Well, there can't be good evidence proving *both* x and not-x. We at least know that. But I'm not a social scientist and haven't reviewed the literature extensively. I do want that to be clear.
> 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.
Hmm, then you support repeal of rape and incest and murder laws? Some percentage of each of these crimes stem from sexual fantasy. If you are "against any kind of social or political policy that claims to interpret and legislate against people's sexual fantasies and ... actualization" of them, then you must be against laws prohibiting rape, incest, and murder.
Of course you *aren't* opposed to those laws, and so you aren't opposed to *any kind of policy* prohibiting people from "actualizing" their sexual fantasies. So the question is about where and when to draw the line.
> 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.
Adjudicating, in a civil jurisdiction, specific cases is precisely what MacKinnon and Dworkin's ordinance in Minneapolis was meant to do. The point was to give people (not only women) a specific cause of civil action when they felt that someone had used pornography to violate their human rights. I find widespread opposition to *that* baffling.
> > 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.
No, I haven't done a study. But it strikes me that there's rather more than you seem willing to concede. But I'll ask again: why *not* support policies against *just the violent* porn? Why is it all or nothing?
But, fine, just for the sake of argument, let's say that 33% of the video porn every year contains at least one scene that we could agree together is violent and "out of bounds". What follows from that for you? You seem to rely heavily on your claim that "all porn isn't violent" -- why is this relevant? Suppose that all the antiporn feminists decided to focus on policy regulating *just* the violent porn. Would you support that?
You concede there is violent, even harmful porn; there is evidence that this material may well have some deleterious affect on men who consume it; and yet you're totally unwilling to support any policy against it.
But take from someone who's
> seen more porn than he probably should've (and undoubtedly more than you),
Hmm, I wonder what it is you think you know about me that leads you to this wildly speculative conclusion? I suppose it's because I support antiporn policy proposals (strictly for feminist, not right-wing reasons, by the way) and you can't imagine anyone watching much of it being against it? That's odd.
> there is very little if no violence in the vast majority of porn.
Even if that is true, why does it matter? You repeatedly set "vast majority" as some kind of tipping point. Why? Let's again suppose you're right; let's say that only 5% of porn is violent; why not regulate the 5%?
As for
> "aggressive," you'll have to define your terms. Anal sex can be
> "aggressive."
Yeah, and it can be rape too.
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.
Ooh, tell me more, Doctor Love!
> > 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.
*Please*! The "natural" argument has no traction whatever! We prohibit and legislate against all sorts of natural urges and inclinations *all the freaking time*. This is a total non-starter.
For a real life sadist, inflicting wanton pain on others as a source of sexual pleasure is *natural*. So I guess that means we should let them do whatever they please?
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.
Of course that's not what is meant by systems of representation ("media") which systematically objectify women for profit. And you either know it or should know it. This is more arguing against strawmen, Dennis.
> > 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.
Wow, so Annie once took a picture of Jordan's ass, so media representations of women and men are equally problematic, hence equally unproblematic.
Context matters! As I now tire of repeating, even if your claim were true, and it is not true, objectifying representations of a systematically oppressed class is not, cannot be politically equivalent to objectifying representations of the systematically dominant class.
The second class status of women makes all the difference, on the (false, in my view) presumption that media representations equally objectify "everyone, all the time, everyday".
Let's transpose the point into a different key; maybe that will make my point clearer. I take it that people of color in the US, let's say African Americans, are a systematically oppressed racially-identified group. Let's assume that both Whites and African Americans on average have equal attitudinal bias and prejudice against individuals of the other group. That is, White folks on average have the same amount of personal bias, belief in stereotype, and ignorance about African Americans as African Americans have about White folks.
*Certainly*, in this situation, you wouldn't claim that "everyone is a bigot, against everyone else, all the time, everyday" and that, therefore, bigotry, bias, and prejudice of the socially dominant group is *no more problematic* than the bigotry, bias, and prejudice of the socially oppressed group?
That's not only rather insane, it's a straight-up racist, KKK argument. You can hear it all the time from White people who have no systematic, political understanding of oppression. Average White guy, "I don't know why it matters that I believe and act on lots of stereotypes about black people; I know lots of black people who think no White people can dance and that we all like Barry Manilow!" Bah!
Whether men are systematically objectified (they aren't) cannot possibly mean the same thing politically in a misogynistic, patriarchal culture.
> 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;
Again, why does that matter? How much *has* to be like this before regulatory policy is justified?
Besides, I was under the impression that the "Buttman" stuff was very popular, had spawned countless imitators, so much so that it forms a kind of subgenre. If what I saw is representative, that's a lot of aggressive, nay violent porn being consumed.
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.
Hah! *Many* have the final word? You mean some *don't*? Not having the final word about who sticks what inside of you strikes me as a fairly good definition of rape.
Does it matter that there seems to be a rather high percentage of women in porn who are either drug-addicted, former, current, or future prostitutes, or were molested or abused as children? Surely, if true, that's some indication of the kind of woman who finds porn to be way to earn money. I suspect that if there were *any* male-dominated profession about which that was true, it would be a hugely pressing social problem. Hell, every time an NBA player sparks a blunt, it's national news and the legions of drug counselers and treatment clinics are deployed.
> I'm not saying there's no nasty underbelly to porn. There is.
I agree, where "nasty underbelly" means "part that contributes to the systematic oppression of women".
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,
No, rather I will grant the state that power because *complexly* porn is bad for women. There's a difference. I'm not Ed Meese. The least you can do is accurately represent *that* difference, please.
> 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.
Cool. So I don't see why passing specific legislation, tailored to *those* specific situations is so objectionable. One of the reasons MacKinnon & Dworkin (and you can say what you want about them, but MacKinnon is a damn fine legal mind) drafted a specific ordinance, as I'm sure you know since you said you were fully aware of the whole debate, was because they noticed two facts: 1) a rise in the number of rape prosecutions in which a man had videotaped the actual rape and the prosecutors had presented that evidence at trial, 2) trials which ended in acquittal precisely *because* jurors thought that if the rape had been videotaped, it couldn't be rape!
If that fact pattern is absolutely wrong, shame on MacKinnon and Dworkin; if, however, it's true. that suggests that specific legislation is appropriate; and, lo and behold, their ordinance included language to address the problem constituted by that fact pattern.
I think we can weed out the truly
> troubling elements associated with porn without throwing a legislative
> blanket over the whole thing.
How can we weed out the 'truly troubling elements', precisely, w/out passing new legislation targeting those elements? M&D's ordinance was designed specifically to do that: to make it civilly actionable to use porn to violate the human rights of others. Since you seem to agree with that goal, and you've said you were opposed to the ordinance, what were its specific provisions you objected to?
Kendall Clark