Great AMerikan Smokeout (was Porn Politics (was Porn Aesthetics))

Uday Mohan udaym at igc.org
Mon Nov 27 20:28:30 PST 2000


kelley wrote:
> LOOK! i still don't get why this is so awful? uday, you say it's because
> of these practices function in porn. well, please do be much more concrete
> in your description of how anal sex functions. what about the filming
> techniques, lighting, positions, etc lead you to conclude that it's demeaning?

Ok, I didn't understand that you wanted me to elaborate beyond what I'd already said. I'm a little reluctant to, though, because I'm not sure I see the point of it. I'm not arguing anything that requires film theory. I'm making a very blunt statement--that most mass-marketed het porn is, to quote myself, "largely about men taking incredibly one-sided pleasure at the expense of women," and that while "I also agree that women enjoy many of the things depicted in porn ... the way these things are shown in much porn is relentlessly demeaning, as if it's the man's right and privilege to do these things."

I'm making this argument at the most basic level: that if you look at a representative sample of mass porn today, you will instantly agree with me because the one-sidedness is so obvious. A corollary to this is that those who defend mass porn today aren't really aware of this porn (the exact opposite of your suggestion that those who are antiporn aren't aware of what porn is like).

The above is, again, my general sense of the sexual politics of porn. I haven't discussed the issues extensively with anyone, basically because I haven't felt the need to (the way I wouldn't need to extensively discuss whether much of the Bond films were racist and sexist or whether the bitches and hoes stuff in rap is sexist--I listen to rap but I avoid the stuff that revels in this sexism).

Having said that, I certainly don't intend to speak for women. It may be that I'm way off base on porn, though I would be quite surprised if I were.

You're an intelligent and thougtful woman, so if you're really telling me that I'm wrong, that the mass product put out these days isn't aggressively one-sided, I would have to think twice. Is that your claim? And if so, what evidence do you base it on? Recall that Dennis, who is not antiporn, said the following in reply to me: "Clearly you find the mass pap objectionable and demeaning, and in a very large sense I agree with you."

I am not hedging from presenting direct evidence myself. My tv is broken, so mentioning specific films is a bit difficult right now. But if you want I can pull together some specific evidence for my claim.

Uday



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list