[lbo-talk] The Anti-Porn-Left Strikes Again!!! Jensen & Dines @ Z-Net

Bitch | Lab info at pulpculture.org
Wed Dec 7 22:18:52 PST 2005


This misogyny is not an idiosyncratic feature of a few fringe films. Based on three studies of the content of mainstream video/DVD pornography over the past decade, we conclude that woman-hating is central to contemporary pornography. Take away every video in which a woman is called a bitch, a cunt, a slut, or a whore, and the shelves would be nearly bare. Take away every DVD in which a woman becomes the target of a man's contempt, and there wouldn't be much left. Mass-marketed pornography doesn't celebrate women and their sexuality, but instead expresses contempt for women and celebrates the charge of expressing that contempt sexually.

---

they should read .girlwithaonetrackmind and ask her why, as a feminist, she liks to be called a dirty whore. Are we going to insist that she's fucked up?

no time to actually sit down and watch them, but I can safely say that, the collection of porn tapes in a box about 4x3 wide that R was given by a friend? Not one of them use bitch, cunt, slut, whore. Nor do women come off as the target of contempt.

These aren't videos made by some enlightened company.

Similarly, the ex-beau's porn videos? Three of them I still happen to have, along with the dildo collection (sigh). None of them use those words and none of them represent women in degrading ways. Admittedly, these are bi videos, but they aren't not cutting edge bi vids made by nina hartley or anything. they low-grad, bad audio, bad hotel room crap.

So, ( have about 40 tapes here that don't do this. Represent women in a lot of other ways that aren't exactly enlightened? Check.

Always on the bottom? as they say elsewhere? No.

Represented as sexually crazed, wanton? Notreally.

Never getting off? No, not at all.

I mean, I could go on and on and on about how 40 videos, right here, do not conform to these claims above, and they're crappy crap videos, not artsy fartsy ones.

The bi vidos? Lots of interracial in that one. But guess what? the are not representing asian women as coy and subservient. The black men aren't especially anything sturdily. Non one is wearing leopard prints.the black women aren't any more animalistically sexy. the asian women share a dildo, placing condom over it! Later, one has sex with a man, after sitting on the counch talking about sexual fantasies about bisexuality. The video is then about what they see in their fantasy. A black man and white man in a hot tub. Two asian women with a dildo. A mini-orgy where partners are traded, but women on top in all scences.

And, that reminds me: these aren't videos, these ones, where the bodies are perfect. none of them are, in fact. they have unattractive faces, most of them. there are stretch marks galore. It's not amateur, it's just your typical affordable mainstream porn.

No one gets their head shoved or gags on a cock -- though I don't see what's so horrible about that, frankly. It turns me on -- and it's the point of a lot of it -- to thing that you're turning someone on so much they can't help themselves and thrust hard.

cheeeriminy.

Now, there was one scene I found interesting. It's in the bi videos. The guys in the kitchen with a woman. She's on the wooden island, ass in the air, he behind her, stroking. She's got on high heels. As he strokes, his balls loom ever so precariously over those spikey high heels. And the camera just eats up that action.

I have always wondered how men with very sensitive balls feel about that. Or, if this was purposeful, because that kind of thing turns some men on. Or, they were just trying to get theright angle.

So, you see, I'd maybe sit down and watch every porn tape ever made, or seriously look at these. But, here's thought? If someone like me, who thinks about this stuff, can watch those videos and not notice it -- then maybe it's not much there.

And, if I have about 40 porno flicks that represent women's subordination in far more subtle, and perhaps less strikingly distasteful ways, maybe these jokers are...

well.

jokers.

IOW, they go for the worst, most controversial stuff, because who's gonna disagree ?

I mean, why should I take them seriously. They have a huge amount of space to discuss their findings on z-net, backing up the claims with evidence.

What do I see. Nothing. Why? They can produce a chart? An analysis of the data. Nothing?

Again, no one is saying that porn is enlightening or that women aren't ever degraded, that it doesn't objectify, or whatever.

I am saying that, this analysis? So far, it blows chucks and really isn't worthy of serious analysis. And they're not going to get far with the average person who's seen porn, because what they're saying simply doesn't ring true as to how women are represented. There are certainly ways they're degraded, shown as not having any agency, etc. etc. but being called cunt, whore, etc?

That's not going on in this videos, videos purchased by men, 1 het, 1 bi.

"Scream-of-consciousness prose stylings, peppered with sociological observations, political ruminations, and in-yore-face colloquial assaults."

-- Dennis Perrin, redstateson.blogspot.com

Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list