>>> The men are depicted as dominant, fully capable and in charge, while the
women generally adopt postures of submission etc.
> Ha, but men are that! Women are just shrinking violets who want flowers
and
> men to call back.
[Lenin] According to the same sexist ideology that pornography generally corroborates, that is axiomatically the case. But that is not my argument. [/Lenin]
So now you say that it isn't porn but sexist ideology that invents the notion of innate male power/female submission...but porn's at the root of it all?? So what exactly is your argument, Lenin??
[Doug] Really, just what is degrading about the iconic porn image of women -
hot
> for sex all the time, and really enjoying it? [/Doug]
[Lenin] This is unduly glib. Whatever you take the 'iconic porn image of women' to be, your account just happens to ignore the vast majority of what transpires in pornographic productions. The ass-spanking, slapping, name-calling, face-jizzing and various other techniques of asserting dominance are introduced within the context in which male dominance has already been established. [/Lenin]
First off, Lenin, most porn doesn't depict women as ready for sex all of the time, just that she is capable for being sexual when she wants to be...which could be at any time. And it doesn't even have to be with men, either....you have heard of this thing called "masturbation", have you?? Or this other thing called "lesbianism"??? How do those acts done without any male present happen to promote "male dominance and female passivity"..through osmosis??
And as for the "ass-spanking, slapping, name calling," and "face-jizzing"....would it be just as objectionable to you, Lenin, if it was a woman doing those things to a man?? (And yes, a woman can indeed "face-jizz" a man, too....female ejaculation does exist.) ,
But even at that, to say that women by nature should not engage in such activity merely because it upsets your personal ideology is simply beyond contempt for a putative "progressive"...and in direct defiance of the reality of women to dictate their own sex lives.
[Doug]
> 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.
[Lenin] Come come. (Or don't, as you prefer). Are you seriously asserting that the imagery of dominator men pounding away at squealing starlets who just passively allow themselves to be directed by those men is just about being 'up for sex'? The two thousand year war on women, with its traditions of pornography and violence, doesn't have any effect on a huge sector of the economy that just happens to cater overwhelmingly to young men? There's a contrived purblindness here.
Yeah, right....the "two thousand year war on women"??? You do know, in fact, that one of the main foundations in that war is the role of the organized religions...the overwhelming majority of them are as decisively anti-pornography as you and your antiporn feminist allies are?? (Your "libertarianism" aside, that is.) And that the modern sex media has only been around for, say, 30 or so years of that two thousand year period?? (I would include Islam to that list too..but I know that that would be too much a trigger for you, so I won't go there..at least not now.)
And I really hate to break this to you, Lenin, but some women have said that they really, really do like being sexually dominated...or, at least, playing the sexually dominated role. (Even Leftist feminist women, too.) Try actually asking them before you make such leaps of conclusion jumping.
[Doug]
Sure, some men "abuse" porn, but some people also abuse alcohol and food,
> but few of us would condemn either.
[Lenin] Curious tone of defensiveness there. Who is condemning whom? Am I inviting you to feel bad about masturbating to Jenna and Rocco or whoever the tag team of your salubrious delight is? The point is to notice the patently frigging obvious rather than gently skipping over it in favour of this ludicrous pretense that it's nothing other than play, fantasy, the pleasure principle etc [/Lenin]
Ahhhh, Lenin....Jenna Jameson and Rocco Sifferdi are NOT the whole porn industry, any more than Heath Ledger and Angelina Jolie represent the whole of Hollywood, regardless of the tabloid headlines. And for the record, I prefer masturbating to Nina Hartley myself.
Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of porn that is out there consists of mostly either single women masturbating, coupled partners having mostly vanilla sex, or girl/girl sex.
And so nice of you to accuse Doug and everyone else here of being "defensive" of their private porn tastes; when that wasn't really the issue at hand, now isn't it?? The only thing I see that's obvious is your swallowing all the falsehoods of antiporn "feminists" about what erotica consists of and how it affects its viewers. That's your issue, not mine or Doug's or anyone else's.
[Lenin] Actually, I don't think Chomsky said it was forced in any way that Wal-Mart isn't. What he said was that the nature of the industry was uniquely degrading and destructive of dignity, and that this can't be avoided by saying "yeah, but they choose to do it". But I agree with treating it as a form of labour, and I support efforts to organise sex workers rather than banning the whole industry (which just reinforces the puritanical/prurient logic by which the labour is so demeaned). [/Lenin]
Does it actually enter your mind, Lenin, that other people might have a different opinion of porn than yours?? That they might find watching it to be not quite as harmful as you, and maybe, even -- horrors -- liberating?? Unless you just so happen to believe that sex outside of a certain narrow construct of "relationship" (devoid or supposedly superior "intimacy") is inherently "degrading", there is no reason to treat sex work or sex media as any different from any other form of labor or expression.
And while it is to your credit that you do reject outright state censorship as "puritanical" (though neither Chomsky or any of his antiporn allies are willing to make such a commitment, and the record of antiporn "feminist" activism suggests otherwise), it's still a bit hypocritical for you to come down so hard on other people's personal choices and reduce their personal sexual tastes to such black/white terms. If porn is so evil as you say it is, then why stop short of total censorship?? For fear of being attacked for mimicking the Religious Right?? If you are going to support organizing sex workers and porn performers, then why not accept those who defend their profession and seek to change it for the better, rather than those abolitionists who would sooner merely wipe them off the face of the earth??
Sorry for taking so much time and space here, but this really did yank my chain, and I felt the need to respond.
Anthony