> Unlike porn, the point of neither the Bible nor slasher movies is to 1)
> sexually arouse (primarily) men, and 2) to provide a source of
masturbatory
> and sexual fantasy material. Neither slasher movies nor the Bible are
likely
> to lead to sexual fetishization, either; erotic material seems very likely
> to do so -- though I don't know of studies to suggest that, I think it
makes
> rough prima facie sense.
Should this apply to all forms of expression? If I circulate an Internet polemic about the depredations of multinational corporations, should I be held responsible in civil court if someone smashes a Starbucks window or kidnapps a CEO?
Words do sometimes lead to real-world violence, but it was decided a long time ago that the job of the State is to stop the acts of violence, not suppress the ideas that may have led to them. Otherwise, we no longer have freedom of speech. But that's not much of an issue for you, is it? You want to have the right to rail against your foes but others - corporations, horny men, and other oppressors - shall not.
Seth
>
> It's a bad analogy.
>
> However, I think, as Miles J. said, leftists *should* consider the degree
to
> which slasher movies and other violent media constitute a form of public
> health hazard (though a type of hazard different than porn, in my view).
> Large corporations make tons of money from porn (*all* kinds) and violent
> media; I don't see why conversation about responding to that as leftists
is
> so out of bounds.
>
> Regarding porn, at the *very least*, as I understood Yoshie to suggest
(her
> suggestion that antiporn feminists don't pay much attention to trafficking
> in poor women from the global South is wrong; Dworkin, for example, wrote
> about trafficking and poverty-driven sex work *many* years ago; every
> trafficking mailing list I know about includes a strong contingent of
> antiporn feminists), leftists ought to be concerned about the people *in*
> porn, who are highly exploited workers in an industry where profits are
> obscenely high, is reputedly controlled by organized crime, and from which
> large multinationals reap huge profit.
>
> So, fine, forget the question of whether porn hurts women generally; the
> prevailing consensus here seems to be that porn does not hurt women and
that
> anyone who thinks it might is crazy or a "censorious prude".
>
> Surely the industry deeply exploits its workers. Ought leftists care about
> that?
>
> Kendall Clark