Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
flirt77

Pornography

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/6709646/All-men-watch-porn-scientists-find.html

 

Apparently, all guys "consume" it (language in the article). While reading my patriarchy aff last year, the porn turn came about: solving for patriarchy destroys the porn industry, key to the economy. Others believe that porn is empowering for women: https://www.drake.edu/artsci/PolSci/ssjrnl/2009/thornton.pdf

 

And of course, you have the big group of nearly everybody else arguing that pornography is the worst of the worst.

 

My question: Is porn good or bad?

 

Keep this somewhat serious....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Porn can be either empowering our demeaning to women. A woman may feel empowered by showing her body in any fashion she wants, but still may entrench the idea that women are nothing but sex machines. I think that the world could survive without porn, economically, however, especially for single male highschoolers, our psychology won't allow it. Thus, porn is inevitable.

 

/thread

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably good. I mean, it keeps a few people employed and a lot of other people sexually satisfied. I dont see much wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the feminist lit against pornography. It isn't convincing.

 

Maybe it's because I'm a classically masculine heterosexual male (i.e. 'the devil',) but yeah. Sex positive pro-agency feminist lit has always made more sense to me. Also, lol at Chyng Sun going to the AEE and avoiding known pro-sex feminist and long time sex worker. Academic rigor.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choosing to expose yourself to commodification is a curious kind of liberation. Why would this be a good thing for women?

 

I can understand why the ability to choose might be desired, just not why the choice should be encouraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/6709646/All-men-watch-porn-scientists-find.html

 

 

Apparently, all guys "consume" it (language in the article). While reading my patriarchy aff last year, the porn turn came about: solving for patriarchy destroys the porn industry, key to the economy. Others believe that porn is empowering for women: https://www.drake.edu/artsci/PolSci/ssjrnl/2009/thornton.pdf

 

 

And of course, you have the big group of nearly everybody else arguing that pornography is the worst of the worst.

 

 

My question: Is porn good or bad?

 

 

Keep this somewhat serious....

 

random stumble upon that made me think of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so I have some kinda complex feelings about this question.

First, I think that lesbian porn targeted at heterosexual males is bad because it trivializes the sexuality of these women. The assumption that's made with such varieties of porn is that a girl doing another girl is nothing but another avenue by which she can make herself appealing to men. That's just ridiculous and heterosexist and rids the lesbian, bisexual female, and pansexual female identities of any legitimacy. I take a huge issue with that.

 

Second, questions of female objectification miss a few points.

 

What about the male actor in heterosexual scenes? Certainly the phallus becomes commodified as much as the essence of femininity, reduced to a symbol of both power and sexuality. Heterosexual porn therefore is probably a symbol of the dominant male identity subjugating the female by combining sexuality/gender with a status of power.

 

What about transsexual porn (assuming breasts-with-penis)? With the transsexual we see a pretty unique tearing down of barriers. The phallus, once a symbol of gendered power, is combined with the most visible outward symbol of femininity, breasts. It tears down the conceptions that feminists take issue with- by presenting both breasts and a penis, the viewer doesn't know if the transsexual was originally male or female but it becomes irrelevant to the sexual act. Gender and sexual identities become divorced from perceptions of power.

 

What about transvestite porn (assuming male-dressed-as-female)? Here, we see that, in order for the masculine to be subjugated to another phallus, emasculation is needed. The masculine must become feminine through the act of cross-dressing in order to justify the subjugation of the phallus to another phallus. This probably still has the same problems of traditional feminism.

 

Finally, what about gay porn, where there is no female? Getting rid of a feminine individual entirely has much the same effect as transsexual porn- the phallus being subjected to the phallus shows that gender based power hierarchies are nonsensical. One can top and they can switch, there's no necessity to their positions, just as there's no reason why males are necessarily better or more powerful than females. Power being subjected to power and the reverse is a display of how this heterosexist hierarchy is arbitrary and is shattered by a great many queer identities.

 

However, judgements about the moral value of pornography are probably worthless. So long as there's someone with a sex drive, there will be someone out there to film their sexual exploits, whether it's commercialized in the same way as it is currently or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so I have some kinda complex feelings about this question.

First, I think that lesbian porn targeted at heterosexual males is bad because it trivializes the sexuality of these women.

When straight women masturbate to gay male porn, does the same apply?

 

The assumption that's made with such varieties of porn is that a girl doing another girl is nothing but another avenue by which she can make herself appealing to men. That's just ridiculous and heterosexist and rids the lesbian, bisexual female, and pansexual female identities of any legitimacy. I take a huge issue with that.

Why is that unique to this genre? I assume dwarf/small people porn fetishizes their existence as well. If anything, this is a critique of all sorts of categories of difference that people could potentially fetishize.

 

Second, questions of female objectification miss a few points.

 

What about the male actor in heterosexual scenes? Certainly the phallus becomes commodified as much as the essence of femininity, reduced to a symbol of both power and sexuality. Heterosexual porn therefore is probably a symbol of the dominant male identity subjugating the female by combining sexuality/gender with a status of power.

Except when in the hetero scene, the man is being raped by the woman. There are plenty of hetero scenes that have the female as dominant(not all in the S/M category, either).

 

 

What about transsexual porn (assuming breasts-with-penis)? With the transsexual we see a pretty unique tearing down of barriers. The phallus, once a symbol of gendered power, is combined with the most visible outward symbol of femininity, breasts. It tears down the conceptions that feminists take issue with- by presenting both breasts and a penis, the viewer doesn't know if the transsexual was originally male or female but it becomes irrelevant to the sexual act. Gender and sexual identities become divorced from perceptions of power.

Why is that a bad thing? I mean, all sex acts have some power dynamic, but so do almost all interpersonal interactions. Also, I don't know why second-wave feminists would have trouble with what you're describing. Most deny the categories of male/female exist in any stable fashion in reality.

 

What about transvestite porn (assuming male-dressed-as-female)? Here, we see that, in order for the masculine to be subjugated to another phallus, emasculation is needed. The masculine must become feminine through the act of cross-dressing in order to justify the subjugation of the phallus to another phallus. This probably still has the same problems of traditional feminism.

There aren't a whole lot of traditional feminists around-- most have moved on from it.

 

 

 

Finally, what about gay porn, where there is no female? Getting rid of a feminine individual entirely has much the same effect as transsexual porn- the phallus being subjected to the phallus shows that gender based power hierarchies are nonsensical.

This needs more explanation-- the fact that I can penetrate a guy doesn't mean that I can't equally penetrate a woman. To say that guy-on-guy sex means guy-on-girl sex has a different property than we thought it did previous requires a lot more explanation.

 

 

One can top and they can switch, there's no necessity to their positions,

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

There are specific reasons why some gay guys hate topping and love bottoming and vice versa. To them, their positions are a matter of necessity.

 

just as there's no reason why males are necessarily better or more powerful than females. Power being subjected to power and the reverse is a display of how this heterosexist hierarchy is arbitrary and is shattered by a great many queer identities.

But this isn't heterosexist, at least not only heterosexist. If you don't think the discussion of femininity/masculinity doesn't apply to people who like their own sex, you have yet to interact with a bunch of lesbians or gay guys. I highly suggest you do, and understand that there is a massive amount of power-play going on even in non-sexual situations. The feminization of bottoms, the femininization of femmes(male and female) is pretty rampant. The vast majority of LGBT people aren't concerned with breaking down preconceptions of gender/masculinity/femininity-- they are actually, I'd say, more comfortable with the idea, at least, most us are.

 

I think queer identities can expose why they happen to be arbitrary, but I highly doubt they will destabilize or change them. Too many queers are being assimilationist for that sort of politics to be viable.

 

 

 

 

However, judgements about the moral value of pornography are probably worthless. So long as there's someone with a sex drive, there will be someone out there to film their sexual exploits, whether it's commercialized in the same way as it is currently or not.

I mean, yes? The question isn't a moral one, at least not for me-- the fact is that there are some people who will prefer wanking off to actual sex. I think they are in the minority, but I do know of at least one person like that. Unless it is something that is inherently harmful to a certain group of people, there's no good reason to attack it.

 

Lastly, the greatest problem that I have with porn(at least gay porn-- I think most hetero porn has this as the norm already), is the lack of condoms. I mean, if actors want to take another men without condoms, that's their choice. What I object to it how the pornography industry tries to turn the "bareback" genre of gay porn into something to be fetishized, which in turn likely influences other gay guys to have sex without condoms. For me, it isn't so much how porn interrelates to the actors, it is how the people who watch it might be subtly persuaded to engage in stupidly risky behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so I have some kinda complex feelings about this question.

First, I think that lesbian porn targeted at heterosexual males is bad because it trivializes the sexuality of these women. The assumption that's made with such varieties of porn is that a girl doing another girl is nothing but another avenue by which she can make herself appealing to men. That's just ridiculous and heterosexist and rids the lesbian, bisexual female, and pansexual female identities of any legitimacy. I take a huge issue with that.

 

Second, questions of female objectification miss a few points.

 

What about the male actor in heterosexual scenes? Certainly the phallus becomes commodified as much as the essence of femininity, reduced to a symbol of both power and sexuality. Heterosexual porn therefore is probably a symbol of the dominant male identity subjugating the female by combining sexuality/gender with a status of power.

 

What about transsexual porn (assuming breasts-with-penis)? With the transsexual we see a pretty unique tearing down of barriers. The phallus, once a symbol of gendered power, is combined with the most visible outward symbol of femininity, breasts. It tears down the conceptions that feminists take issue with- by presenting both breasts and a penis, the viewer doesn't know if the transsexual was originally male or female but it becomes irrelevant to the sexual act. Gender and sexual identities become divorced from perceptions of power.

 

What about transvestite porn (assuming male-dressed-as-female)? Here, we see that, in order for the masculine to be subjugated to another phallus, emasculation is needed. The masculine must become feminine through the act of cross-dressing in order to justify the subjugation of the phallus to another phallus. This probably still has the same problems of traditional feminism.

 

Finally, what about gay porn, where there is no female? Getting rid of a feminine individual entirely has much the same effect as transsexual porn- the phallus being subjected to the phallus shows that gender based power hierarchies are nonsensical. One can top and they can switch, there's no necessity to their positions, just as there's no reason why males are necessarily better or more powerful than females. Power being subjected to power and the reverse is a display of how this heterosexist hierarchy is arbitrary and is shattered by a great many queer identities.

 

However, judgements about the moral value of pornography are probably worthless. So long as there's someone with a sex drive, there will be someone out there to film their sexual exploits, whether it's commercialized in the same way as it is currently or not.

 

i think you're racist against men

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choosing to expose yourself to commodification is a curious kind of liberation. Why would this be a good thing for women?

 

I can understand why the ability to choose might be desired, just not why the choice should be encouraged.

 

Cap

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha brad carters a porn addict

Carter is right. Its an awful thing that demeans you for years on end. Take it from a 4 year addict that is trying to kick it every day. You don't look at people the same or especially girls. It robs you of who you are and girls. It sucks as a whole. Those who joke have no freaking clue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...