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

Is Pornography Really Harmful?

By Michael Bader and Vivian Dent, AlterNet. Posted November 7, 2007.


In response to Robert Jensen's controversial book, Getting Off, two clinical psychologists debate the intersection of violence and sexual fantasy.
20071107story
20071107story
Advertisement

Pornography is a mirror that shows us how men see women, writes Robert Jensen in his latest book, Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. And with mainstream porn becoming increasingly degrading and violent toward women, looking into that mirror can be unsettling.

That's the theme running through Jensen's book, which AlterNet excerpted in late September. The excerpt, viewable here, stirred a fiery debate among readers, with dozens of commenters defending pornography as a healthy form of sexual expression and dozens more condemning it as dangerous. For all the discussion, a lot of questions remain: Can men who view violent pornography separate fantasy from reality? Do men who are aroused by this type of porn want to hurt women? What influence does porn have on the people who view it? Under what conditions can it be healthy? Harmful?

In a quest to better understand these issues, AlterNet decided to ask some experts. Below, clinical psychologists Michael Bader and Vivian Dent go head-to-head on pornography and why people watch it.

But first, a refresher from Jensen's book:

Although few admit it, lots of people are afraid of pornography. The liberal/libertarian supporters who celebrate pornography are afraid to look honestly at what it says about our culture. The conservative opponents are afraid that pornography undermines their attempts to keep sex boxed into narrow categories.

Feminist critics are afraid, too -- but for different reasons. Feminists are afraid because of what they see in the mirror, because of what pornography tells us about the world in which we live. That fear is justified. It's a sensible fear that leads many to want to change the culture.

Pornography has become normalized, mainstreamed. ... As a New York Times story put it, "Pornography isn't just for dirty old men anymore." Well, it never really was just for dirty men, or old men, or dirty old men. But now that fact is out in the open. That same story quotes a magazine writer who also has written a pornography script: "People just take porn in stride these days. There's nothing dangerous about sex anymore." The editorial director of Playboy, who says that his company has "an emphasis on party," tells potential advertisers: "We're in the mainstream."

There never was anything dangerous about sex, of course. The danger isn't in sex, but in a particular conception of sex in patriarchy. And the way sex is done in pornography is becoming more and more cruel and degrading, at the same time that pornography is becoming more normalized than ever. That's the paradox.

The paradox of pornography

First, imagine what we could call the cruelty line -- the measure of the level of overt cruelty toward, and degradation of, women in contemporary mass-marketed pornography. That line is heading up, sharply.

Second, imagine the normalization line -- the measure of the acceptance of pornography in the mainstream of contemporary culture. That line also is on the way up, equally sharply.

If pornography is increasingly cruel and degrading, why is it increasingly commonplace instead of more marginalized? In a society that purports to be civilized, wouldn't we expect most people to reject sexual material that becomes evermore dismissive of the humanity of women? How do we explain the simultaneous appearance of more, and increasingly more intense, ways to humiliate women sexually and the rising popularity of the films that present those activities?

As is often the case, this paradox can be resolved by recognizing that one of the assumptions is wrong. Here, it's the assumption that U.S. society routinely rejects cruelty and degradation. In fact, the United States is a nation that has no serious objection to cruelty and degradation. Think of the way we accept the use of brutal weapons in war that kill civilians, or the way we accept the death penalty, or the way we accept crushing economic inequality. There is no paradox in the steady mainstreaming of an intensely cruel pornography. This is a culture with a well-developed legal regime that generally protects individuals' rights and freedoms, and yet it also is a strikingly cruel culture in the way it accepts brutality and inequality.

The pornographers are not a deviation from the norm. Their presence in the mainstream shouldn't be surprising, because they represent mainstream values: The logic of domination and subordination that is central to patriarchy, hyperpatriotic nationalism, white supremacy and a predatory corporate capitalism.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: violence against women, pornography, gonzo porn, violent porn, sexual expression, sexual fantasy, robert jensen, getting off

Michael Bader is a psychologist and psychoanalyst in San Francisco. He is the author of Arousal: The Secret Logic of Sexual Fantasies, and a forthcoming book, Male Sexuality: Why Women Don't Understand It -- And Men Don't Either. He has also written extensively on psychology and politics for Tikkun Magazine and AlterNet. Dr. Vivian Dent is a psychologist in private practice in San Francisco.

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:
over/under
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Nov 7, 2007 12:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for # of comments on this thread before it devolves into he-said, she-said bullshit is set at 5.

plur

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

» RE: over/under Posted by: matti
» PRAISE BOB Posted by: vox persona
Interesting but flawed
Posted by: matti on Nov 7, 2007 1:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Certainly more so than the article which preceded this one.

Before the -I'm certain- giant debate begins on this topic, I would just like to quickly point out what may-well-be a mortal flaw in your "debate" construct, namely:

The number of rebuttals is not equal, AND the rebuttals are formulated in such a way as to give One Side the "Last Word"

Bader's Initial Statement is an Inititial Statement.

Dent's Initial Statement is a Rebuttal. (She reponds directly to Bader's Statement, whereas he is responding to the Alternet Article, Jensen's book, and His Own Experience)

This then, when each is given one official "Rebuttal", gives Dent, In Fact, TWO.

Also with the format chosen her second Rebuttal becomes, In Fact, THE LAST WORD.

While I believe the two participants in this "debate" where striving for fairness and compromise, within the constraints of their opinions and expertise, I think I am safe in predicting that the format chosen will muddy the "discussion" on this forum with -completely logical and reasonable - arguments for "prejudice" on the part of Alternet's Editors and the counter-arguments to these assertions.

I am of the opinion that what will likely follow could have, largely, been avoided, by presenting this debate in a more Equitable Format, such as:

1) An Initial Statement from both Participants, unaware of the others Position, and based merely on their experience and observations, Jensen's Book, and the Previous "AlterArticle".

2) One or more Rebuttals from each Participant to the other's Initial Statement and/or subsequent Rebuttals, limited only by Allowable Length of the Article.

3) A Concluding Statement from both Participants, like the Initial, composed with No Knowledge of the exact Substance of the other's Work. Preventing a "Trial" situation where the Defense's "Closing Argument" is In Fact a LAST WORD REBUTTAL.


For the benefit of the (I hope) many (but I suspect few) who still actually read Internets Argumenting Posts in their Entirety:

I would like to conclude by saying that It is my Sincere Hope that my criticism of Format Details will in no way deter Alternet from continuing to pursue this Format Generally.

I think that Intelligent Debate between Informed People can be an effective way for the uninformed to be introduced to a subject as long as the uninformed retain confidence in the guidance of their own Hearts and Natural Senses, and that essential Human Skepticism that compliments this confidence.

Whatever the backlash, I Strongly Encourage Alternet to embrace a "debate" Format for future articles on this subject and the More Immediate and Substantive ones that sometimes pop-up on these pages.

With the caveat that future "debates" are more Equitable -along the lines of what I've outlined- and therefore capable of casting of their quotation mark "crutches" and becoming True Debates.




Winter is coming, try to embrace its Importance.

-matti

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

» I second that Posted by: brunowe
» I agree too Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Interesting but flawed Posted by: planet doomed
» Objectivity can be Fun Posted by: matti
Porn is the most progressive force for humanity today
Posted by: Frankstank on Nov 7, 2007 2:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know I am going to get pounced on for this, but my thesis is that porn is the most progressive force for good today than any religious, political philosophy. And here is my case:

1) All religions divide people: between saints and sinners, good and bad, evil and good. Porn unites people: it is an open door that allows most people (and by this I don't mean people who do obviously bad things like harm others, or force them to do things against their will), to find their kink.
2) For every feminist writer who argues porn exploits women, I say this: no more than any business exploits women who are their staff. In fact, most women in porn are paid better than your average maid or banana picker out there.
3) Pornumanity: porn is a world where fat and black is good, where fat, black women get off with skinny, white hunks, where nerdy, old guys get off with honeys in their 20s. Where being old is called mature, and women who were once written off as washed up are called MILFS.
4) Pornstory: porn is the most dynamic narrative of our times out there. Its stories and fetishes reflect our communal prejudices, insecurities, fears, loves, fantasies: If Shakespeare were alive today, I am pretty sure he would have worked in porn for a period of time. He would have loved its possibilities.
5) Pornoptimism: porn is always there for you when life lets you down. Most friends are not in this bruttal world. Porn does not judge you.
6) PornUN: porn crosses borders at a furious pace. It finds beauty and commonality in all races and ethnicities. It sees a common bond between people that even transcends what the UN does. In a world where nation states and narrow-minded people stoke distrust of the 'other', porn steps in to show us we are all the same.
7) Economy: porn is a HUGE industry and already outstrips Hollywood. Overlooked, however, is how much it contributes to broader wealth creation. Throughout history the sex economy has fueled the mainstream economy. Most of London's beautiful buildings were built on the profits of brothals. In the developing world, many a poor young woman has funded an education and business from it. Without porn and the sex industry, few economies would function.

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

» I agree fully with you Posted by: Frankstank
» What exactly are you advocating? Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: OK, so what does "forced" mean? Posted by: screwjack2000
» Interesting question... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Interesting question... Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Interesting question... Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Interesting question... Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Interesting question... Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Interesting question... Posted by: planet doomed
» Hear no evil Posted by: YogiBear
This is getting painful.
Posted by: True2Blue on Nov 7, 2007 3:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought we Alternet readers had seen the end of this issue last month when Alternet's own readers shot down the idea that porn had become any more "violent and degrading" than it had ever been. Yet this article raises the faulty premise once again.

It's very simple. Show some evidence, not just opinion or speculation, that the vast majority of porn has changed over the years (other than better production quality).

You don't have any. So these "debates" are pointless.

Seriously, if Alternet continues to run articles like this as it's lead, I'm going to drop it as my Home Page.

Sheesh.

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

» RE: This is getting painful. Posted by: just john
» WOMAN-HATER! Posted by: Q30
» RE: WOMAN-HATER! Posted by: screwjack2000
» RE: WOMAN-HATER! Posted by: LMNOP
» You assumed wrong. Posted by: Cathyblj
» RE: You assumed wrong. Posted by: Q30
» RE: You assumed wrong. Posted by: planet doomed
» RE: You assumed wrong. Posted by: planet doomed
» RE: You assumed wrong...Nice to know Posted by: planet doomed
» Dear Q30 Posted by: gellero
» RE: WOMAN-HATER! Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: WOMAN-HATER! Posted by: Landbaron
» RE: This is getting painful. Posted by: planet doomed
» RE: This is getting painful. Posted by: True2Blue
» I looked at your "proof" Posted by: LMNOP
» BRILLIANT Posted by: gellero
» OKOKOK Posted by: gellero
This Is Getting To Be Like Reefer Madness
Posted by: Reverend Bookburn on Nov 7, 2007 4:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Porn issue is the liberal/ left/ feminist version of the Reefer Madness film, or Rock-N-Roll-will-make-you-crazy kind of hysteria. I don't know anybody who is into violence. The vast majority of people into porn watch silly MTV-types of skits, accompanied by the worst music in the world, while wearing nurse, pizza delivery or other kinds of costumes during their scenes. The people into S & M watch simulation that is a part of their role-playing that most people (including me) do not completely understand.

The Ted Bundy argument has been discredited for decades. Yes, a serial killer watched it, and maybe a psychopath could respond to films (as well as chocolate milk or walking in the park) as he did. But everyone I know who likes adult entertainment is never inspired for violence or any kind of negativity. For non-psychopaths or religious cultists, eroticism causes arousal and possibly new forms of harmless play.

Rev. Bookburn, Radio Volta, ReverendBookburn.com

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

» Your sarcasm is getting old. Posted by: Cathyblj
Who writes the headlines and blurbs?
Posted by: just john on Nov 7, 2007 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm getting the impression that whoever writes headlines and blurbs for articles around here aren't the authors of the articles themselves, and often doesn't even read or understand the articles.

I mean, we haven't gotten to the first paragraph and already somebody's equated all porn with "the intersection of violence and sexual fantasy."

And I don't think it's the credited authors themselves doing this.

So could you please name the headline/blurb writer? THAT's the person I want to yell at.

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

Civilization?
Posted by: PJT on Nov 7, 2007 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an interesting article, but the main point is a bit like analyzing beef and pork eating to find out if the vitamins and protein offset the bad effects of the saturated fat. The big ethical problem is in raising animals under cruel conditions for death so we can eat them. Whether porn is, or is not harmful to the users is a subject worthy of discussion but the real issue should be the benefit or harm to the actors. There, I am afraid that not too many of them would admit that they enjoy the work and feel increased self esteem and a higher sense of personal value because of it. Porn lovers can rationalize about this forever but the fact is, until we outgrow porn, we are no more civilized than the cruel Romans of 2,000 years ago who painted pictures, not unlike erotic photography of today, on the walls of their rumpus rooms. The fact is that the 20th century was the bloodiest and cruelest of all, and we ARE no more civilized than the Romans, and maybe less so. Porn is bad for somebody. If we were civilized, lived in a society that did not load up sex with all kinds of complexes and guilt trips and could provide for the sexual relief of people in need who do not have a partner in a mutually loving relationship, then porn would go away like opther dehumanizing forms of pleasure seeking.

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

» Huh? Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Huh? Posted by: just john
» RE: Huh? Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Huh? Posted by: just john
» RE: Huh? Posted by: screwjack2000
» RE: Huh? Posted by: just john
» RE: Huh? Posted by: John Sawyer
» RE: Huh? Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Civilization? Posted by: existen
» RE: Assumptions Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Assumptions Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Civilization? Get rid of RELIGION Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: Civilization? Posted by: Livemike
» RE: Civilization? Posted by: J_Mo
» RE: Civilization? Posted by: maktan1
Narrow Book, Limited Discussion
Posted by: theomode on Nov 7, 2007 6:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has it not occurred to the author, and those discussing the book, that the role of penetrator naturally requires some degree of dominance, whether M-on-F, M-on-M, F-on-M or F-on-F?

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

Can someone help me?
Posted by: PJAW on Nov 7, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've had this painfully immense erection for the last 72 hours, despite two visits to the emergency room, and I've completely, sexually exhausted all my female friends and watched porn to the point of absolute boredom. If there's maybe a Republican Congressman out there with a clean shave and a mens room key, perhaps I could resolve this problem.

Hey, I was just kidding. If you're a Republican Congressman, don't call me, I don't really have an erection.

Interesting article, by the way. I gained a couple of insights from both the participants in the discussion and didn't really see them as being in stark disagreement. But I liked the idea put forth by the poster who suggested a more traditional debate format for this type of discussion. Each party presents a view prior to seeing anything from the other, then gets a couple opportunites for response or rebuttal.

Now, for a really good time, call 657-229-5859. Ask for Christie.

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

» RE: Can someone help me? Posted by: LMNOP
THE DEBATE SO FAR:
Posted by: Q30 on Nov 7, 2007 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A: Pornography causes violence!

Me: Okay, how?

A: Pornography causes violence!

Me: Yeah, okay, how?

A: It causes violence!

Me: Yeah but... (long pause)... HOW?? How? How? Understand the question? How does it-

A: It causes violence!

Me: But you still haven't explained-

A: It causes violence!

Me: You're completely bonkers. You keep chanting that slogan, never bothering to prove-

A: How can you not take violence against women seriously?!!

Me: No, I take it seriously, but you never present any empirical proof that pornography causes-

A: WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN!?!

Me: I don't. I-

A: MISOGYNIST!

Etc.

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

» Then by all means... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Then by all means... Posted by: planet doomed
» RE: Then by all means... Posted by: planet doomed
» That's right, hagwind Posted by: Q30
» Actually, Hagwind... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» As an impartial observer... Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: While we're at it, Joshua . . . Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Addiction? Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: THE DEBATE SO FAR: Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: THE DEBATE SO FAR: Posted by: LMNOP
Pornography: A Cry for Help
Posted by: abemko on Nov 7, 2007 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pornography is a cry for help. It reflects our disconnection from our own humanity. I remember looking at and reading pornography as a young person, but what was it I really wanted - I wanted closeness, gentleness and love. I did not have gentle and loving parents thus had no idea of how to create love in my own life. So I settled for release. No emotionally untramatized person would every settle for a picture just as no child is ever comforted by a picture. We all want the real thing, We are all biologically programmed for the real thing, the touch, the smile, the soft word, the intelligent contact.

Just as a child struggles for real love and only after an enormous efflrt gives up and settles for at least fairness, so adult males and females really struggle for love and closeness and settle for sex and pornography because the real thing feels so impossible.

Passion is a far more powerful emotional experience than lust. Passion requires the presence of mind and body. Lust just requires the body. Passion requires connection. Lust requires contact.

And yes, this is a very traumatized society. America is a deeply fundamentalist religious society filled with the fear of evil and hell, focused on punishment as a tool of the righteous to punish transgressions. The trauma is obvious, just listen to the debate on torture or the sad scene of a Senator sitting in a bathroom and tapping his foot in the hope of finding love, yes love, in the only form he understands and has settled for - annonymous sex in a bathroom stall. Generally, just pick up the newpaper: cluster bombs, landmines, terrorists, war, genocide, economic collapse, school house shotings, sex slavery.

It does not have to happen to you, you just need to see it throught the eyes of others. I mean, how many people are still nervous about swimiming in the ocean having seen Jaws decades ago?

An pornography does cause harm. It is the mirror of society to men and women as to who they are and how relationships should look. I remember carefully studying Penthouse in college in a sad effort to understand how to sexually satisfy a woman and being concerned whether my penis was big enough and I could cum enough times. Instead of taking time to love myself and share love with, in my case, any of the numerous girls I admired, I settled for believing that I needed to be a big swinging dick with a good body in a trendy outfit fragranced with Old Spice and spinning a good line to get into a girls panties. Even as I write this, I shutter at the caricature., because that is what this is, a caricature of a human being.

What did I really want? I wanted to be Romeo, inbued with passion, fierce courage in my heart facing the real danger from the Capulats to whisper poetry from my heart to the love of my life. Instead I settled for sitting in the bathroom with my dick in my hands. And when I did end up in bed with a woman, I noticed her pussy, not her presence (pornographic fantasy running in my mind) and then wondered why she was not too excited despite my following all the Penthouse rules for hot sex.

Did pornography hurt me and the girl I was with - it sure did because it set us up to act out a lie. We were not ourselves, we were roles out of Cosmopolitan and Playboy.

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

» RE: Pornography: A Cry for Help Posted by: screwjack2000
» RE: Pornography: A Cry for Help Posted by: wolvirene
» RE: Pornography: A Cry for Help Posted by: screwjack2000
» RE: Pornography: A Cry for Help Posted by: wolvirene
» RE: Pornography: A Cry for Help Posted by: screwjack2000
» RE: Pornography: A Cry for Help Posted by: screwjack2000
» RE: Pornography: A Cry for Help Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: Pornography: A Cry for Help Posted by: wolvirene
» RE: Pornography: A Cry for Help Posted by: screwjack2000
» RE: Pornography: A Cry for Help Posted by: screwjack2000
» RE: Pornography: A Cry for Help Posted by: wolvirene
» Well put, abemko! Posted by: Cathyblj
» RE: Pornography: A Cry for Help Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: Pornography: A Cry for Help Posted by: planet doomed
Why can't we treat pornography like other mass media?
Posted by: hagwind on Nov 7, 2007 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really wish we could get off the "Porn is harmful!" / "Porn is healthy!" seesaw and explore the larger questions like who needs it and why and what effects does it have on users, producers, and anyone else in the immediate vicinity. (I think Robert Jensen and the authors of this piece, not to mention many of their predecessors, have made a good start.)

Most of us who post to AlterNet are critical of the various mass media, from Fox News to the New York Times, from Disney to corporate publishing to Madison Avenue. Pornography is part of the mass media -- why do so many people's critical faculties go right out the window as soon as pornography is involved? By treating pornography as unique and entire-of-itself, we're missing some significant connections and questions that might help us understand the whole thing better. If we agree, for instance, that the imaginations of both adults and children can be affected by non-stop commercial images, can we at least consider the possibility that habitual use of pornography affects the imaginations of its users? If we subject working conditions in other industries to critical scrutiny, can we let the porn industry off the hook? Is it OK if people need war movies or car-chase scenes to turn them on but not OK if they need whatever we're calling "pornography" these days?

So many liberals and leftists, especially those of the male persuasion, seem willing to compartmentalize sex and sexuality -- especially male sexuality -- and exempt it from critical inquiry. Their biggest beef with feminism seems to be, in essence, that feminism doesn't exempt sexuality, including male sexuality, from critical inquiry. When anyone wants to take any subject off the table, whether that subject is God, evolution, the market economy, or the school principal's alcohol problem, I get suspicious. I think most of you do too. So why does male sexuality so often get a bye?

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

» Well.... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
What sexist tripe
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Nov 7, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"a lot of questions remain: Can men who view violent pornography separate fantasy from reality?"

Now.. when was the last time Alternet asked under ANY circumstances whether women could separate fantasy from reality???

Someone please explain to me how men could just stop being able to separate fantasy from reality, given the fiction saturation of our movie, tv, and video game drenched culture just because people on screen are naked and having sex.

Just more of the same old sexist crap we get with every single one of these articles on pornography here at Alternet.

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

» RE: What sexist tripe Posted by: Wessex
» RE: What sexist tripe Posted by: planet doomed
» RE: What sexist tripe Posted by: mjglow
Once again, nice pic. The guy even looks like me a little!!
Posted by: yellow on Nov 7, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a progressive website you guys sure pick some nice photos. Gisele. Now this babe. Next time ya have a "thick" woman, put her in fishnets. As David Lee Roth sez, "na na na na don't take 'em off!!"

Is this post sexist??

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

Master Bader vs Nina Hartley
Posted by: goldmarx on Nov 7, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bader goes out of his way to imply that socialist-feminist porn star Nina Hartley is a liar.

How does he know that what she says is not true?

Once again, a MAN claiming to know that women don't know what they're talking about!

Neither of the participants take the views of current sex workers seriously, as if they're arm chair intellectuals who think they get to decide the fate of the world. Now that's a fantasy!

By the way, gonzo is not 'misogynist' or 'extreme' porn. Gonzo is about the performers opnely acknowledging the presence of the viewer, period. Sex films without a plot are called WALL-TO-WALL, not gonzo!

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

THE SEARCH FOR DEEP MEANING WHERE THERE IS NONE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 7, 2007 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's about likes and dislikes and not forcing either on anyone else. What I've never understood is the need to discuss it to death. Nothing is as basic and primitive as sex. I do however see a connection between suddenly putting it all "out there" and a disturbing increase in child related crimes involving sex. Sex used to be the domain of the "grown-ups". I know, since the beginning of time, blahblahblah. But we don't live in Ancient Greece. Adults only please. Thanks, ANNA

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

Porn Is
Posted by: blondesprite on Nov 7, 2007 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as Porn does. I agree, a true debate format would be more professional and, journalistically speaking, ethical.
What is and is not Porn or how it does or does not affect us, is a topic for those days when one concludes he or she is totally helpless at changing the status quo or more important headlines of the day, i.e. our criminal presidential conspiracy.
It is a distraction (in true jester fashion) topic that too often compels one to experience an emotional and judgemental response.
Emotionally and judgementally charged responses, supposedly and presumably, re-connect us to human tragedies in ways that inspire us to change.
Porn, and by default, sex therefore becomes the preferred topic of the day.

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

It takes all kinds
Posted by: fdgsr on Nov 7, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Human sexuality exploits sex as a choice that other animals cannot make. Each human 'deviation' of 'variation' has examples in the 'lower animals'. And each human deviation implies a norm or average. The conflict comes not in the nature of the act or in its humiliation of women or pleasing of men, but in the impact of man's higher values superimposed upon his lower acts. Reality is that life is a struggle and a scenario of pain and suffering, failure and degradation, success and happiness. We strive for success and happiness in life without knowing what is success or happiness. Success is accompanied by another's failure. In our succcess we see our own superiority in another's inferiority and a candidate for abuse and misuse.

Sex is like that. Men who see the masculine role as dominant and the feminine role as submissive, find satisfaction in sexual encounters with submissive women. Women who submit with pleasure to the dominant sexual advances becomes the expected outcome. On the down side of this is the man whose gentle and accomodating nature takes pleasure in a cooperative sex role in which neither partner is abusive or cruel only to find that his partner is passively cruel and humiliating. He accomodates her cruelty and passive aggression by faked acceptance until he views it as normal.

Evolution will sort out the benefits from the hazards. There should be no misunderstanding of the female role of the black widow spider who attracts a male by responding to a rythmic tapping until the moment of copulation and then the smaller male rarely succeeds in his escape when the female reverts to a hungry spider needing a meal. After all, after copulation the individual male is no longer needed by God or Spiders. But, it is necessary for some of the offspring of each mating to be males, to be lured into sexual unions, fleeing and then eaten by the new widow and mother of his children. This is cruel from a human viewpoint, but not from a successful evolution viewpoint. What a way to die! It beats old age and arthritis, loss of sexuality, and an old woman for a room mate. How wonderful that the male black widow spider gets to play a very interesting game, have the pleasure of the dominant role of a small male and a huge female submitting willingly and pasionately, followed by a valiant attempt to escape certain death in a flight for his life, and the final thoes of agony ended by an injection of anaesthetic venom that renders the male a morsel of food to help the mate pass on his heritage to his offspring.

Men have to use video games, race cars, football, bowling, pornography and pay checks to achieve the same biological result. Let us assume that the black widow male is satisfied with his role and wonder why the human male is not fully satisfied with his role. It is because the one is a spider and the other is a human.

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

» RE: It takes all kinds Posted by: YogiBear
THIS is your lead article?
Posted by: WitchyNy on Nov 7, 2007 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was hoping to read something-anything about the Cheney impeachment process yesterday. Silly me.

Anyone know of a true progressive alternative news website?

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

» RE: THIS is your lead article? Posted by: blondesprite
» RE: THIS is your lead article? Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: THIS is your lead article? Posted by: steven w
» RE: THIS is your lead article? Posted by: oregoncharles
I think We Can All Agree
Posted by: screwjack2000 on Nov 7, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That the internet has been a boon for the porn industry, and that porn has proliferated since it's inception. But, would you believe rapes, aggrivated assaults, and violent crime in general has trended down during this same period of time.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

I know there are many factors, but by the logic of some on here this should not be the case.

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

» RE: I think We Can All Agree Posted by: screwjack2000
» RE: I think We Can All Agree Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: I think We Can All Agree Posted by: screwjack2000
He actually SAID "men want women to be abused and look happy about it"!
Posted by: ginmar on Nov 7, 2007 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just amazing. I can't believe Alternet has sunk so low as to publish this tripe.

" and offer them a freedom they find lacking in relationships with real women."

Those damned women, demanding to be treated like human beings!

"or example, this guy in question might be attracted to strong, dominant or tough women because their energy reassures him that he can't hurt them and doesn't have to feel responsible for them."

Sounds like these guys want to hurt women without consequences---i.e., those jail-producing injuries are just so inconvenient.

"For example, often the woman is portrayed as dominated, hurt, or even degraded but in the porno she's excited and eager. "

Bingo! These guys want women to look happy about being abused. How is that not abusive?

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

» "These guys want ..." Posted by: just john
» RE: "These guys want ..." Posted by: ginmar
» RE: "These guys want ..." Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Define abuse... Posted by: oregoncharles
This is a good article. If only more commenters here had read it!
Posted by: war_on_tara on Nov 7, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I particularly liked Bader's thoughts here:

I've treated dozens of guys who might get aroused by such [extreme] scenarios who don't hate women at all. They have decent and loving relationships with women. And most important, they are able to distinguish between a fantasy and reality, something that Jensen seems both unwilling and unable to do.What turns them on in porn scenarios depends crucially on the fact that the woman is depicted as excited. If she were depicted as primarily hurt and humiliated, these men would instantly lose their interest and erections...

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

Cart before the Horse
Posted by: magistre on Nov 7, 2007 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]