You are using "essentiallist" to form a falacious argument, ascribing implications to what I'm saying that aren't there.
Let me ennumerate my points:
1. Even a cursory glance at the catalog of any major porn distributor reveal that **most** porn is appalling, evil crap. The most popular pornographic magazines like Hustler and videos and websites are appalling in their attitudes towards women and I really didn't care for the attitude in the one gay film I saw.
2. All the sex workers I know say that to do that work you have to be able to compartmentalize to a far greater extent than most people can. Because what you are called on to do is extremely intrusive. Indeed many sex workers learned these strong compartmentalization skills to deal with abuse, often recapitulated by pimp/owners who run porno concerns. All the sex workers I know have suffered significant abuse. Maybe it's different in the happy-go-lucky world of gay sex work. The only gay sex worker I knew was a kid in my high school - an extraordinarily talented artist who died of AIDS he caught while doing casual prostitution to get money after his parents threw him out. He was a very smart kid but artsy and a little goofy and some of his older clients persuaded him not to use condoms. They're dead too.
3. Children are certainly not free, sexual individuals. They are protected by law for extremely good reason. Parents, a good **instructional** video, book or web site, a visit to the doctor and maybe a wine cooler or two is all kids need to explore their sexuality. Not porn and not adult partners. Sure, I would have liked it if the college girl who babysat next door had favored me with her attentions when I was 14, but if it was laws that kept her from fulfilling my desires I am glad to have made that sacrifice if those laws keep evil people away from kids and there are far too many of those evil people around.
4. Women just do not show the interest in porn that both gay and straight men do, as evidenced by what sells in the marketplace. Porn is about the simplest thing in the world to produce and Internet distribution couldn't be easier. If there was a market, we would see it.
5. I say all these things as a sometime consumer of porn. Porn is (mostly) about private fantasy and that should be free from political critique. I'm not against it as a concept in the least.I'm not against fried chicken either, but I know it's a dirty busines and you have ot face the realities.
6. I'm no "sex-positive" person or whatever. I'm a bit old-fashioned personally, but I still think there is a great deal positive in expanding acceptance of sexuality - sex work, different sexual tendencies - largely because I think it will de-mystify this stuff and bring people closer. It may make me a little squeamish personally, but I think it's good for society.
Also, it would be nice if there was better porn. I'm not against it as a concept in the least .I'm not against fried chicken either, but I know it's a dirty busines and you have to face the realities. "Good" porn may be a bit like fat-free fried chicken - a nice idea, a good goal, but somewhat self-contradictory.
boddi
On 12/21/05, BklynMagus <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Dear List:
>
> boddi satva writes:
>
> > Indeed it is fundamental conflicts in the making
> of porn exacerbated to a distorting extent by the
> patriarchy which makes this utopia of porn equality
> you seek very unlikely indeed.
>
> Since you are loathe to divorce words from reality,
> what are the "fundamental conflicts in the making
> of porn"?
>
> >That's really because porn is evil crap.
>
> Why is it evil crap?
>
> > Let children develop their sexual identity with other
> children in a safe environment that nourishes respect.
>
> And part of that nourishing safe environment are images
> and videos that show how to engage in various sexual
> practices and fetishes in a healty, nourishing way.
>
> > They are wards, not free individuals and that is exactly
> as they should be treated.
>
> They are free individuals.
>
> > Well, first you have to deal with the fact that men - gay
> and straight - love porn in the main and most women have
> little to do with it, despite the ubiquity of all sorts of
> pornography.
>
> And this is because? (You seem to be emulating Chip with
> broad generalizations that you do not back up with
> evidence -- which oddly enough you require of other posters.
> Quid pro quo, Clarice!)
>
> > Women are constantly encouraged to be shallowly sexual . .
>
> Which is the exact opposite of what I was saying was healthy
> for them. Behaving shallowly is not owning and caring for
> one's sexuality.
>
> > Many women may feel their sexuality is not encouraged but
> I think the culture clearly does encourage it and accept it
> publically.
>
> What culture encourgaes is women to be sexual at the behest/
> instigation of males.
>
> > Porn is about masturbation - a purely personal act if
> ever there was one.
>
> I have masturbated with all of my husbands, most of my
> boyfriends, and a goodly number of casual acquaintances.
> For me, masturbation is an intimate act, but not a solitary
> one. YMMV.
>
> > If you think that the problem with porn is that it is not
> "produced without shame," you just don't know anything
> about porn.
>
> Actually, I know quite a lot about it. Your posts are the
> ones that contain a blinkered vision, i.e., "porn is evil
> crap."
>
> > Indeed, pimp culture is a particularly distilled form of
> capitalist culture.
>
> Pimps and sex workers are not the same things.
>
> > Right, but I'm not talking about them - note first
> sentence above.
>
> I know you are trying to have your arguments make
> sense by severely narrowing them, but even then
> they do not withstand scrunity.
>
> > No you don't, not as far as the main body of porn is
> concerned.
>
> Again, I do. Also, I would appreciate it if you would
> not try to tell me about my own experience.
>
> > Don't cooperation and recirprocal altruism generally
> imply a level of mutual concern and respect that tend to
> encourage more positive endeavors than pornography?
>
> Your question is tautological since it already assumes
> that pornography is not a "positive endeavour." Again,
> that is an assertion which you have yet to prove.
>
> > I know sex workers too. I don't think that they would
> say that it is "very positive".
>
> Do you know what they would say, or are you speaking
> for them? Could you invite some of them to join LBO so
> the list could gain a deeper understanding of the subject?
>
> > It's pretty decent work for the rare individuals who can
> handle it psychologically.
>
> So then the fault, dear boddi, lies not in porn, but in those
> selves are unable to handle it psychologically?
>
> Seems reasonable to me. There are many jobs/professions/
> careers/pursuits which are perfectly fine for some people
> and disasterous choices for others.
>
> > This "essentialist" business is eyewash. Say what you
> mean.
>
> I did. Repeatedly. But to quote the divine Addison: "More
> clearly and more distinctly:"
>
> The broad statements you have made regarding the nature
> of porn, women and men's relationship to porn, and the
> production of porn are so vague and overbroad as to be
> meaningless. You charge me with providing no context,
> but in actuallity your own posts are exemplars of this tack.
>
> And when you do admit that these broad essentialisms have
> exceptions, e.g., that some people may find porn decent
> work, you do not acknowledge that you have just shot down
> your own essentialist thinking.
>
> Brian Dauth
> Queer Buddhist Resister
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>