> Nonsense. As Miles Jackson pointed out, there is *good* evidence
> correlating violent or aggressive erotic material and propensity to
> commit violence.
There is also good evidence that proves the above is bullshit. Again, I advise you to read the heavily-footnoted and highly readable "Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight For Women's Rights" by Nadine Strossen.
> So, surely, you'd agree to social policy at least against *that* kind
> of porn? You say below it's not mainstream, but how is that remotely
> relevant? It has to be the *dominant* form of porn before it's worth
> regulating?
I'm against any kind of social or political policy that claims to interpret and legislate against people's sexual fantasies and the dramatization (and actualization) of same. If you want to get down to specific cases, sure, we can talk about that. But this is an area where general statements do not even begin to cover the various aspects and themes found in pornography.
> I also suspect, given the massive proliferation of pornography
> production due to the camcorder explosion, that of the *total* amount
> of "moving picture" porn produced every year, the violent or
> aggressive stuff is more than merely a sideline.
Well, if you can tell me how much "violent and aggressive stuff" there is on the market, then we can go in that direction. But take from someone who's seen more porn than he probably should've (and undoubtedly more than you), there is very little if no violence in the vast majority of porn. As for "aggressive," you'll have to define your terms. Anal sex can be "aggressive." Slapping someone's ass while fucking them from behind can be "aggressive." It can also be consensual and pleasurable. Some people like their sex on the "aggressive" side. If you desire lots of hugging and stroking, I suggest you watch Candida Royalle's Femme series.
> The fact that in nearly all violent porn it's *women* who are targeted
> for violence, and that this material has an effect exclusively (as far
> as I know) on *men*, matters. Surely it matters that even in
> non-violent porn, it is women's bodies which are objectified, that is,
> it is women who are reduced to their body parts. And *that* happens in
> a larger social context in which women are second-class citizens.
Everybody objectifies everybody else, all the time, everyday. There is no way that you can fully get into my head and skin and understand at an intimate and personal level what makes me tick. Nor I you. And when it comes to sex -- not love, sex -- this objectification is utterly natural. When one is physically attracted to another, you notice the body, the hair, the ass, the legs, etc. I know of no one who divorces him-or-herself from such natural functions, nor would I want to. But, hey, if you don't check out those you find attractive, and if you can repress your erection long enough to understand every element of any given person's psyche, intellect and even hobbies, you are far more evolved than 99% of humanity.
> Does
> *any* media systematically objectify men in this way? Not that I know
> of. Male athletes are *never* reduced to their body (parts).)
Not true. There are countless photos of male athletes posing in a manner that highlights their bodies, their strength -- from Sports Illustrated to Annie Leibowitz.
> Are there studies showing that reading the Bible causes people to be
> more violent (or prone to violence)? I suspect not.
I don't know if there are studies, but I bet you can find an ear-marked Bible in the homes of those who attack women's clinics or bash queers.
> One of the last porn clips I viewed, which was definitely not
> depicting a "fantasy sequence", featured a male-dominated act of
> "fellatio" (it really defies that label, but it's the best I could
> come up with outside of "a man very aggressively fucking an
> immobilized woman's mouth") so strenuous and violent that the very
> young girl -- it was one of the countless "I just turned 18 and this
> is my first porn video" vidoes -- upon whom it was being performed was
> pinned against a wall, with her arms held down by another man; she
> visibly was having trouble breathing, turned bright red, and ended up
> gagging, choking, and then vomiting. Which she'd barely finished
> before her head was wrenched back up, penis crammed into her face and
> mouth, for the "money shot". And this was from a so-called
> "mainstream" producer (as if that matters).
This sounds horrible, and I'm not surprised that you use it to make your point. Indeed, I can go beyond you in denouncing wretched porn -- John Stagliano's "Buttman" series is unwatchable, in my view -- but, again, most porn is not like this; and in many, many films, it is the woman who's the aggressor, not the man. The fact that women are generally paid more than men, and the fact that the women are the main attraction, has something to do with this. Also, many of these woman have the final word in what they will or will not do.
I'm not saying there's no nasty underbelly to porn. There is. The difference between us, as I see it, is that you favor granting the state more power over what we can read, watch and produce simply because porn sickens you, whereas I would take each case on its own and deal with the abusive and/or illegal aspects of it. If, for example, a woman is forced against her will into porn by her boyfriend/husband and abused on camera, then I would support looking into the legal ramifications of that, and would favor any prosecution of those who did the abusing. I think we can weed out the truly troubling elements associated with porn without throwing a legislative blanket over the whole thing.
DP