Bobby I just realized something...
"We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world -- a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us... No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we'll kill you."
--Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, Kingdom of Fear (2003)
"I am an anarchist, like any other sensible person." ~ Merlyn
To quote Bertrand Russell:
Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. --jamesmcm
| Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Get Your Free Web Ring by Bravenet.com |
||||
With respect to your post urging readers to stop consuming porn, may I offer a few challenges that will hopefully provoke thought and discussion?
ReplyDeleteWhat about pornographic photos produced by a married couple, for their own personal use and mutual pleasure? Does this sort of porn exploit? Does it deny the woman's personhood? What if the wife enjoys viewing the images as much as her husband? Is she still exploiting herself and undermining her personhood? Is she not free to be a sexual being, free to express this sexuality in this particular way?
What about porn produced by women, for women? And let us assume that these are older, mature, adult women; and not immature and easily exploited 18 year olds? Such porn companies do exist. Do they exploit or destroy a woman's personhood?
Finally, what about porn that does not involve real people at all, that is, drawn pictures? These are wholly the creation from an artist's mind, and do not directly exploit any person in their production. How would you assess this type of porn, some of which can be extremely graphic and/or violent; but which does not involve real people?
Tolstoyscat, I am not entirely dismissing your position. Rather, I present corner cases which challenge your premises as a means to further thought and reflection. Thank you.
My views, so far:
ReplyDeleteI draw a line between what I consider to be pornography and what I consider to be erotica. Many tantra presentations are graphic, but I don't consider them pornographic.
Here is what I think is a good definition of pornography: Definition borrowed from Men As Peacemakers: "[P]ornography is defined as sexually explicit material that objectifies and [or] exploits its subjects (predominantly women and children) while eroticizing domination, degradation, and/or violence..." [my brackets]
1. The photos produced by the couple: It may be exploitative. Marriage, itself, can be a vehicle for exploitation. It depends on if there is coercion present. That is the key to so-called 'voluntary' exploitation, I think. But no, it wouldn't necessarily be exploitation.
2. Porn produced by women for women: If it is porn, it is, by my definition, exploitative. If it does not fit the definition above, then it may be erotica.
3. Do the images stand in for humans? That is do they substitute drawings of humans for the purpose of sexualizing degradation, violence and objectification? Then they are pornographic and have the same effect on the human psyche as photos of actual people.
As a social creature, I pay a price for the degradation of the human mind. Males have dominated the social reality, such that they have affected the lives and potential well-being of all people, including females and children.
I hope that answers some of your queries. Thanks for posting.
But in all fairness that's a definition of "porn" that doesn't match how the word is actually used. Mainstream sites like beautifulagony.com (videos of people's faces while they masturbate/orgasm) are widely accepted as falling under the umbrella of pornographic (visual material for sexual stimulation / masturbation) while also being unavoidably grounded in respecting other people and taking pleasure in their pleasure.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I disagree with you that that definition does not match how the word 'pornography' is used by some people. If you look at any of the links from my site, read any historical and/or current feminist anti-porn writings, peruse my site (or the web) for documentaries made on the subject, you will find that many people do use the word pornography just like I am using it.
ReplyDeleteBut I am not sure I understand what your point is exactly? That my distinction is invalid because it is meaningless? Or that I am not permitted to 'fairly' make a distinction if the mainstream does not agree?
I will tell you that I think the mainstream are bonkers. have you noticed the state of the world?
Thank you for posting.
Tolstoyscat, I think your definition of pornography is one developed in cloistered academia. And while it has a lot of thought put into it, it does differ from larger society's definition of pornography. That said, I'll grant you that larger society doesn't seem to have thought about the matter much at all. Still, the problem of definitions at cross-purposes promotes misunderstanding and miscommunication when anti-porn feminists speak to an outside community. Perhaps a different word, tagged with your definition, would be better? After some thought, what that other word would be, I do not know. My apologies - I usually try to propose a solution when I point out a problem, but in this case, I am unable to do so.
ReplyDeleteMoving on, for the purposes of our discussion here, let us both agree to your definition and understanding of pornography.
You take a position against images of domination, degradation, and violence by men over women and children. But what about sexual imagery which contains domination, degradation, and violence, but not of men over women or children? For example, what about sexual imagery produced by lesbians, for lesbians, featuring a dominant woman "topping" a submissive woman? There is no patriarchy anywhere to be seen. Is this pornography, or erotica? What about sexual imagery produced by women, for women and men alike, which show Dominatrices degrading submissive men? This subverts patriarchy. Is this pornography, or erotica?
As an anti-porn feminist, I understand your opposition to domination, degradation, and violence; both in imagery and in reality. Some anti-porn feminists seek to regulate and control and prohibit such imagery. And if such images are wrong, then the behavior must also be wrong, and so one assumes that they would seek to regulate the bedroom as well. However, you are also an anarchist, opposed to such regulation and control by the state. I assume then, that you seek to change behavior through persuasion and enlightenment.
How can you hope to succeed in such an endeavor? Lurking deep within the dark recesses of the human psyche are some very primeval sexual desires. For example, many women enjoy domination fantasies, in which a large, powerful male gives sway to his sexual potency over her. Witness the success of Karen Marie's "Highlander" book series, and many other similar romance novels, written and purchased overwhelmingly by women. Is this not domination by male over female? And yet, many women fantasize about it, and even engage in it in their sexual behavior, joyfully and consensually. Indeed, many mature, thoughtful, consenting adults engage in roleplaying sexual behavior which epitomizes domination, degradation, and sometimes even violence - giving vent to their darker, primal urges and desires. Is such behavior wrong? If images of it are wrong, then surely the behavior is wrong. But how can anti-porn feminists hope to persuade people to refuse such behavior? We are dealing with some very powerful psychological forces here.
Also, what do you make of some scientific studies showing a strong corelation, albeit not yet causation, linking a society's liberalization of its pornography laws, and statistically significant drops in rape and violence against women? These studies seem to demonstrate that pornography, rather than enflaming would-be male sexual violence; satiates it. If follow up studies conclude that pornography does indeed decrease male sexual violence, would you alter your views commensurate with the facts, or would you hold on to them as an ideology?
In closing, let me thank you for your responses to these comments. I appreciate thoughtful, respectful debate. Let me also add that while I am taking a contrarian position with my comments on this particular topic, I believe that you and I actually agree on more things than we disagree. Thank you.
Faldor,
ReplyDeleteI think the definition of pornography I use is what has been traditionally and typically the female view. I think the real problem that you and Anonymous are having may be that you both defer to the masculine pov in regard to how pornography is defined.
"There is no patriarchy anywhere to be seen. Is this pornography, or erotica? What about sexual imagery produced by women, for women and men alike, which show Dominatrices degrading submissive men? This subverts patriarchy. Is this pornography, or erotica?"
Patriarchy is what designed the theme of domination. I disagree that there is no patriarchy where two women are torturing a prisoner. I hope that analogy helps you to see my point.
I do not agree that dominatrix pornography subverts patriarchy. I think it is merely a facet of the patriarchal domination game. I do not wish to have a society where women's success is measured in terms of the patriarchy. Images fed to us of women in suits and female warriors do not subvert the patriarchy, they add to it. Becoming a trusted and successful guard in the prison is not my idea of subverting the reality created by the prison builders.
"Also, what do you make of some scientific studies showing a strong corelation, albeit not yet causation, linking a society's liberalization of its pornography laws, and statistically significant drops in rape and violence against women? These studies seem to demonstrate that pornography, rather than enflaming would-be male sexual violence; satiates it."
Funny you should ask this question now. Last night I wondered about that myself as I made my latest blog post. Apparently, since the 90s police across the USA have developed their police culture to ignore rape. That is they are actually not filing reports in many rape cases and they are not investigating those which are unreported and even those which are. Have a look. Here's the link. It's two short news videos.
I speculate that, rather than pornography preventing rape, police, being consumers of pornography, are developing a 'pornified' view of women and rape. The pov of the rape victim is, perhaps, becoming marginalized in the face of authority (policemen), due to the dehumanizing pornographic treatment of the rape theme.
ReplyDeleteMy experience coming to the aid of a rape victim in a police station is that the officers downplayed the legitimacy of the victim's complaint until I and a social worker arrived and validated the victim. I could see a switch in the attitudes of the officers in that it was no longer okay to treat the victim as a liar. Their attitudes became believing and concerned as it became socially inappropriate to openly display their police culture attitudes.
tolstoycat,
ReplyDeleteHey, what about highly specialized sub-genres of pornography by unusual producers that represent maybe 1% of the total commercial sex market? What about purely speculative marginal non-commercial forms of pornography have almost no influence on either the broader culture or the commercial sex market or young men's formative sexual experiences? What about purely hypothetical forms of pornography that I just made up that might exist in an imaginary alternate reality where patriarchy and rape culture don't exist and where women considering sex work face an entirely different set of cultural and institutional incentives from those presented by actually-existing sexual capitalism? Huh? Ever think of those, smartypants?
Clearly these carefully crafted counterexamples, ranging from the marginal to the completely imaginary, provide a deep and fundamental challenge -- indeed, a decisive reputation, about the character and function of the 99% of the actually-existing commercial sex market under real-world conditions of patriarchal rape culture, which does significantly influence the broader culture and young men's formative sexual experiences, as well as your proposals about how to react to it. Take that, anti-pornography feminism!
Faldor: I think your definition of pornography is one developed in cloistered academia
You know, there are a lot of ways you could describe the work of folks like Andrea Dworkin or Women Against Pornography. But I don't think "cloistered academia" is among them. Very few of the women involved in the foundational work on pornography were academics at all; they were mostly journalists and movement activists who were doing things like taking over counterculture rags and leading street tours of Times Square. That's not an argument either for or against the way they characterized "pornography," the definitions of it that they introduced, etc. (there is nothing essentially wrong with being an academic), but the anti-pornography movement was as grassroots and non-academic as anything in Second-Wave feminism (if anything, the literature on "subversion" and "transgression" that is often used to support so-called sex-pos, pro-porn positions have been far more likely to be rooted in academic theory than the anti-pornography writers have been).