this some new hidden agenda policy of alternets? To distort the truth to fit into your neatly tailored liberal views? Wow, sounds like familiar problem in the media, I just never believed I would see it coming from here.

This crap is enough to make me wanna become a conservative. Seriously, if this is the kind of stuff alternet feels obliged to publish for the liberal agenda, and if you truly believe the majority of liberal minded people believe "porn" is a serious issue that needs discussion, then I'm dropping out. In fact, I'm very tempted to demand a retraction of this riduculous nonsense. Get a god damn sex life and get over the fact that people in the world may like things that you don't.... and please, stop trying to believe that gonzo porn etcetera is an AMERICAN problem... it's worldwide, with millions of fans, and so far, Americans are the only ones whining about it.

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

» Of course there's an agenda Posted by: footman
» RE: Of course there's an agenda Posted by: abbadon2007
» RE: What a load of crap Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: What a load of crap Posted by: naryaquid
» RE: What a load of crap Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: What a load of crap Posted by: naryaquid
» Misrepresentation Posted by: footman
» RE: What a load of crap Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: What a load of crap Posted by: footman
» RE: What a load of crap Posted by: goldmarx
» "the truth" Posted by: Ames
» RE: "the truth" Posted by: footman
The antipornography narrative doesn't need data. Just is.
Posted by: LMNOP on Sep 29, 2007 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think that these excerpts represent the debate on pornography that I remember from earlier this week. In a nutshell, multiple female posters asserted that pornography was a societal ill that degraded its models and consumers, and was another expression of men's antipathy for women and their exploitation of them.

This was followed by dozens of men responding that they enjoyed pornography and that they neither had ill will for women nor were inspired by it to abuse or exploit them. These men uniformly objected to the misogynistic characterization of their pastime, or that it was obvious that pornography or even BDSM pornography was about dominated or exploiting women. Those men asked for citations to support the foregone conclusion that pornography does the destructive things its critics insist that it does.

And time and time again, those requests were disregarded, a fact that was noted and commented upon. It was clear that women had a much darker view of pornography than men, and that they were both very distressed and unable to provide external support for their contentions.

That's the heated discussion that I remember on this subject. Why is none of that indicated in these reviews?

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

» RE: Your question.... Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: Your question.... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Mr. Ludd Posted by: ekipnrut
What annoys me
Posted by: Cruella on Sep 29, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(well a lot of it annoys me but) ...is this notion that since most people agree that not ALL pornography is bad, we can't clamp down on pornography. Firstly we can clamp down on violent, offensive pornography, on pornography that shows or appears to show a crime being committed.

Secondly, not every drunk driver kills a pedestrian. We as a society look at the overall balance and decide that there is a limit to how much we allow people to drink if they're driving.

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

» RE: What annoys me Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: What annoys me Posted by: Q30
» RE: What annoys me Posted by: Ames
» RE: What annoys ME Posted by: Iconoclast421
Denile ain't just a river in egypt
Posted by: argyle on Sep 29, 2007 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You talk about porn as if its automatically "bad". What a moralist position. Been to any good sermons lately? Usually progressives espouse fact and reason instead of adopting the rovian style of selected quotes to "prove" a meandering moralistic 17th century position. Yes, naked people doing it like wild freaky animals turns me on. I wanna do it. I wanna watch it. The sad truth is hardcore porn is better for you to watch than one episode of CSI or NCIS or Criminal Minds or Law and Order or you name it serial crime drama depicting horrific violence against women that doesn't even pretend to be fantasy. People are supposed to bump uglies, and often. God Bless the Pill, penicillin, and the power of female sexuality in the 21st century.

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

The Disappearance of High Pornography
Posted by: Crowbar on Sep 29, 2007 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As our popular culture has coarsened in the last 50 years, probably paralleled by our increased standard of living and increased "free" time, so has pornography.

The U.S. has always been shackled by allowing small-minded fundamentalists who seem to consider semi-public breast feeding arousing and apparently live in constant fear of nudity as well as sex to control our culture. In our media, violence becomes a surrogate for eroticism, especially on TV and in movies. Why are we more likely to see a cataclysmic explosion, killing dozens, on our TV and Movie screens than a bare breast?

As others have noted, a huge proportion of our advertising uses sex to get attention and sell goods, but our officially professed puritan attitudes turn these ads into frustrating teases.

Consider the huge waste of money and time represented by the government's world-wide campaign for abstinence-only programs, recently discovered not to work at all. They even put young people at greater risk of disease because the products of abstinence-only programs either distrust contraception or don't know about it!

One of Clinton's Surgeon Generals, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, realized that teens would not be able to control their hormones and therefore advocated mutual masturbation. This outraged the fundamentalists, and she was forced to resign. Her recommendation was never examined or debated, but it migh have prevented unwanted pregnancies and reduced STDs.

Old-time high porn, or eroticism, rarely advanced past mild--and probably staged--S & M. Oriental (Chinese, Japanese, and Indian) eroticism pretty much avoided violence and even elevated the status of women. Modern Danish and Swedish eroticism also avoids violence (which possibly exists in fringe groups that don't surface much).

Europe as a whole is much more open about nudity and sex than the U.S. Thus, here the bottled up eroticism goes underground, putting it into the hands of the modern porn industry.

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

Summary of Alternet dialog on porn...
Posted by: Q30 on Sep 29, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It goes a little bit like this:

A: Pornography is DEGRADING! It encourages VIOLENCE!

B: Really? What evidence is there for that? Go to a country like Holland where there's porn all over the place, and you'll find that violence is pretty low. Go to Iran, where they ban porn, and you'll see women aren't particularly free. Hell, not even the Meese commission of the 1980s said such a thing. Where are you getting this from?

A: Pornography encourages VIOLENCE!

B: Okay, you keep saying that. What's the proof? Where are you getting that from?

A: It causes VIOLENCE! It shows scenes of VIOLENCE!

B: Are all cherries sour, or only a few? I think you're conflating a small subgenre with-

A: Pornography DEGRADES WOMEN!

B: What's degrading about showing sex?

A: It's not SEX, it's VIOLENCE! VIOLENCE VIOLENCE VIOLENCE WHICH DEGRADES WOMEN!

B: What about the porn in which women are holding the whip? How does-

A: WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN?!?!?

B: Look, I don't.

A: WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN?!?!?

B: But what about gay porn? Why don't you talk about that? Doesn't-

A: SHUT UP!

B: Hold on, that's a legimiate question! Why not go after gay porn? And don't some women like pornography?

A: THEY WERE ABUSED AS CHILDREN!

B: But how do you know-

A: Pornography is DISGUSTING!

B: What about Renaissance nudes? What about the art on the walls of Hindu temples?

A: Those aren't pornography!!

B: So, what you're saying is that nudity on a Hindu temple are fine, but in a magazine-

A: WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN?!?!?

Etc.

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

Why Not Call Sin Sin?
Posted by: rileycase on Sep 29, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole discussion is an argument for the Christian perspective which is that human beings are flawed (if you cannot bring yourself to use the word "sin") by nature. Thus, we do not treat one another with respect; we seek our own gratification at the expense of the other; we exploit for our own advantage. We can throw around words like "patriarchy," "homophobia," "capitalism," and "commercialism," and these words speak to a reality which is, sin reflected in social structures.
The answer to sin is some kind of redemption, and what follows, sanctification. But we do not arrive at perfection, and thus there is a place for moral law (all law is at its source moral). The purpose of law is to protect the weak (and we are all weak in one way or another) but also to restrain some of the ugliness in the world around us. Thus the commandments reflected in civil law. Thus we legislate against murder, some forms of cheating and exploitation, and even hate speech. We even have speed laws and restrictions against such things as smoking, and (at least we wish) against unrestricted carrying of guns. Why not, then cannot we not control pornography (at least the most extreme forms of it) which has very little redeeming value?
I cannot understand the contributions to this discussion which want no restrictions on freedom to do what we want when we want and how we want, and then complain because the world is in such a mess.

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

» RE: Why Not Call Sin Sin? Posted by: allusiv
» RE: Why Not Call Sin Sin? Posted by: progon
More intellectual terrorism...
Posted by: allusiv on Sep 29, 2007 10:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody has posted a video or title they declare to be offensive or any reason why they think so. No real analysis, just blanket conclusions that are so subjective they don't mean anything.

Why haven't people defined what "wholesome" porn is? What "nasty" porn is? Because they can't; I can't tell someone else what gets them off.

If some porn is degrading to women, then who is worthy and privileged enough to decide for us what is clean and what is dirty?

What agenda is this article / discussion really about?

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

No connection between violent fantasies and violent behaviors
Posted by: progon on Sep 29, 2007 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rates of violence between men and women is at an all time low along with violent acts in general. 900,000 men get hit a year by women (13 men hit a second). 700,000 women get hit a year by men (19 women hit a second). Women are more violent than men but this violence stops with generally a single counseling session for both genders.
But rapes and other violent crimes are down over 85%, that's not a misprint, over the past forty years the crime rates have been plunging due to the removal of lead from the enivronment. All the countries out there that removed lead from the enviornment also have a huge drop in crime and violent acts as well. Violence is still high in countries with lead and America would be just as violent if not for the removal of lead.

This means that there is no connection between violence and pornograpy, video games or movies and television. If there was a connection between fantasies and revenge fantasies in particular the violent crime rates would be increasing instead of decreasing. Brain damaged people cause crimes and do violent acts. Normal people make the distinction between their fantasy lives and their real lives and virtually never act them out unless the part of their brain that control their social behaviors is damaged.

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

» Fewer rapes, not more Posted by: defrag
» RE: Fewer rapes, not more Posted by: progon
» RE: Fewer rapes, not more Posted by: defrag
» RE: Hitting Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: your statistics Posted by: Ames
What did "The End of Masculinity" mean?
Posted by: defrag on Sep 29, 2007 11:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before we let this go (for a week or so), did anyone in those 500 posts address what Robert Jensen meant by his phrase "The End of Masculinity"? I don't recall that coming up at any point.

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

» Great question. Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Myth?. Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Myth?. Posted by: Sojourner
Intention is everything
Posted by: sunspot on Sep 29, 2007 4:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that Intention is everything, in all realms of life, and certainly in regard to porn. The Golden Rule really ought to be the standard for conduct if humans are going to survive the 21st century. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. " That will tell you whether your actions are misogynist, cruel, or somewhere near perfectly ok. How would you want to be treated?

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

Porn makes for great Masturbation
Posted by: singer222 on Sep 29, 2007 5:34 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh My GOD! Our bodies don't know about monogamy. The body wants sex, and if not daily, weekly. But religion demands monogamy. So we become monogamous, but our bodies want variety. Porn provides variety but no risk to the marriage. Males AND females can masturbate without danger to monogamy. Erotica assists masturbation. Masturbation assists monogamy. Therefore, if monogamy is good for society, erotica is good for society. Religious leaders hate sex; be honest. This whole thread is an anti sex propaganda piece. Sex is not bad because rapes occur: erotica is not bad because some is degrading. God gave us these genitals to USE!

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

Again: What about womens' porn?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 29, 2007 8:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The below was a speech at an Iowa State Legislative hearing in November
1979

Dianne Brant had proposed a law to require all husbands in Iowa to pay their
wives $36,000/year for "homemaking". [In 1979, the average working
man's gross pay was $12,000/year]

This bill is another Dianne Brant Special.

The Female Chauvinist from Blackhawk County [Iowa] sees men as
security objects only, never as people.

There may be a few people who would be stupid enough to get married
to get homemaking service, but they are very few. This bill is an attempt to
force everyone into the lifestyle of the rich. The question will never be raised
in court as to who decided that the "homemaker" should stay home. The
working spouse probably wanted the "homemaker" to work outside the
home, but the "homemaker" quit a good job in spite of this. The
"homemaker" refused to allow the working spouse to do any housework.
The only choice open to the working spouse is to quit his job also. Then
they can play a game of chicken to see who goes back to work first.

It is rather obvious that most young women in college choose to major in
subjects that will guarantee their unemployability. They do this so that they
will have a good excuse to use a man for a security object. The young men
invite them to change their majors to physical science or engineering with
little success. In the supposedly backward country of Turkey, one third of
the engineers and scientists are women. But here, only a tiny percentage are.
The percentage of Physicists who are women has remained constant at 3%
over the past century, in spite of the efforts if men in Physics to increase the
number of women in physics. One year (circa 1979) there were zero
women in the freshman Physics class. That was because zero high school
girls applied. This happens because the girls' mothers convinced the girls
that it is much easier to let a man earn their livings. The Society of Women
Engineers has male members because men in engineering are very interested
in increasing the number of women in engineering. That is the purpose of
SWE. Most of the women in the physical sciences were strongly influenced
by their scientist fathers.

The law of diminishing returns applies to housekeeping. It takes 4 times
as much effort to keep it twice as tidy.

I have been divorced and a member of Parents Without Partners for the
past 3 years. I am the chairman of the Legal Research Committee of the
Ames chapter of PWP. My two children stay at my house 3 days each
week. Playing with the children does not count as work or duty. It counts
as play or recreation or hobby time. Toys won't play themselves, so you
have to have kids to help you play them.

I cook my meals all the same so that I can get back to doing more interesting
things sooner. If you have to rely on food for excitement, you must be
leading a dull life. I can also tell you from experience that if it takes you
more than 10 minutes to scrub a floor, you are goofing off. Housework
doesn't take much time unless you are neurotic about it. Besides, how could
a kid have any fun in a house that looks like a museum?

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

statistics and sources
Posted by: jingles on Sep 29, 2007 9:13 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For all the talk, where are the numbers, for whatever side, and more importantly, where are they from?
For instance, of men are hit, how many how many are brutalized (organ damage, scars)? Do 4% really act on their fantasies? How much do the actors get paid for their muscle-spasm demonstrations? How much same-sex intercourse is due to its demonstration? Is there really less non-consensual sex in marriages due to "porn-therapeutics"? How long does it take the average porn consumer to get-off, and how satisfactory is the experience? How many rely on porn for their primary stress-relief, and how effective is this compared to other stress-relieving activities? What is the gender/orientation breakdown for the consumers of the various porn genre? How many porn films rely on stereotypes for their plots? How many men/women relate their genitalia to weapons, and does porn dissuade people from this metaphor? Are porn consumers more likely to objectify or commodify humans?
Personally, I think the problem is the notion that sex and death are necessarily violent, but I have no empirical data to support this- can anyone help with anything more than anecdotes?

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

I can't help but feeling...
Posted by: Suz on Sep 29, 2007 10:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that this whole discussion is somewhat futile, like having a discussion about what could have been done to save the carrier pigeon.

In my opinion, (and let's not forget that IS all we can do here, express our own personal opinions that we are all entitled to have, regardless of how unsavory they may be perceived by others) trying to legislate our individual moralities for the masses is doomed to fail. It always has. In an age where technology allows any couple with a camera and a computer to broadcast their sexual activities to anyone who has the technology to watch them, any effort to squelch the basic human drive to find sexual release, however vicarious, is almost laughable.

Porn has existed on film the moment the first images were capable of being captured on celluloid (or whatever they used in the '20's) and existed in history since humans were capable of depicting it on whatever medium was available at the time. One large difference between many of the earlier cultures and our own so highly civilized, modern American culture is that, in earlier times, sex was regarded as an a natural, intricate part of a healthy community, while ours deems the sex act as an activity worthy of disgust; dirty; a "sin". We have twisted it and warped it and turned the simple activity of stimulating particular anatomical areas until a much-welcomed muscle spasm results into some Ray Harryhausen hydra, dangerous and worthy of slaying.

Yet no matter how mangled and disgusting and wrong we've somehow allowed sex to become, we are irresistably compelled to seek it out, to suffer shame and guilt and remorse because we have tainted something as innate and natural to our species (almost every species, really--I mean, are two dogs humping in my yard porn, too? Should I be offended?) as say, laughter, and made it UNnatural. In some ways, we have become sexual schizophrenics.

So, I have watched some porn. And then proceeded to have really good sex with my husband after. Do I feel guilty? Not at all. Do I feel responsible for the exploitation and objectification of women? No. Everyone lives with the results of the decisions they make in their lives; we all suffer consequences from our choices. I refuse to feel even peripherally responsible for the choices someone else made that led them to decide that filling out a W-2 and accepting a paycheck for having sex on film was a good move for them.

If I think BDS&M is repugnant and disturbing, should I be entitled to confiscate or ban my neighbor's DVD because I find it offensive? No. Why? Because my brain is in MY head, not his; and I can choose not to watch it even if he or she does. It's a concept known as free will. And, if that's what he wants to do and it isn't causing me any personal harm, then it's really none of my fucking business (no pun intented...well, maybe a little).

Well, I certainly have done my share in contributing to what I believe is a rather pointless discussion. I think I'll go save that carrier pigeon now.

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

sex is great
Posted by: drblack on Sep 30, 2007 2:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the west did not impose such silly notions onto sexuality more people would have sex instead of watching it. Instead we have a bunch of constructs put onto sexuality that repress and opress the sexual urge.

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

if you cook delicious food
Posted by: richholland on Sep 30, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you donot go to McDonald.
If you have enough and good sex SOMTIMES you like to see some porno.
But watching porno instead of real SEX is sick and poor.
In Thailand there are hardly any sex shops, guess why.

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

A suggestion: one pro-porn piece from a liberal perspective?
Posted by: defrag on Sep 30, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I still haven't quite recovered from Joshua Holland's snarky comment to a reader in Part One: "What part of 'opinion piece' do you not understand?" He's the editor who, when someone makes a mundane comment about Muslim misogyny, invariably sniffs that the reader has no statistics on that, and had better come up with misogyny statistics on every Muslim culture back to the time of Saladin or else s/he doesn't know what s/he is talking about. As these recent anti-porn opinion pieces demonstrate, AlterNet readers are held to a much higher statistical standard than its authors are. Keeps us sharp, I guess!

So, AlterNet, to assure your readers that you are NOT joining the Christian right on some illogical, quixotic anti-porn crusade, how about just one PRO-porn opinion piece written from a liberal perspective? Statistics optional, as always (joke). Maybe someone at Harper's will give you Sallie Tisdale's e-mail, if she's still into this sort of thing.

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

It's interesting how I got quoted
Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo on Sep 30, 2007 1:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before and after I made the post (which the editors accurately quoted the heart of), I said I wasn't sure there was a problem. Then went on to the effect "IF porn really is getting more more violent, maybe it's due to increasing sexuality in ads..".

Oh, well. My 15 minutes of fame are up and I'll probably never get quoted again.....

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

Here's what's wrong with porn.
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 30, 2007 4:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the guys have schlongs a mile long. Those of us who don't even make it to that casting couch (only once in my long history of being in locker rooms, etc., with other naked guys have I seen anything to compare with what the average porn stud carts around) can only hope that women can see the difference between sex as a performance as sex as affection. Affection is a quality; huge schlongs are quantity. Does size matter? Only when it comes to hearts, like the Grinch's that grew twelve sizes that day.

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

Liberal denial of link between Porno and Violence : REBUTTAL
Posted by: footman on Oct 1, 2007 2:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"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.

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

if men really knew.
Posted by: moon1980 on Oct 3, 2007 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If men really knew how bad it was in the porn industry they wouldn't watch it.Actually i take that back they would still be interested in it. But maybe not so interested in the hadrcore stuff. And by all the comments on here no one has been in the industry well i have. There is nothing about it that is enjoyable. There is nothing like going home at the end of the day coked out of your mind and being fueled by alchohol, and having your insides spill out of you. And being told that you are a worthless peice of crap day in and day out. But it paid the bills and supported my drug habbit.
In other countries a lot of the women were sold into sex slavery and are locked up at night instead of getting to go home to a place where they can feel comfortable.
To all the men who watch porn at least you could watch some of the less extreme stuff that no one gets hurt in and can actually be enjoyable. But why watch something extreme that is supposed to be a fantasy where you can tell that the women arent' enjoying it? What is so wonderful about that? But the more men that buy it there will be more of a market for it, and more women will get hooked on drugs and some will be kidnapped. Thanks guys.
I got into the industry one night at a club,I was approached by a man he bought me a drink.After i drank it i remember nothing, and the next day saw what i had done on film and was ashamed, my next film was because they came to the house broke in and filmed a rape scene. And all you men that are into the hardcore stuff are supporting this. Thanks we appreciate it.
To all the men who like the soft core and the less extreme at least that is not hurtfull to anyone except for the wife whose husband would rather look at other women than touch her.

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

» RE: if men really knew. Posted by: Ames
» RE: if men really knew. Posted by: YogiBear
obtuse
Posted by: Ames on Oct 3, 2007 11:31 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it really sad that the majority of male posters here are simply being obtuse, patronising and unneccessarily critical of women's points of view. I'm amazed that you feel the need to defend your use of pornography so much. Watch porn by all means, go your hardest, but don't get your knickers in a twist just because some women dare to say we don't like it.

Disagree, by all means, but you add nothing intelligent by being belligerent. We're talking about feelings, opinions and viewpoints here, not 'truths', 'facts' or 'research' which so many are screaming out for.

I would pose a counter challenge, and ask those who crticise one viewpoint (ie, antiporn) because it doesn't cite any studies/research to support opinions, to cite research that supports their argument that porn consumption has no negative effects on sex and power relations between men and women. You'll struggle just as much as those who argue against porn because most studies come up inconclusive, some with no effects, some with significant effects.

This discussion is not about banning porn or hating men who consume porn, but rather about discussing how porn affects both men and women and how they feel about it (quite differently clearly). It's not black and white but all shades of grey. Everyone has their own opinion about what is acceptable in porn and what is not. Even the most vehement supporters of porn here would draw the line somewhere, as would many of those who oppose porn (and would probably find much of what is labelled erotica acceptable). We just all draw them in different places.

If you don't listen to what others are saying, how can you expect them to listen to you?

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

Porn is a symptomtom
Posted by: Traven on Oct 4, 2007 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of a larger illness. When coal companies blow up whole mountains, with the ill-effects down stream, or millions do not demand we start building a massive train system and relegate 95% of cars to vacation trips only, or we continue to spend billions on weapons system that have no relation to the current Iraq war, just to name a few, is it any wonder then that our popular culture would not reflect this industrial model which is based on exploitation with no regard for the consequences in the future and the present tense.

Only 2% of our population grows our food, if we can find a new balance with nature and do away with the city/rural dichotomy we might have a chance to survive and flourish as a species. And then at the same time we might have a chance to deal with the power/no power dichotomy that are in all our social relationships.

But, discussing porn without the larger context of what is going on is just as much fools gold as thinking a hybrid car is going to contribute anything meaningful to green house gas reduction. Twenty million or sixty million electric cars are going to need a whole boat load of new power plants to charge them and the net CO2 effect is not enough to fix the problem–but it’s a start.

One has to think beyond the commoditization of life and think about social organization of life and what it means at the personal level and the global level. One can not “buy something” to fix the CO2 problem, any more than one can “buy something” to fix your sex problems.

But, if you start to see the capitalist/socialist dichotomy as old and out of date, then you might come to the conclusion that the new social forms we must create must combine both the best both, of the old dichotomy and move on.

That means socialized medicine, but maybe capitalism for things like TVs and computers and all the rest. It will mean socialized power generation at the local level and decentralized, with a heavy does of down sizing and solar cells every where. But your expectations are going to have to change with a heavy dose of sanity where expectations of your standard of living is not based on a huse full of thing you "buy" to feel good.

When the power relations that define how we produce all our goods change then the forms we live by will change and the relationships we engage in will change along with them.

And before all you conservative charge me with preaching socialism, think about this:

This will only come about when we all realize there is no capitalism or socialism anymore …it called live and let live, where a free and democratic people pick and chose the models which will deliver the most cost effective result and socialist things like health care can live peaceably next to a very captialist clean green factory turning out Flat screen TVs – the one who will lose out are the super,super rich -who hold us all captive to a dying idea – the super scale global corporation has out lived its useful life. The net cost to the planet is no longer cost effective when you consider the greater ills inflicted - like flying goods in planes when the green anwser is produce it local.

But small scale capitalism and small scale socialism in peace can live side by side. That world vision is both Christian and the ying and the yang, and it is as revolutionary idea as the Paris Commune and the Boston Tea Party.

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