What if, instead of fighting for some ambiguous and arguably dangerous legislation on the content of porn, the producers of any media are held responsible if said media has certain qualities or characteristics.

For instance, what if every time a woman is the vicitm of violence on a tv show, movie, or whatever, the producers of the show have to give X amount of their profits to a women's crisis center or an agency working on behalf of female victims of violence?

Or, every time a porn movie portrays sex in a way that is demeaning and vicious to women, the production company has to donate X amount of their profits to rape crisis centers?

I can see already that legislating this, and enforcing it would be fraught with difficulty and loopholes etc., but as an idea, what do you think? It's not censorship, really; the production and distribution of such materials isn't illegal or hampered in any way, but the people who profit most from it, ostensibly, are also held responsible to the people who suffer the severest consequences of it.

For one thing, if you're including Canadian producers, there is no such thing as profit. You can make a comfortable living through production, but most productions do not recoup what it costs to make them. We are not, with a very few rare exceptions, exactly rolling in it.

So what you're proposing would be that people like me, if I make something you don't approve of, get dinged out-of-pocket. I'm not so keen on being penalized for somebody else's morality. And it IS being penalized.

Then there's the issue of context. How do you make a statement about violence against women without showing said violence?

And if it's voluntary, it's useless. Yes it's a penalty, but shouldn't the perpetrators of this kind of sexism and graphic violence towards and degradation of women be held accountable at all? As it stands now, a movie-maker can stand to make a whole bunch of money off this sort of exploitation adn that just doesn't seem right. All I'm suggesting is that they're made to give a little of that benefit back to the people they're indirectly taking it from.

And no, it's not just 'something I don't approve of', but, I would suggest, actually very broad and all-encompassing categories of violence or over-sexualization or degradation, that should be captured in this formula. Even a movie like the Accused, yes, would be made to pay a portion of their PROFITs to women's protection and advocacy agencies/org's/shelters etc. You shouldn't be able to profit off of those kinds of representations of violence etc. Nobody should, regardless of the overall theme or message of the movie/magazine/text, whatever.

And I do agree with you, Rebecca, but I think that while we're working on the fabric of our societal being, we should also work on the dye and the stitching--that is, we can educate until we're all blue in the face, but as long as there are no consequences for denying or ignoring that education, I believe it will be pretty futile. I really think we need to work on both of these aspects of the same problem at the same time.

As a compromise, maybe some of the 'donated' profits could go to developing curriculae for educating youth on sexism and mutual and self-respect.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Lima Bean ]

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]

I submit:

quote:

---

For instance, what if every time a woman is the vicitm of violence on a tv show, movie, or whatever,

---

To carry on:

quote:

---

Zoot, you missed a key element in my proposition. I suggest only that a portion (ie. a percentage) of PROFITs be submitted to such agencies/org's/shelters etc. If your production doesn't turn a profit, then you're not bound to pay back.

---

Okay, so I spend a couple of years of my life working my ass off, I make a film and by some miracle it not only recoups enough box office to repay the equity investments but make a little money, you want to have a cut, even if my message is, in the final analysis, positive. I do bad, I pay, I do good I pay. That stinks.

Now beyond the domestic filmmaker, our film and television industry relies on off-shore production (co-productions with other countries, or productions that come up from the States to shoot). This keeps our crew fed and makes it so that there is a crew when we manage to make a truly Canadian flick. You start penalizing, they stop coming and a whole lot of people stop being able to make a living.

This little idea has some big consequences.

quote:

---

Yes it's a penalty, but shouldn't the perpetrators of this kind of sexism and graphic violence towards and degradation of women be held accountable at all? As it stands now, a movie-maker can stand to make a whole bunch of money off this sort of exploitation adn that just doesn't seem right. All I'm suggesting is that they're made to give a little of that benefit back to the people they're indirectly taking it from.

...

Even a movie like the Accused, yes, would be made to pay a portion of their PROFITs to women's protection and advocacy agencies/org's/shelters etc. You shouldn't be able to profit off of those kinds of representations of violence etc.

---

How does a movie like The Accused perpetuate violence toward and degradation of women? How is it exploitive? How is it sexist? WTF?!

Great, penalize people for putting out the message that this is wrong. Take money that they make from educating, and use it to educate. That's logical. And they'll be real inclined to ever make that kind of movie again. No voice, because of over-zealous smothering tactics. Is that what you want? 'Cause that's what you'd get. As a filmmaker, I wouldn't touch the topic with a ten-foot pole if I know I'm going to get dinged.

And let's not even get into the controversies over artists like Mapplethorpe...

quote:

---

And no, it's not just 'something I don't approve of', but, I would suggest, actually very broad and all-encompassing categories of violence or over-sexualization or degradation, that should be captured in this formula.

---

Actually, I disagree. Because you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of what is and is not morally right and good. I don't think any of us can claim a corner on moral high ground.

I find it pretty arrogant that you think you should be able to tell me what I am allowed to say, show and see -- and by penalizing producers, you are doing just that. You make it a sin, and that makes your morality superior to mine. You'll have to pardon me for not liking that.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

quote:

---

Because you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of what is and is not morally right and good. I don't think any of us can claim a corner on moral high ground.

---

[Just poking my head in....]

Take a step back, though, and realize that if this idea ever came into being, it would not be me, Lima Bean, arbitrating over the parameters or formulas or the legislation. It would not be MY morals or values, it would be those of some governing, legislative body, and you therefore don't need to use a personal pronoun. Also realize that I see a huge giant problem in a lot of the popular media out there and I'm just trying to come up with ideas for solving or dealing with some of them. They're just ideas. They're for discussion.

The reason I don't limit my idea to porn is because porn is a slippery sort of category, as we've discussed ad nauseum on other threads. It really can have any parameters that will stick.

quote:

---

How does a movie like The Accused perpetuate violence toward and degradation of women? How is it exploitive? How is it sexist? WTF?!

---

I don't necessarily think that the movie perpetuates these violences, or is necessarily exploitive, except that to profit off of violence is kinda what the mafia does. If the producers of that film were really as altruistic as you'd like me to believe, they would have already donated their profits to rape crisis centers. I have a serious problem with the portrayal of violence in film. I think I probably agree with the assertion above--that without that graphic scene, the movie wouldn't have packed quite the punch that it did--but I also have some pretty big qualms about its inclusion. So sue me.

quote:

---

And they'll be real inclined to ever make that kind of movie again. No voice, because of over-zealous smothering tactics. Is that what you want? 'Cause that's what you'd get.

---

That is sort of the idea, in fact. I would hope that if movie-makers who rely heavily on gratuitous violence and sexism to sell movies were made to fork over a chunk of their profits because of it, maybe they'd think twice about their tactics.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And no, it's not just 'something I don't approve of', but, I would suggest, actually very broad and all-encompassing categories of violence or over-sexualization or degradation, that should be captured in this formula.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I disagree. Because you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of what is and is not morally right and good. I don't think any of us can claim a corner on moral high ground.

---

Maybe not, but shouldn't we at least try a little harder to come up with some set of rules that we can all play by? And like I said above, nowhere in my initial post did I suggest that I, personally would be the judge of any of this. I am not and wouldn't be the arbiter, but I do think we need some body (preferably made up of quite a few people from diverse professional and societal arenas, with diverse perspectives and aims) to cast judgements on this kind of stuff.

quote:

---

So once again, women are to sell their dignity and safety? Nothing personal, but I find this idea more offensive than the status-quo.

---

quote:

---

We don't get anything for the sexism and violence perpetrated against us except for more sexism and violence. At least this way some women get some real, material benefit from the crap that already surrounds us all the time anyway.

---

quote:

---

Women are already selling their dignity and safety, but for a pittance

---

So, if we made more money for it would it be any better or acceptable? This idea takes "selling out" to an entirely new level.

I had to add:Although, it is a refreshing slant on the ongoing porn debate.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]

quote:

---

Take a step back, though, and realize that if this idea ever came into being, it would not be me, Lima Bean, arbitrating over the parameters or formulas or the legislation. It would not be MY morals or values, it would be those of some governing, legislative body, and you therefore don't need to use a personal pronoun.

---

Semantics. You're the one postulating this approach, and your values and moral code have a certain role in the genesis of the idea.

quote:

---

I don't necessarily think that the movie perpetuates these violences, or is necessarily exploitive, except that to profit off of violence is kinda what the mafia does.

---

My first response was to tear you a new one on this. Let me simply say that that is one of the nastiest, most judgemental and wrongheaded statements I've come across in some time.

As I said before, there is something to be said for context. The violence is a necessary part of that work. Without it, there would be nothing to make a movie about. You can't speak up about violence if you're too busy pretending it doesn't exist.

So let's all stick our fingers in our ears and hum a little hum, shall we?

quote:

---

If the producers of that film were really as altruistic as you'd like me to believe, they would have already donated their profits to rape crisis centers.

---

I think it was altruistic, at least to some degree, to make a pro-feminist movie that condemns violence toward women when the filmmaker could have made a whole lot more money producing a testosterone-laden action film with lots of big explosions and car chases.

I also think it's highly presumptuous of you to suppose you know what people should or should not do with their hard-earned money. Once more, you don't have the corner on moral high ground. Get off your high horse, already.

quote:

---

I do think we need some body (preferably made up of quite a few people from diverse professional and societal arenas, with diverse perspectives and aims) to cast judgements on this kind of stuff.

---

They already have them. They're called ratings boards and they operate on a provincial level. And they have as much power now as I'd be willing to give them.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

The problem is that our society is premised on and operates largely through the validation of coercion and exploitation through the medium of free exchange. The truth is that there isn't a whole lot of difference between someone who exchanges their dignity for money in any industry -- it's more a matter of degree.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: :VerbaTim: ]

quote:

---

But what is the alternative? Anybody got any better ideas??

---

"Porn stars are horrible lovers!"

quote:

---

It seems the only campaign against porn is either religious and unrealistic/uninteresting or hard-core feminist, which most people can't relate to. How about something more mainstream, geared at letting real people know how most porn damages when instead it could enrich.

---

PORN STARS SUCK

or
"Grils for accessable porn."

I know, I know - not as catchy as yours, Rebecca West. I'm not much of a marketer.

But how to start such a campaign? Perhaps by creating a list of acceptable porn/porn production companies? Writing editorials? How about a letter to SavageLove?

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]

quote:

---

But what is the alternative? Anybody got any better ideas??

---

quote:

---

stop concerning yourself with how people entertain themselves in their spare time.

---

quote:

---

Make it a regular feature in, say, NOW Magazine or Eye, or whatever equivalent is in your major urban area. Or just go the self-publishing route - an online site that reviews porn based on a variety of criteria - artistic merit, sexism/violence/degradation, positive attitude towards women, made by women, etc.

---

You have some excellent ideas, Rebecca. I know of a few small magazines in Vancouver that are forever looking for submissions. Maybe I'll start by searching the web for women-friendly porn and doing a review of some good sites.

Wouldn't it be great to make a documentary film? I wish I had those resources!

What about a faux Savage Love-like column with people asking questions about porn? I see a lot of comedy value there.

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]

quote:

---

Don't rent that video, don't go to that movie, don't read that book, don't watch that TV show, don't listen to that radio program, or don't buy that CD.

---

Well, let see, when was the last time I bought a snuff flick or rape porn or kiddie porn? Gee, never. I can see my non-purchasing of this shit is stopping it. Thanks for the valubale input.

quote:

---

And stop concerning yourself with how people entertain themselves in their spare time.

---

If you can't play nice in the feminist forum you have been asked nicely not to play at all. So, blow it out your ass.

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Scout ]

quote:

---

It seems the only campaign against porn is either religious and unrealistic/uninteresting or hard-core feminist, which most people can't relate to. How about something more mainstream, geared at letting real people know how most porn damages when instead it could enrich.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the best thing I've heard on this issue yet. So who's interested in spearheading such a campaign?

---

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

Don't rent that video, don't go to that movie, don't read that book, don't watch that TV show, don't listen to that radio program, or don't buy that CD.

---

Well, I don't think Andy isn't playing by the rules, and I'd have to agree with him. Voting with your wallet is about all one can do, ultimately. Does it make it better or worse if a female expresses that idea?

Beyond governing your own wallet, I'd say that making it clear to significant others (here's hoping that most of us don't actually have to) that use of said items will not be tolerated -- a deal-breaker in the relationship -- is the next phase of influence.

But I think it's unrealistic to overhaul the culture. People can be very resistant to change, especially if it impinges on what they see as pleasurable.

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

quote:

---

But I think it's unrealistic to overhaul the culture. People can be very resistant to change, especially if it impinges on what they see as pleasurable.

---

I thought that was what artists where supposed to do. And not buying porn doesn't make it go away, Like Scout I never have and it is still there.

The debate needs to go on in every lunch room and coffe shop. That individual to individual one person at a time approach with gifted artists giving us real choices on erotica taht is not degrading can slowly bring about a shift in attitudes.

Anda as for a slogan from the male perspective.

quote:

---

Andy, how about you stop concerning yourself with our concerns?

---

quote:

---

So, blow it out your ass.

---

quote:

---

And not buying porn doesn't make it go away...

---

And we already have laws that prohibit child porn, snuff films and other nasty, sick stuff.
Pretty much anything else that involves consenting adults should be allowed. You can't eliminate everything in the world that you don't like.

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]

quote:

---

Voting with your wallet is about all one can do, ultimately.

---

Speak for yourself! That's really depressing.

quote:

---

I think it's unrealistic to overhaul the culture.

---

If it was unrealistic to overhaul the culture then women wouldn't have the vote. We wouldn't be working outside of the home in the droves that we are. We wouldn't be doing untraditional, high paying, "mens" work. We wouldn't have access to abortion. And so on.

I guarantee you, if I could afford a tenth of Mac Donalds or Nike's advertising budget, I could pay for a campaign that would "overhaul the culture" in two weeks or less.

quote:

---

And not buying porn doesn't make it go away,

---

quote:

---

Real men are gentle and always finsih last.

---

Not very catchy, but it has promise.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]

My seven year old nephew was playing with my daughter's Barbie yesterday. He was - well - putting her in all kinds of interesting positions and having a hoot in the corner with his older (10 yrs old) brother.

I went to investigate and asked what was so funny. The 7 yr old explained that he was "acting out" some pictures he'd seen in the school playground. These contortions were what the women in the pictures had been doing.

They then explained that two kids at school (in grade two) sell porn pictures for 2 bucks a piece.

I FLIPPED OUT! I took Barbie and went to tell their dad immediately. He said he was aware of it, but he doubted that the principal would do anything about it.

HOLY SHIT! I told their mom who then had a sit down discussion with them about this.

Poor kids. This is what they are learning from day one. Their natural curiosity is being met with this junk. And my nephews have a healthy knowledge of sex already - imagine the kids who don't have any information from home whatsoever!

I guess my point is that something has to be done. At the very least, healthy and normal sex needs to become as mainstream as porn, for chrissakes!

And are you saying it's wrong for kids to making Barbie dolls (or Lego figures or other toys) have sex? That seems "healthy and normal" to me. I think most child development experts would agree.

It's obviously natural for a kid to learn early on that sex really is about HIM and that it has nothing to do with fun for BOTH (or ALL FIVE) participants.

Nope - no issues with exposing someone so young to the airbrushed, unrealistic images of mainstream porn.

What was I thinking? I should have just bought the kid an issue of "Swank" and handed over a few well-endowed Ken dolls.

quote:

---

Sure - it's perfectly healthy and normal for a seven year old to pose Barbie to take four cocks all at once.

---

I really hope you didn't freak out to the kid, because that could give him the unhealthy message that sex is something dirty and shameful. The reaction of a respected family member has far more impact on a child than any form of media.

quote:

---

It's obviously natural for a kid to learn early on that sex really is about HIM and that it has nothing to do with fun for BOTH...

---

quote:

---

I should have just bought the kid an issue of "Swank" and handed over a few well-endowed Ken dolls.

---

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]

quote:

---

...it is really rather disconcerting that you fail to see any problem with any aspect of pornography including it's use by very young and impressionable children.

---

It's comparable to hawks who say to anti-war protestors, "you see nothing wrong with Bin Laden blowing up the WTC," or "you see nothing wrong with Hussein using chemical weapons."

And the "spank the monkey" comment was an immature cheap shot. I'm going to try to not stoop to your level.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure - it's perfectly healthy and normal for a seven year old to pose Barbie to take four cocks all at once.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty much, just like if little gay kids (or even straight kids) make two Kens or two Barbies have sex, or if they find their Dad's hidden Playboy collection and look at them under the blankets, or if some kids get naked and play "doctor," or if shock! horror! they masturbate.
I really hope you didn't freak out to the kid, because that could give him the unhealthy message that sex is something dirty and shameful. The reaction of a respected family member has far more impact on a child than any form of media.

---

Hmm so there is another way to take this response?

quote:

---

Hmm so there is another way to take this response?

---

I found your response to rosebud to be a little disturbing, but then maybe I'm just a sexual conservative, you know, being a bit sceptical whether or not pornograpic images enhance human relationships in any way.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: flotsom ]

quote:

---

I interpret what you've posted as earthmother (great nic btw ) did, andy, and unless you expect me to read your mind...

---

quote:

---

I found your response to rosebud to be a little disturbing...

---

quote:

---

...being a bit sceptical whether or not pornograpic images enhance human relationships in any way.

---

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]

What I find interesting is that in the case you mention, rosebuds, the father just shrugged his shoulders and his attitude was basically oh well who cares, whereas the mother was much more responsible and sat her kids down to talk to them about the experience.

quote:

---

I just expect you to read my words and understand the English language.

---

So when we asked guys not to dominate the threads in the feminist forums you forgot the English language or didn't think it applied to you? Or you just thought you'd come in here and educate us about porn, again? I am tired of playing nice with the likes of you, you are dominating yet another thread and telling me how to feel about porn.

As for playing nice, we shouldn't have to ask you gently in every feminist thread you try and take over to stop doing so. So this time, I decided to not play nice, we shouldn't have to keep asking you to back off. Once should be enough, you inability to respect our request concerns me Andy.

quote:

---

Pretty much, just like if little gay kids (or even straight kids) make two Kens or two Barbies have sex, or if they find their Dad's hidden Playboy collection and look at them under the blankets, or if some kids get naked and play "doctor," or if shock! horror! they masturbate.

---

We get it, your a porn fanatic, that means you know more about sexuality than we do. Whatever, andy your a condesending dink. Showing Barbie getting it from five guys is not even close to a childing posing two people in sexual positions. Healthy curiosity is one thing, but portraying what sounds like a gang rape isn't for a seven year old. This kid is getting mixed messages from porn he isn't allowed to purchase for at least another decade. And your questioning our ability to know what is normal for children is just condcending, what makes you such an expert? Porn?

quote:

---

How does one get that message from a photograph?

---

Are you joking or just being obtuse to be annoying. As if images have no power?

The problem is that after seeing this porn, at 7, the role playing has advanced from playing Doctor to something all together different. And you are trying to make us feel bad for seeing a problem you refuse to see because your paranoid someone might restrict your porn.

quote:

---

Yes, by reading and understanding my words instead of inventing some fantasy bullshit that I
"fail to see any problem with any aspect of pornography including it's use by very young and impressionable children."

That is not what I said, and that is not what I meant.

---

Oh, really?

quote:

---

...being a bit sceptical whether or not pornograpic images enhance human relationships in any way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And how does that have anything to do with what I have written in this thread?

---

And furthermore, these are just ideas being thrown around to see if we can come up with a workable idea to educate about the effects of (misogynist, violent, etc.) porn.

quote:

---

I think most of us on babble can see the problem with young children selling porn to each other on the playground, and with young boys getting the impression that it's real sex (and good sex!)

---

quote:

---

the father just shrugged his shoulders and his attitude was basically oh well who cares, whereas the mother was much more responsible and sat her kids down to talk to them about the experience.

---

quote:

---

Uh? The thread isn't about you Andy. It's in the Feminist Forum in case you can't read

---

quote:

---

We get it, your a porn fanatic...
And you are trying to make us feel bad for seeing a problem you refuse to see because your paranoid someone might restrict your porn.

---

And you didn't respond to the thread hijack you are perpetrating here, yet again.

quote:

---

Pretty much, just like if little gay kids (or even straight kids) make two Kens or two Barbies have sex, or if they find their Dad's hidden Playboy collection and look at them under the blankets, or if some kids get naked and play "doctor," or if shock! horror! they masturbate.

---

That's a really cheap shot. No one's saying little kids shouldn't be sexually curious or touch themselves. But porn is something different. Sexual intercourse is an adult reality. Hard-core pornographic sex is, for the most part, a fantasy. Childhood sexuality is something different.

The ideas we pick up about sexuality as we grow up influence us in our adulthood. Early perceptions of gender roles and "appropriate" sexual behaviour can be quite difficult to change. Many of us on this board have had lovers, or heard of lovers, who had pre-conceived notions of what their partners wanted in bed, what was normal, etc. to such a degree that they could not understand what their partners really wanted. Do I blame porn entirely for this? No. But it's part of a sick sexual culture.

You're setting this up in binaries - either porn as it is now, or no porn at all. I don't anyone on this board sees it that way. We want a third way. We know you cannot fight these things by simply banning them. We want to counter the bad ideas with good ideas.

quote:

---

I really hope you didn't freak out to the kid, because that could give him the unhealthy message that sex is something dirty and shameful.

---

Doesn't it depend on what she actually said to the kid and what he was actually doing? All sex is not the same. Coercive sex, sex that hurts people, is shameful. Did no one ever explain the distinction between "good touch" and "bad touch" to you?

Personally, I'd be inclined, once the shock wore off, to sit down with the kid and ask about the pictures and what was happening in them, and did he think the women in the pictures were happy, and why did he think they took their clothes off so people could take pictures of them naked, and how would he feel if someone were giving out pictures of him naked, and blah blah blah.

quote:

---

The reaction of a respected family member has far more impact on a child than any form of media.

---

I certainly hope so.

quote:

---

How does one get that message from a photograph?

---

quote:

---

The problem is that after seeing this porn, at 7, the role playing has advanced from playing Doctor to something all together different.

---

My friend was sexually abused by a foster child. This foster child (a girl) at eleven, forced my friend to preform oral sex.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that the problem here was porn. Actually the problem was abuse. But the story illustrates the point that yes, children are naturally curious about sex, but an eleven year old doesn't INVENT oral sex, they don't INVENT gang rape scenes, they don't INVENT our mysoginist, patriarchal, violent, single-sided view of sex. It is willingly provided for them by adults and by porn.

quote:

---

Where did I say it wasn't a problem? Oh yeah, NOWHERE!

---

Questioning what the problem might be is essentially saying there's no problem, Andy... Being mocking and dismissive toward people who are trying to discuss the problem is essentially saying there's no problem. Don't flip around on us now and go all dopey-eyed "But I don't know what you're talking about..."

Now - ignoring Andy Social is a great idea. Sometimes it is just so freakin' hard to do...

For further clarification:

My nephew was not making Barbie have sex. That I would ignore (his parents have been quite open with their kids about it, and they don't need the mechanical explanation - nor is it my postion to discuss it with him).

He was putting Barbie into inhuman positions and snickering about it to his older brother.

And when I said I "FLIPPED OUT" I didn't mean on the kid. I meant more of an "internal" flip out. I didn't say a word to him about it. I'm aware that a kid shouldn't be shamed about sex. He had nothing but the most innocent of intentions. I doubt he understood what the pictures really were, anyway.

I said I'd take the Barbie and discussed it with his dad and his mom.

"I think women who like that stuff would be insulted by what you are sAying. I get very cynical when someone claims to speak for sex workers in this way. Obviously those acts that more and more women are getting into are based on horrible patriarchical things. However, people have adapted. I go back to the porn industry. Porn is comodified in money you have people doing acts such as DP and BDSM that they rather would not do. But do not discount those who like it, and DO NOT DENY THAT THEY EXIST! I guarentee you if there is ever a system where money is gone and people are all free this sex on camera stuff will continue. We've been too infected by civilization for it not to."

Vigilante, don't you think it's obvious that women who say they like misogynist practices such as double penetration and submissive, heterosexual sado-masochism have been influenced by porn, and by men whom they fall in love with and find that this is what he wants?

Just ask yourself this. Could a woman with an education and a career, who will not tolerate sexual harassment and discrimination where she works, be convinced by anyone to agree to be involved in a double penetration act just to please her lover? It would be completely inconsistent with everything else in her life. And you can double that for any of the BDSM stuff which unfortunately has received some faux feminist cover stories from the lesbian community.

quote:

---

MasterDebator:
Vigilante, don't you think it's obvious that women who say they like misogynist practices such as double penetration and submissive, heterosexual sado-masochism have been influenced by porn, and by men whom they fall in love with and find that this is what he wants?

---

I think civilization is ultimately to blame and it's infected us all. The truth is people have taken the horrible things that porn is based on and made them pleasurable in some way. Yes men started it, but they're an awfully lot of womyn maintaining it. Look at the dominatrix fetish which many guys fantasize about. Ultimately power is a productive thing as Foucault I believe said. And the most horrble things can be turned in to the most pleasurable for some. I hear that the latest fetish going on now is race play. Based on something horrible yes. But if there is a consensual kick to be had about it, what the fuck.
All that matters to me is that womyn are in control of their bodies.

quote:

---

Just ask yourself this. Could a woman with an education and a career, who will not tolerate sexual harassment and discrimination where she works, be convinced by anyone to agree to be involved in a double penetration act just to please her lover? It would be completely inconsistent with everything else in her life. And you can double that for any of the BDSM stuff which unfortunately has received some faux feminist cover stories from the lesbian community.

---

You seem to be perpetuating this myth that most porn stars are uneducated and unenlightened. Look at Nina Hartly for heavens sake. Someone who's considered the views you hold, but still likes what she does. I do think that because porn is made into an idustry framework you will have womyn who are told to respect the bottom line and take that shot in the face or take a D or TP. That's a tragedy in my view, which is why I don't care for the porn industry. however they're are alternatives. And the fact is there are some women who like being multi-penetrated and tied up. You may not care for thatm but they certainly do. The key for me is that women should not be made to do that in an work like setting.

quote:

---

Andrea Dworkin and her friend John Stoltenberg were both crystal clear on the impermissibility of any kind of bondage or SM sex for feminists either gay or straight, and I hold fast to this position.

---

Well that's a pretty orthodoxical thing to say. Like I said power is productive, and for some people(women included) that can meen being tied up gagged, DPed, ect.

Oh and on the earlier subject of alternatives. There is a growing interest for more amature/alternative porn. Perhaps something can be made there.

[ 20 April 2005: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lima Bean:
For instance, what if every time a woman is the vicitm of violence on a tv show, movie, or whatever, the producers of the show have to give X amount of their profits to a women's crisis center or an agency working on behalf of female victims of violence?

---

I'm sorry if someone has already addressed this paragraph of the OP somewhere in this thread, but I'm going to just react directly to it and then read the rest of the discussion later when I have a bit more time.

Are you sure that depicting violence against women is something that warrants a penalty? In my relatively sheltered existance, I don't know if anything has sensitized me more to the problem of violence against women than seeing it dramatized in fiction.

Requiring a payment to make up for any depiction of it, even if the payment is to an eminently worthy cause, seems like it's just encouraging people to pretend that violence against women isn't real and doesn't happen. I'm not certain that isn't even more damaging than the risk that it might be depicted irresponsibly sometimes. Everyone knows what the legacy of silence has been.

I'm not a libertarian or anything, but I wouldn't like to see art shepherded into just being nice all the time. There's enough of that as it is from market forces.

If the argument is that seeing violence perpetrated against women in dramatizations desensitizes us to it and normalizes it, I don't agree. I think that within a contextual framework where the narrative does provide a moral judgement of acts of that nature does more to paint those acts as antisocial and undesirable than anything else.

So while I'd love to see people giving money to crisis centers, I don't like the idea of imposing it punitively.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:
Vigilante, don't you think it's obvious that women who say they like misogynist practices such as double penetration and submissive, heterosexual sado-masochism have been influenced by porn, and by men whom they fall in love with and find that this is what he wants?

---

That's an interesting thing you just said. You characterized double penetration as neccessarily misogynist. Letting alone the S&M portion of your comment (except to point out - you do know that either gender can be the S or the M, theoretically, right?), I was wondering whether you likewise would consider a sex act between two females and one male misandrist, or if that would also be misogynist?

So what's the fundamental source of the misogyny here? Is it that penetrative sex is intrinsically misogynist and that double penetration is therefore doubly so? Is it that one gender is ganging up on the other? If the latter, then is it inverted when the gender ratio is inverted? Or is that still misogynist?

Now obviously I'm asking questions with a bias in that I intend to contradict what you said, but I hope none of it comes across as sarcastic. I would genuinely like to know your answers to those questions, because I do not understand.

quote:

---

Just ask yourself this. Could a woman with an education and a career, who will not tolerate sexual harassment and discrimination where she works, be convinced by anyone to agree to be involved in a double penetration act just to please her lover? It would be completely inconsistent with everything else in her life.

---

Whoah just ask yourself this: are you kidding!?

I mean I guess you could be not kidding, as long as you hang all the weight of that question on "just to please her lover". Because you could be right in that case, that could be inconsistent. It's possible but not a sure thing, and only if that's the main point of the question.

But except for that one explicit indication of a power imbalance in the hypothetical relationship, of course engaging in a specific sexual act which provides a specific sensation for the hypothetical woman is not itself inconsistant with her asserting her rights anywhere in her life. What if she isn't "convinced by anyone"? Many men don't (or wouldn't) need any convincing from anyone to agree to any sex act that involved two women and himself, whether it were "to please his lover" or for any other reason.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:

Well that's a pretty orthodoxical thing to say. Like I said power is productive, and for some people(women included) that can meen being tied up gagged, DPed, ect.
[ 20 April 2005: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesse Dignity:
That's an interesting thing you just said. You characterized double penetration as neccessarily misogynist. Letting alone the S&M portion of your comment (except to point out - you do know that either gender can be the S or the M, theoretically, right?), I was wondering whether you likewise would consider a sex act between two females and one male misandrist, or if that would also be misogynist?

Can a woman not pursue something for her own interest? Without being coerced? Don't brush that off by saying you can't imagine a woman enjoying an activity like that for herself, either. I can't imagine anyone enjoying eating onions but inexplicably, some people do. So let's assume that it's possible.

---

The men, and some women, who promote SM may think they can peddle their lifestyle as "consensusl". I don't need to tell you how effectively Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon and many other feminist experts have demolished the whole mythology of consent.

And no, I cannot imagine any woman genuinely enjoying that kind of pain and suffering let alone being willing to surrender herself to two different men simultaneously.

Here are two websites that may be helpful, especially to men like Jeff who take the intellectualizing approach to porn:

http://www.dianarussell.com/furtherfindings.html

http://www.prostitutionrecovery.org/other_resources.html

[ 21 April 2005: Message edited by: MasterDebator ]

I see some have argued that porn has always existed, on the whole isn't THAT harmful, and/or that you'll never make it go away, etc. But the prevelance of porn or porn-themes as well as the viciousness and degradingness (is that a real word?) is a problem. Grade 2 kids selling porn at school? You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that that is a harmless tradition to be preserved!

But before such a campaign gets off the ground, one has to have a philosophical base for it.

For what is being proposed is censorship. Some schools of thought are against censorship in any form, and see the evils of censorship as being worse than the evils of that which is being censored. I don't, meself, but that's just me. To the cries of "but that's CENSORSHIP!!!", is the MNRAPM prepared to reply "Yeah, so what's your point?"

Second, the campaign has to be targeted at the worst offending material as a top priority. But how do we define that, short of "I'll know it when I see it?"

Then, there's the relativistic argument "You don't like it, but I do. Who are you to tell me what to do?" I can't see any way out for a MNRAPM but to admit that there are objective moral standards and some material crosses that line. Of course that's the whole basis of the Religiously-Based Anti-Porn Movment (RBAPM). However, it could be argued (or at least I would argue it! javascript: x()
Big Grin) that Natural Law could be that objective moral standard.

(Natural Law: rough definition: the "least common denominator" standard of morality across times and cultures. E.g. Islam and Christianity disagree about whether a man should have one wife or four, but they do agree (in theory at least!) that he should treat with kindness the one(s) he has.)

And we would have to be prepared for backlash from the porn industy. If we're anywheres near successful, the publishers of said materials will be complaining that we are unfairly limiting their ability to make money and have us shut down under some anti-trust law or something.

quote:

---

I don't need to tell you how effectively Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon and many other feminist experts have demolished the whole mythology of consent.

---

Uh, actually, yes you do. If those two somehow proved that there is no such thing as free will, my wife and I (and everyone else) need to know!

quote:

---

And no, I cannot imagine any woman genuinely enjoying that kind of pain and suffering let alone being willing to surrender herself to two different men simultaneously.

---

Then you lack imagination.

People enjoy various degrees of pain with their sex. I don't care for any, personally, but I have a friend who doesn't enjoy it at all if his nipples aren't being ripped half off.

It's hard to understand, I'll grant you. But you're jumping from your own inability to imagine something to your proclamation that that something therefore cannot exist.

And frankly this is what I hate about much of the anti-porn platform: the totally self-centred assumptions, eg: "Well, I can't see myself ever having sex for money unless my life depended on it, therefore if someone is having sex for money then their life must depend on it! I just proved it!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
...people must be forced against their will to order pineapple on a pizza....

---

Say what you like about porn, sex, the patriarchial power structure and BDSM but I think it is self-evident that the pineapple-on-pizza thing is indicative of dire, secret coercion.

Hate to rain on your parade but you started off by stating that a percentage of PROFITS (your word) should be contributed ...

Hate to shift this to an economic discussion but define that word. In Hollywood most movies actually lose money - remember the old joke about never asking for a percentage of the "net"?

The original Batman movie lost money [however it paid a few hundred million to other legal entities, but the net result was a loss to the studio].

The entertainment industry regularly sets up SPV's (Special Purpose Vehicles) that are expected to go bankrupt within a few months. Translation, there is no such thing as profit on a "porn" movie.

End result, come up with anything that has people paying a percentage of profit, and guess what ...

==============
By the way, even Last Action Hero, which was an absolute bomb at the box office and lost money by anyone's measure as a movie actually made money when you added in spinoffs like DVD's, video games, souveniers, etc. A lot of money. A LOT. But the studio officially lost its shirt.

=============

Edited to add last comment re Last Action Hero.

[ 21 April 2005: Message edited by: abnormal ]

quote:

---

I think it is self-evident that the pineapple-on-pizza thing is indicative of dire, secret coercion.

No one orders that consensually.

---

Hey, some of us DO actually like pineapple on our pizza, so... oh, am I missing a bit of context and admitting to more than I intend to?

quote:

---

No it can't. It cannot mean practices or rituals that are re-enactments of slavery and bondage. That is totally unacceptable for anyone who wants equality.

---

And why is any form of unbalanced power in sex unacceptable for equality? Equality is not everybody having an identicle environment, with nothing ever changing. Power imbalances will always exist. They exist in every relationship. A friend holds power of you when you are vulnerable and looking to them for help. Is that necessarily a bad thing? A doctor has more power than their patient in most clinical situations, should we abolish the institution of medicine? Power is a fact of life, and fair game for play between consenting adults.

quote:

---

And no, I cannot imagine any woman genuinely enjoying that kind of pain and suffering let alone being willing to surrender herself to two different men simultaneously.

---

Because clearly, lesbians as a whole have never had an orgy, or engaged in any forms of BDSM, since they're free of all that male domination forcing them into things they don't want.

[ 21 April 2005: Message edited by: Raos ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:
In my opinion it's more about the degree of respect, maturity, self-awareness, equality and consent between people engaged in sexual relationships than it is about the individual sex acts performed.

IMO 'woman on top' - or even forgoing penetration altogether - does not make a relationship inherently more equal, any more than (IMO) bukake or double penetration makes it less so.

---

Obviously the values you identify, respect, maturity, and equality are vitally important, they are the entire basis for a principled opposition to pornography. Dworkin and McKinnon did not propose their anti-pornography ordinance because they felt that all sex is dirty, they did so because the sex in pornography is not natural, is not healthy or even safe (anal intercourse is the leading means by which HIV is transmitted), and is explicity and deliberately degrading to women, or to feminized queers, who are in subjugated roles. There is no getting away from it, pornography is clearly anti-equality and anti-respect.

Consider your last item, double penetration. As I said, two men must be present for this. That means the woman is being in effect "gangbanged", and the only measure of mercy being offered to her by the men is that it's "only" a gang of two.

One other poster wanted to go even further, discretely referencing 'TP', ... meaning triple penetration. Then three men are present, and every last single orifice the woman has is being simultaneously raped and abused.

Anchoress, would you actually enjoy this kind of abuse if some man ordered you to submit to it? My God, would you actually take the initiative and suggest it to him?

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: MasterDebator ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Then you lack imagination.

People enjoy various degrees of pain with their sex. I don't care for any, personally, but I have a friend who doesn't enjoy it at all if his nipples aren't being ripped half off.

It's hard to understand, I'll grant you. But you're jumping from your own inability to imagine something to your proclamation that that something therefore cannot exist.

And frankly this is what I hate about much of the anti-porn platform: the totally self-centred assumptions, eg: "Well, I can't see myself ever having sex for money unless my life depended on it, therefore if someone is having sex for money then their life must depend on it! I just proved it!"

Using your logic, people must be forced against their will to order pineapple on a pizza, because I personally cannot imagine myself doing so. Make sense? Well, neither do you.

---

Mr Magoo, you must be as blind as your cartoon namesake if you can't see that practices like gangbanging a woman, or bondage and sado-masochism are inherently vioelnt and degrading.

Your arguments are cleverly constructed, trying to make everything sound a matter of opinion, even making up an imaginary male friend who likes it when his partners (are they men or women?) pinch his nipples. How would you even know, since men don't talk about their actual sexual experiences with each other, they only brag about their conquests, real or imagined.

It's so utterly dishonest. Mr Magoo has a male friend who (Magoo says) likes having his nipples pinched, so that must mean that some women actually do give informed consent to being bound, gagged, blindfolded and whipped with a riding crop or other equestrian implement, and then of course penetrated -- what? -- once?... twice?? ... three times???

What's your specialty Mr Magoo? Are you on the DP train, or do you hold our for full blast TP??? Which one of the female victim's bodily oriffices do you prefer? Do you and your buddies have a system for trading spots around so you can all get a taste of each?

quote:

---

the sex in pornography is not natural,

---

Of course it's not natural. Humans forgot what was natural a loong time ago. Porn is no more non-natural then erotica. Unnatural can be fun.

quote:

---

(anal intercourse is the leading means by which HIV is transmitted), and is explicity and deliberately degrading to women, or to feminized queers, who are in subjugated roles. There is no getting away from it, pornography is clearly anti-equality and anti-respect.

---

You sound like one of those reactionaries with that view on anal sex. If done right it can be an enjoyable experiance for those who like it. And anal sex has been recorded many times within the broader animal world. And as long as everyone makes sex as safe and fun and productive as possible that does equal respect.

quote:

---

Consider your last item, double penetration. As I said, two men must be present for this. That means the woman is being in effect "gangbanged", and the only measure of mercy being offered to her by the men is that it's "only" a gang of two.

One other poster wanted to go even further, discretely referencing 'TP', ... meaning triple penetration. Then three men are present, and every last single orifice the woman has is being simultaneously raped and abused.

---

For some it's simply 2-3 times the fun. Heck I'd love to banged F-M.

And to answer your last question, someone women do like it believe it or not. However it need not be ordered. And yes there are women who ask for it! Not every woman shares your othodoxical view on getting laid.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:
Anchoress, would you actually enjoy this kind of abuse if some man ordered you to submit to it? My God, would you actually take the initiative and suggest it to him?

---

quote:

---

if you can't see that practices like gangbanging a woman, or bondage and sado-masochism are inherently vioelnt and degrading.

---

I know I'm the first to try and counter this with this sort of argument, but does that mean a threesome with two women and one man is degrading for the man? And why is it that only feminized gays engage as bottoms for anal intercourse? To come to that conclusion, you'd have to start from the premises that getting screwed is inherentely degrading, and that only those that are feminine are degraded during sex. That means you can't use your example to prove the points you assumed to create the example.

quote:

---

Your arguments are cleverly constructed, trying to make everything sound a matter of opinion, even making up an imaginary male friend who likes it when his partners (are they men or women?) pinch his nipples.

---

It is a matter of opinion, and as other people have mentioned, just because you don't like it or understand it, doesn't mean somebody else does. Do you understand Arabic? Does that mean nobody else can either? I know people who don't enjoy roller coasters, does that mean I'm forbidden from liking them? And I hate to rain on your parade, but, I like having my nipples pinched. Me, personally. I'm also male. A quick bite can go a long way to arousing me. Does that mean I think everybody else enjoys the same things? Ofcourse not. Some do, though. Has your world come crashing down yet?

quote:

---

How would you even know, since men don't talk about their actual sexual experiences with each other, they only brag about their conquests, real or imagined.

---

Of, ofcourse, I forgot! Every man everywhere is exactly the same. Sterotypes exist because everybody is identicle. And this is the perfect place to remind me that no men every talk about sex. In a forum, with men and women, talking about sex and porn. Way to claim water doesn't exist while you're drowning in it.

quote:

---

It's so utterly dishonest. Mr Magoo has a male friend who (Magoo says) likes having his nipples pinched, so that must mean that some women actually do give informed consent to being bound, gagged, blindfolded and whipped with a riding crop or other equestrian implement, and then of course penetrated -- what? -- once?... twice?? ... three times???

---

As opposed to your claim, that because YOU don't like/understand/enjoy it, then ALL women must not like it.

quote:

---

You blew it when you admitted you don't like receiving any pain at all yourself. So why do you insist on claiming that there are untold millions of women out there who are just dying for some pain in their sex? Where did you get this incredible idea from if it wasn't from pornography?

---

No, he showed that he was openminded. I can tell you where I get the idea from. Women I know, who like some pain in their sex. I may not know millions of them, but I'm assuming that very few people do know millions of people, and I'm pretty sure that the people don't happen to be the one small group that contains every person in the world that runs contrary to what's natural.

quote:

---

the sex in pornography is not natural,

---

Neither are the events in fictional stories. Is literature the same blight on humanity that needs to be eradicated?

quote:

---

or even safe (anal intercourse is the leading means by which HIV is transmitted), and is explicity and deliberately degrading to women, or to feminized queers, who are in subjugated roles. There is no getting away from it, pornography is clearly anti-equality and anti-respect.

---

Did you know vaginal intercourse is the leading cause of unwanted pregnancies? Clearly it's innately evil, and must never be practiced. Ever. Under any circumstances. It's violent and degrading. Like getting a massage. Clearly the masseuse is just asserting their domination over your body. And ofcourse nobody enjoys anal play. That's why dildos don't exist,becauses there's nobody who wants to do it to themselves.

quote:

---

There is no getting away from it, pornography is clearly anti-equality and anti-respect.

---

Actually, there is. See, you're arguing that ALL porn is ALL anti-equality and anti-respect. To prove you WRONG, there just has to be one example, once, that runs contrary to what you say, and you've been proven WRONG. And you've been proven wrong, more than once in this thread alone. What the people who disagree with you are saying is that pornography can include respect and equality. That means the presence of anti-equality and anti-respect pron doesn't do anything to refute the position. They're aren't saying such porn doesn't exist, and I'm sure most people would agree that it quite often is, but it doesn't HAVE to. There is nothing innately evil in depicting acts of a sexual nature.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: Raos ]

quote:

---

if you can't see that practices like gangbanging a woman, or bondage and sado-masochism are inherently vioelnt and degrading.

---

I can't see the inherent violence or degradation in either of them.

I think it is POSSIBLE for both to be violent or degrading, but I don't think violence or degradation is INHERENT in the practices.

There ARE women who do this stuff consensually, because they like it. What business is it of yours if a woman has sex with two men at the same time and enjoys it? How is that degrading or violent?

And no, I cannot imagine any woman genuinely enjoying that kind of pain and suffering let alone being willing to surrender herself to two different men simultaneously."

You know, I read that and in minutes went from "what?" to feeling a certain sadness about it all.

quote:

---

Your arguments are cleverly constructed, trying to make everything sound a matter of opinion, even making up an imaginary male friend who likes it when his partners (are they men or women?) pinch his nipples. How would you even know, since men don't talk about their actual sexual experiences with each other, they only brag about their conquests, real or imagined.

---

This should be clipped and saved. I find it amazing that someone who is so obviously intelligent and articulate could make such and sweepingly biggoted statement in the name of egalitarianism.

And then, after having calle Magoo a liar, we have this:

quote:

---

You blew it when you admitted you don't like receiving any pain at all yourself. So why do you insist on claiming that there are untold millions of women out there who are just dying for some pain in their sex? Where did you get this incredible idea from if it wasn't from pornography?

---

Wherein a part of Magoo's statement is accepted as truth in order to reinforce the arguement.

Which one is it? Is Magoo a liar, or not? Is his testimony acceptable or is the witness compromised simply by his maleness, whom are known never to discuss sex honestly.

As for Dworkin, I assert the following: if one accepts the principal that all female conciousness is defined within the boundaries of patriarchy, and is thus only-ever perverted into a false consent within this structure (for instance in the matter of sex), and can not be freed ideologically from that structure, we must conclude that Dworkin's and McKinnon's argument is also an expression of patriarchal perversions as their conciousness has also been shaped by that very same structure.

Or if we conclude that it is possible for for women to free themselves from the patriarchal ideology and find a true expression of themselves, as Dworkin and McKinnon claim that they have, then we must also conclude that other women may be able to do so, and also disagree with Dworkin et al.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

How would you even know, since men don't talk about their actual sexual experiences with each other, they only brag about their conquests, real or imagined.

---

er... that may have been a double negative just now... sorry.

But seriously, I'm sorry you hate sex so much. It's also unfortunate that as eloquent and intelligent as you clearly are, hating sex has rendered you fully incapable of having a worthwhile discussion about it.

This is what I find offensive. We can dress it up as "feminism", but it's not, no more than Puritanism is "Christian".

What it is, is a very nasty form of busybodyism, which uses feminism or Christianity or other isms or itys as a pretext for imposing their will upon others.

The whole idea of feminism is to allow women the freedom of choice in all things. I find it repugnant that there are some who would use feminism as a guise to squelch expressions of that freedom just because it may not be the way they would express themselves.

It's pathological controlling behavior.

quote:

---

...or even safe (anal intercourse is the leading means by which HIV is transmitted), and is explicity and deliberately degrading to women, or to feminized queers, who are in subjugated roles.

---

Hold up, there, pardners. Having been on the top and the bottom of anal intercourse-- even occasionally in the course of a single session of love-making-- I can tell you that between consenting adult queers, the act has absolutely nothing to do with subjugation, 'feminizing,' or the state of being 'feminized.'

That's one of the more boldly steroetypical, offensive ideas I've ever read here.

quote:

---

Vigilante, don't you think it's obvious that women who say they like misogynist practices such as double penetration and submissive, heterosexual sado-masochism have been influenced by porn, and by men whom they fall in love with and find that this is what he wants?

---

Why would you frame that as misogynist? It's not my cup of tea mostly because it involves more than one partner and that's outside of my value system and/or it doesn't fit with my concept of sexual relations as a romantic exchange but other people have different values and a different lifestyle.

quote:

---

Vigilante, don't you think it's obvious that women who say they like misogynist practices such as double penetration and submissive, heterosexual sado-masochism have been influenced by porn, and by men whom they fall in love with and find that this is what he wants?

---

I find that a pretty extreme position. And you are also assuming that persons are engaging in something unwanted to please their spouse rather than consider that some women may see value in this.

quote:

---

I don't need to tell you how effectively Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon and many other feminist experts have demolished the whole mythology of consent.

---

Are you limiting this to S&M or are you suggesting it's broader than that even?

quote:

---

they did so because the sex in pornography is not natural, is not healthy or even safe (anal intercourse is the leading means by which HIV is transmitted), and is explicity and deliberately degrading to women, or to feminized queers, who are in subjugated roles.

---

I am completely against pornography myself but I never thought I'd see the term feminized queers on babble. That's w-r-o-n-g to say.

quote:

---

I can't see the inherent violence or degradation in either of them.I think it is POSSIBLE for both to be violent or degrading, but I don't think violence or degradation is INHERENT in the practices.There ARE women who do this stuff consensually, because they like it. What business is it of yours if a woman has sex with two men at the same time and enjoys it? How is that degrading or violent?Personally, I think the kind of prudery that leads to condemning consenting adults because of their sexual tastes and kinks is degrading and the condemnation itself emotionally violent.

---

Good point.

quote:

---

That's one of the more boldly steroetypical, offensive ideas I've ever read here.

Fight this bizarre battle amongst yourselves if you must, but leave the queers out of it.

---

The initial logic (the existence of only sex and rape), however, is fundamentally flawed for both sexes and all sexual orientations. It assumes that in an unequal society, everyone is able to choose freely. It denies the reality that it is usually women who engage in prostitution and that consumers of said services are usually male (Johns). It denies the reality that porn is for males. That is, scripts are usually devised for women to play out presumably for males to enjoy. Porn IS male which is not to say, by the way, that all males enjoy porn. There is a tremendous difference.

So, how are we to explain these differences? Are prostitutes more likely to be female because women have much higher sex drives than do males? Are male prostitutes more likely to be gay because homosexual males have much higher sex drives? Can we realistically claim these differences are just incidental? I suggest that these behaviours are not simply expressions nor violations of free will. Simply put, there is an “influence” in between which affects all sexes and sexual orientations. Dworkin and MacKinnon picked up on this “system” and it is diminutive to males and females.

It is honourable that babblers refrain from judging others. But that is not to say that we should restrain ourselves from judging the structure of society. After all, we want to make a better society built ON freedom, not pretending that it already exists. Such logic is used by the right to legitimize existing inequality. I do not judge the poor, but I do not think people should have to live in poverty. I do not judge prostitutes, but I think that prostitution should not be a viable option for women. I do not judge homosexuals, but I do not think we should have to deal with homophobia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:

I'm not ignoring your question MD, but I'm not going to answer it because it's too prejudicial.

---

I appreciate what you're saying Anchoress, I plead guilty to arguing my point too personally.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

I think it is POSSIBLE for both to be violent or degrading, but I don't think violence or degradation is INHERENT in the practices.

There ARE women who do this stuff consensually, because they like it.

---

I take your points seriously, Michelle, but I don't agree at all. The practices mentioned above are inherently violent and degrading by their very nature, with men assuming power and control over women. That's why it's not OKay for a feminist woman to allow herself to be used in a DP let alone TP scene. And any kind of bondage or SM, with all its nazi and slave plantation antecedents is also off limits. Women who are feminists cannot legitimately be involved in sexual rituals that celebrate and recreate the very worst symbols of patriarchy and racism.

Here is some material about the basic nature of pornography by Andrea Dworkin:

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/PornIntro1.html

Andrea quotes from Linda Marchiano, the one-time "star" of Deep Throat, "every time someone watches that film, they are watching me being raped"

"I'm an incest survivor, ex-pornography model, and ex-prostitute," the woman says. "My incest story begins before preschool and ends many years later--this was with my father. I was also molested by an uncle and a minister . . . my father forced me to perform sexual acts with men at a stag party when I was a teenager. . . . My father was my pimp in pornography. There were three occasions from ages nine to sixteen when he forced me to be a pornography model . . . in Nebraska, so, yes, it does happen here." 3

I was thirteen when I was forced into prostitution and pornography, the woman says. I was drugged, raped, gang-raped, imprisoned, beaten, sold from one pimp to another, photographed by pimps, photographed by tricks; I was used in pornography and they used pornography on me; they knew a child's face when they looked into it. It was clear that I was not acting of my own free will. I was always covered with welts and bruises. . . . It was even clearer that I was sexually inexperienced. I literally didn't know what to do. So they showed me pornography to teach me about sex and then they would ignore my tears as they positioned my body like the women in the pictures and used me."4

"As I speak about pornography, here, today," the woman says, "I am talking about my life." I was
raped by my uncle when I was ten, by my stepbrother and stepfather by the time I was twelve. My stepbrother was making pornography of me by the time I was fourteen. "I was not even sixteen years old and my life reality consisted of sucking cocks, posing nude, performing sexual acts and actively being repeatedly raped." 5

However, to use one woman's testimony regarding her abuse during the making of one sex film can't be considered by ANY serious person to be a reasonable source from which to extrapolate the nature of all sex that is filmed. Come ON. You may as well use a photograph of a red flower to make the argument that every photograph has a red flower in it. You might show us a book with a character named Adam to prove that you can't make a book without naming someone Adam in it.

Contrary to what Hollywood may have believed in 2004, it IS possible to make a mainstream film without Jude Law in it. And contrary to what using precisely one porn film as evidence may lead you to believe, it IS possible to film sex without eliciting its performance by force, duress or coercion.

I mean is there EVER such a thing as a healthy, mutually beneficial heterosexual (or heterosexualized, if you will) sex act? If so, does filming it change its nature?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tape_342:
Hold up, there, pardners. Having been on the top and the bottom of anal intercourse-- even occasionally in the course of a single session of love-making-- I can tell you that between consenting adult queers, the act has absolutely nothing to do with subjugation, 'feminizing,' or the state of being 'feminized.'

That's one of the more boldly steroetypical, offensive ideas I've ever read here.

---

I thought I had a ready reference for what I had said in that passage, but my index has failed me. Still, I think it's obvious that in gay or lesbain SM role play there are acknowledged dominant or male roles and acknowledged submissive or female roles. And in hetero SM the situation is obvious. So that is the kind of dynamic I was referring to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesse Dignity:
I mean is there EVER such a thing as a healthy, mutually beneficial heterosexual (or heterosexualized, if you will) sex act? If so, does filming it change its nature?

This time, please take a shot at answering one of the questions asked to you.

---

I can tell you are angry. Believe me, I am very angry as well, angry that after all these years, and even so soon after Andrea's passing one still has to argue and re-argue basic positions.

Many Canadian feminsts were really proud of the way in which our own Supreme Court adopted the work of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon in the 1992 Butler decision, which made degradation a key factor in deciding if a particular piece of pornography was bad enough to be considered obscene and therefore criminal. Has that time passed, are Canadian feminists now backing away from that victory and endorsing some post-modern anything goes philosophy?

I'm not going to argue with someone who says they have felt degraded by pornography. I have felt the same numerous times. I am not going to argue with someone who says some depictions in pornography are degrading; I agree. I am not going to argue with someone who says the pornography industry is exploitive and sexist; I agree. How much it contributes to actual sexism and inequality is something I wish to continue exploring.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:
Still, I think it's obvious that in gay or lesbain SM role play there are acknowledged dominant or male roles and acknowledged submissive or female roles. And in hetero SM the situation is obvious. So that is the kind of dynamic I was referring to.

---

I don't know how exactly to get through to someone who cannot see beyond a rigid male-female relational view. But here goes.

Understand this: at no point during homosexual sex or during a gay relationship does one partner become 'the woman' and the other become 'the man.' I've not done any S&M really, but those that I know who have done it simply don't concieve of it in masculine/feminine terms. Your paradigm is faulty; it bears no relationship to gay reality.

quote:

---

Again, I wish I had my copy of the Joy of Sex handy, but I know it's later issues recommend against anal intercourse for reasons of safety, specifically HIV. Granted, this poses a larger burden on gay men, and I have no ready answer for that. What do you think of the risks yourself?

---

Anal sex thay takes place within a committed, monogamous relationship-- gay or straight-- wherein both parnters are sero-negative poses zero risk of HIV infection.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:
Still, I think it's obvious that in gay or lesbain SM role play there are acknowledged dominant or male roles and acknowledged submissive or female roles.

---

How incredibly sexist and homophobic!

Can strong, feminist women be submisives in such a scenario? I know so empirically. In fact, of all the women I have met who share this interest, there are very, very few who gave off a submissive "vibe" outside the scene. On the contrary.

I think the view expressed by Masterdebator is based on the most superficial understanding of these things, supperficial to the point of bigotry.

In an S&M scene, people play with the paradox of control, and when it's over, it's over.

With those who hold the views expressed by Masterdebator, control is a 24/7 preoccupation, and not part of fantasy or play. It's very real.

quote:

---

I hope this quote from someone who actually was used in making pornography is powerful enough to force the men who enjoy using pornography for their own "harmless pleasure" (masturbation) will kindly think again at what they are looking at as they put the video in the machine or pick up the magazine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:
I can tell you are angry. Believe me, I am very angry as well, angry that after all these years, and even so soon after Andrea's passing one still has to argue and re-argue basic positions.

---

I'm more impatient than angry. But the reason you have to re-establish basic positions with me is that I am very new to the field of arguing about feminism and I haven't heard it all yet. Until last week, I'd only heard of Dworkin in the context of other people strawmanning her supposed opinions into pieces. It hadn't occurred to me that there might be misrepresentation to some extent, and that I might still find worthwhile ideas in her work if I didn't agree with much of it. So now I've read a bit and learned a bit and still disagree with QUITE a bit but my point is that just because the overall level of feminist discourse in the world might be past all this stuff, I'm personally not.

quote:

---

Many Canadian feminsts were really proud of the way in which our own Supreme Court adopted the work of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon in the 1992 Butler decision

---

And I understand that many Canadian feminists were really dismayed by it.

quote:

---

Has that time passed, are Canadian feminists now backing away from that victory and endorsing some post-modern anything goes philosophy?

---

Maybe some are, I mean it's certainly not like they move in a bloc nowadays, but I think more commonly there might be a something-goes philosophy?

quote:

---

Can there ever be healthy protrayals of sexuality? Of course, but that is not what we get in pornography that is commercially produced in the US. Perhaps in Europe, I don't know.

---

It may not surprise you to know that the volume of pornography produced in the US is vastly greater than any individual could hope to survey even if they really like the stuff. Even if you make the argument that its mainstream is representative of all the ills you attribute to the genre as a whole, you're still not making a logical argument that that's neccessarily what porn IS. I know I made a similar comparison above, but you may as well be saying that hollywood movies are all bad because they're poorly directed, just because the commercial mainstream of movies seem poorly directed to you.

I mean since you've just technically conceded that porn (literally, a graphic portrayal of sex activity) can conceivably not be unhealthy, you've immediately relinquished a tenable foothold from which to argue against pornography itself as an entity. You are suddenly only able to argue against SOME pornography.

And I think also that if you limited your arguments to only being against SOME pornography, even though people such as myself will still disagree with the things you say about specific sexual acts or arrangements being intrinsically sexist, you are going to cut your work in HALF when it comes to people who also agree that degradation is bad but don't see all pornography as neccessarily degrading.

Or would you prefer to retract this part:

quote:

---

Can there ever be healthy protrayals of sexuality? Of course, but that is not what we get in pornography that is commercially produced in the US. Perhaps in Europe, I don't know.

---

...and continue to fight too broad of a battle on principle?

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: Jesse Dignity ]

quote:

---

MasterDebator:
Has that time passed, are Canadian feminists now backing away from that victory and endorsing some post-modern anything goes philosophy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:

How incredibly sexist and homophobic!

Incidentally, in heterosexual SM play it is overwhelmingly women who are dominant. Straight SM is primarily about men who wish to be submissive.

---

I totally reject your statement that I am being either sexist or homophobic. That is just a dodge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tape_342:
Anal sex thay takes place within a committed, monogamous relationship-- gay or straight-- wherein both parnters are sero-negative poses zero risk of HIV infection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:
If you assume away the risk with pre-conditions, you are indeed in a position to say that, under those conditions, there is no risk. You're being really serious here, aren't you?

---

You originally asked, "What do you think of the risks yourself?"

Perhaps "MasterDebator" is making the assumption that most of us gay boys are just awash in HIV, and just doesn't like "preconditions" that don't jive with his/her carefully-constructed scenario?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:

I totally reject your statement that I am being either sexist or homophobic. That is just a dodge.

---

I thought that was Jason Kenny that happened to...

[ 25 April 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

You blew it when you admitted you don't like receiving any pain at all yourself. So why do you insist on claiming that there are untold millions of women out there who are just dying for some pain in their sex?

---

How on earth is acknowledging that there exist others who like things I don't "blowing it"?? I'm simply being humble enough to allow them a difference of opinion from mine without any assumption on my part that they're confused, deluded, brainwashed or stupid. They like a little pain, I don't.

quote:

---

Where did you get this incredible idea from if it wasn't from pornography?

---

From people.

quote:

---

I totally reject your statement that I am being either sexist or homophobic. That is just a dodge.

---

Um, yes you actually are. You're telling gays how they act, and trying to tell them their 'feminized'. How are you NOT being sexist and homophobic?

quote:

---

Your "knowledge" of how many women versus men are submissive in the heterosexual SM "scene" displays your complete ignorance of what is going on in society.

---

As opposed to your "knowledge"? Good male submission and tell me it doesn't exist.

quote:

---

If you assume away the risk with pre-conditions, you are indeed in a position to say that, under those conditions, there is no risk. You're being really serious here, aren't you?

---

Dear god no! Conditions on when the sex is safe? Next thing you know, we'll have to have conditions for safe vaginal sex too! Like could you imagine if you had to wear a condom to prevent the spread of STD's in vaginal sex? Well, dear god, you might even claim that it can be "safe". That's just being subversive, claiming it's safe when I could get a disease screwing some random women without using protection. Safe my ass.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tape_342:

You originally asked, "What do you think of the risks yourself?"

My answer reflected my opinion, as well as my personal situation.

---

I tried to find my original source on this topic, an old copy of The Joy of Sex, but apparently I had put that into a garage sale pile a couple of years ago when I reached 50 and felt it was time to part with it.

I was just going from memory and there is apparently new, more advanced information on this issue.

From the Health Canada website comes the statement: "With proper condom use, anal intercourse is a low risk activity."

Sorry, but the URL thingy isn't working right now so this is the best I can do:

quote:

---

I was just going from memory and there is apparently new, more advanced information on this issue.

---

quote:

---

From the Health Canada website comes the statement: "With proper condom use, anal intercourse is a low risk activity."

---