On Jul 28, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Michael Pollak wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Lenin's Tomb wrote:
>
>> Surely it is glaringly apparent that the *vast majority* of
>> pornography does indeed revolve around the degradation of women, in
>> the specific sense that he states: women are reduced to vulgar sex
>> objects, conforming to male fantasies of super-lubed, inflatable
>> fuck-machines with embryonic personalities.
>
> As opposed to the men in it, who are ... super-lubed, inflatable
> fuck-machines with embryonic personalities.
Ha, but men are that! Women are just shrinking violets who want flowers and men to call back.
Really, just what is degrading about the iconic porn image of women - hot for sex all the time, and really enjoying it?Yeah, it ignores their skills at interpreting Hegel, for sure, but as Michael points out, that's porn for you. It's a male fantasy of women being as up for sex as they are. Of course, many women are just that, but that's not the conventional image. Sure, some men "abuse" porn, but some people also abuse alcohol and food, but few of us would condemn either.
As for the consent issue, work is non-consensual in this society. The forms are work aren't entirely non-consensual. So why is working in porn seen as somehow "forced," in a way that working in Wal-Mart isn't?
I suspect that underlying that sort of attitude is a belief that "sex" is sacred - that, as Laura Agustin says in my interview with her, it should occur to an implied score of lush strings.
Doug