Mackinnon vs. Strossen - on pornography

[Sunstone]

"Bad art" can be me walking into a modern art gallery, seeing a red dot on a canvas and saying, "that's bad art."

And what the hell is "bad art?"

I fear answering you here would hopelessly derail this thread. But a few days ago, I started a thread, "What Makes Something Art", and I would welcome a discussion of bad art there, if you would like.

 

[Sunstone]

I think McElroy's definition is a start, but I'm not entirely happy with it. I would define pornography as a depiction of men and/or women that reduces them to mere sexual beings. My definition would not exclude at least some romance novels. That is, I think at least some romance novels constitute a form of pornography in so far as they reduce men to their sexuality.

Having said that, I think McElroy and I would be in broad agreement about what constitutes porn, for the most part.

I do think that my definition of porn has the advantage over McElroy's definition in that my definition gets at what I find objectionable about porn -- that it objectifies, or reduces, a person merely to his or her sexuality. And, so far as I understand it, this is akin to the objection I have to racism. That is, I see racism as reducing a person merely to his or her race. So, I think there is some consistency in my definition between why we object to porn, and why we object to other things (such as racism).

Last, as I understand it, reducing a person to merely one attribute of them, is dehumanizing.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Yes I do think your definition is an improvement

 

[dust1n]

1) How both arguments have impacted the social framework of how women are seen, how women see themselves, and how women see other people.

It seems as such, though I might not be immediately great at articulating it. I think women see themselves as free and empowered, capable of making their own choices, but at the same time, they seem themselves as still disenfranchised in strange ways that still have to do with arrogance on behalf of many people.

2) Is there a commonality between anti-porn and pro-porn stances? If so, what is it?

Free agency of women, obviously. It seems to me that there are those who believe entering an economic contract is indicative of a true expression of will, something pure that can't be coerced. There are many others who recognize the blurriness in this sort of assumption, and about how power can be used then in more then just physical coercion.

3) Since both feminists offered their arguments before the advent of internet porn, do you think their stances might have evolved?

I would definitely assume so, but I am not that far caught up on it quite yet.

4) Finally, has the issue of human trafficking become a bigger factor in each of their stances? How does it complicate or simplify their stances?

It complicates the notion of free agency in an industry.



Don't forget to respond to my first post. =D

 

[MysticSang'ha]

16 / WENDY McELROY

XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography

I agree with Elroy on these points. I don't think pornography be bad... necessarily.

Individualist feminism provides the best defense of pornography because its ideology is the mirror image of radical feminism, from which the most effective attack on porn is coming

I'm rather skeptical of "individualist" anything, which generally never accounts for communal problems and communal solutions.

This reflects in her list of arguments for why porn is good for women, in which all but one point is arguing for the good of women viewing porn, not working in it.

I grant you that. In my POV, it's a start. For generations, women were thought to not even have a sex drive (much less the ability to orgasm). Self-agency and education on not only autonomous sex drives, but the biological mechanics and processes of female sexuality, brain activity during sex in cross-cultural studies, and social stratification of phallocentricism still considered the ideal offer perspectives for feminists to consider as important when discussing the theory of pornography.

But it's time to address the application of pornography in a phallocentric society that continues to have an ejaculatory bias. As you introduce below:

The only one that does even address those working in the porn industry follows:



Now I know McElroy is an individualist anarchist and not a collectivist, so I'll try my best not to let me bias bleed over into me words, but I feel a little bit, like, the women who work in prostitution are completely disregarded in her argument; and I'm not sure how I am suppose to feel about the notion that poor regulation, public recognition, and glamorization are to be the solutions in which the individual is to address this.

I don't think anyone here is unfamiliar with the notion that money is in power. It's an old cliche but it's true. There are a lot of powers. Different manifestations, but same inherent concept. Money can be used to manipulate, and I feel bad for the many women and men who are misled by the guidance of money and which mostly appears to be high people boning in such ways that I can't really even imagine possible with the use of local anesthesia and at least alcohol.

Drug abuse is rampant in the sex industry, unfortunately. So is trafficking. So is rape, violence, and either murder or disappearance. What I initially ponder on when thinking about the problems porn actresses and prostitutes face is that such occupations are still severely stigmatized by the culture. Porn actresses and prostitutes, in spite of engaging in the occupations with complete autonomy, become nameless and faceless by the rest of the culture. We can of course point to some success stories with Jenna Jameson and Sasha Grey and Nina Hartley, but the vast vast majority of porn actresses - and nearly all prostitutes - are sadly considered non-people. This is a cultural problem that not just bleeds, but gushes blood, into our economic system and numerous transnational criminal organizations.

So, saying this as someone who has easily got off to videos of porn stars who have later stated a kind of regret with their involvement the entire industry, I'm not quite satisfied the consumer's concern is what I had in mind, some of which I find legitimate via her arguments, and others haphazardly constructed.

And the anti-porn argument is not to be dismissed. However, my position - and I hope I'm clear with this - is that to be in favor of porn does not automatically equate to being in favor of the existing violence against women and girls in the sex industry.

My purpose for starting this discussion is to find that common ground for the purpose of having a more unified front toward a) sexual autonomy for women; and b) combating the violence and harm in the sex industry. I am quite sure that both sides of the debate are in agreement with both (a) and (b) here, yes?

 

[dust1n]

I grant you that. In my POV, it's a start. For generations, women were thought to not even have a sex drive (much less the ability to orgasm). Self-agency and education on not only autonomous sex drives, but the biological mechanics and processes of female sexuality, brain activity during sex in cross-cultural studies, and social stratification of phallocentricism still considered the ideal offer perspectives for feminists to consider as important when discussing the theory of pornography.

But it's time to address the application of pornography in a phallocentric society that continues to have an ejaculatory bias. As you introduce below:

When you put it in that context, the issue, well, especially her particular approach, makes sense. I suppose there was a time in which women as sexual beings was entirely disregarded for being unbelievable. So, I don't hold it against here. These arguments are good for the consumer, for women wanting to explore whatever is out there.

The only issue I have with the notion is that pornography is seen somewhat as educational tool, and it seems, in this position, to be something better then what can be learned through actual interactive with people. I hope that makes kinda sense, but I feel like the issue of sexual education is something that can only be legitimately explored or understood by virtue of actually engaging in sexual activity with partners who are receptive and understanding.

For example, I'm not sure I really feel like I've learned much from watching pornography... or anything, I guess, that couldn't be learned through another means. And there are certainly things I've learned in intercourse that I've never even seen.

But the majority of things I've picked up from pornography seem to myths to some extent. It's hard to tell at this point, but there is... well the power of production and editing that can... easily misrepresent something that is very different in practice.

Drug abuse is rampant in the sex industry, unfortunately. So is trafficking. So is rape, violence, and either murder or disappearance. What I initially ponder on when thinking about the problems porn actresses and prostitutes face is that such occupations are still severely stigmatized by the culture. Porn actresses and prostitutes, in spite of engaging in the occupations with complete autonomy, become nameless and faceless by the rest of the culture. We can of course point to some success stories with Jenna Jameson and Sasha Grey and Nina Hartley, but the vast vast majority of porn actresses - and nearly all prostitutes - are sadly considered non-people. This is a cultural problem that not just bleeds, but gushes blood, into our economic system and numerous transnational criminal organizations.

I agree with your assessment. Do you suggest that is stigma went away, we would see less problems in the porn industry by virtue of people not considering workers non-people who, when attacked or what have you, remain invisible to the public eye?

And the anti-porn argument is not to be dismissed. However, my position - and I hope I'm clear with this - is that to be in favor of porn does not automatically equate to being in favor of the existing violence against women and girls in the sex industry.

My purpose for starting this discussion is to find that common ground for the purpose of having a more unified front toward a) sexual autonomy for women; and b) combating the violence and harm in the sex industry. I am quite sure that both sides of the debate are in agreement with both (a) and (b) here, yes?

I think that is fair; I'm just curious to see what plans anyone has to accomplish (b), because as long as our society is based around market principles more so then anything else, I don't think we are going to be seeing a difference anytime soon.

That being said -- porn is great outside the context of money. There is no concern for me in such events because there is no haziness in the autonomy. But, to say in such circumstances where a woman is balancing the need for several dollars quickly in order to make rent and/or feed a kid, or simply malnourished their child waiting longer to receive an even more time-consuming job in which one must wait two weeks for a check, etc. etc., I start to fail to see the autonomy. I'd be a little less sketchy. When an 18-year-old girl can earn 10 times as much in a day then an entire month doing any other work, I get a little concerned about what opportunities are actually available for women.

 

[DallasApple]

I'm still thinking on my answer.

 

[Penumbra]

The only issue I have with the notion is that pornography is seen somewhat as educational tool, and it seems, in this position, to be something better then what can be learned through actual interactive with people. I hope that makes kinda sense, but I feel like the issue of sexual education is something that can only be legitimately explored or understood by virtue of actually engaging in sexual activity with partners who are receptive and understanding.

For example, I'm not sure I really feel like I've learned much from watching pornography... or anything, I guess, that couldn't be learned through another means. And there are certainly things I've learned in intercourse that I've never even seen.

But the majority of things I've picked up from pornography seem to myths to some extent. It's hard to tell at this point, but there is... well the power of production and editing that can... easily misrepresent something that is very different in practice.

There have been studies saying that not only is porn not educational, it's anti-educational- harmful to real sex. It can give people an entirely unrealistic understanding of sex, and I don't think studies would even be needed to come to that conclusion. On top of that, with internet porn, where people can access anything they want at any time, studies have shown that people who watch a lot of internet porn have reduced libidos, most likely from the brain becoming accustomed to constant dopamine spikes that they can create at any time with a Google search.

 

[dust1n]

There have been studies saying that not only is porn not educational, it's anti-educational- harmful to real sex. It can give people an entirely unrealistic understanding of sex, and I don't think studies would even be needed to come to that conclusion. On top of that, with internet porn, where people can access anything they want at any time, studies have shown that people who watch a lot of internet porn have reduced libidos, most likely from the brain becoming accustomed to constant dopamine spikes that they can create at any time with a Google search.

That isn't surprising, regarding dopamine spikes... it's the same regarding anything that triggers dopamine -- abuse depletes the supply.

Now only am I not really convinced that pornography is really educational (even when it is about as soft and feminist as it gets, because even these depictions are not well qualified, and when they are, they are ignored anyways), but that it is, in fact, anti-educational. I would interested in seeing that study.

"There is so much evidence about the effect that porn is having. We know that it's becoming more violent. The definitive piece of research from 2010, which analysed the top 50 sites and DVDs, found that 90% of all content included physical or verbal abuse against women. That's proper empirical evidence-based research. But that is not what these women do. Their research is not evidence-based."...

What people don't realise, she says, is how much pornographic material now is violent. Rape Crisis South London carried out simple research that involved typing "rape porn" into Google and then quantified the results: 86% of sites that came up advertised videos depicting the rape of under-18s, 75% involved guns or knives, 43% showed the woman drugged, and 46% purported to be incest rape.


It's true. People don't realise. Or at least I didn't. After reading the Mail article, I type "rape porn" into Google to find more articles on the subject. But "rape porn" doesn't bring up articles on the subject. It brings up videos of women being raped...

Porn wars: the debate that's dividing academia | Culture | The Observer

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

That isn't surprising, regarding dopamine spikes... it's the same regarding anything that triggers dopamine -- abuse depletes the supply.

Now only am I not really convinced that pornography is really educational (even when it is about as soft and feminist as it gets, because even these depictions are not well qualified, and when they are, they are ignored anyways), but that it is, in fact, anti-educational. I would interested in seeing that study.

"There is so much evidence about the effect that porn is having. We know that it's becoming more violent. The definitive piece of research from 2010, which analysed the top 50 sites and DVDs, found that 90% of all content included physical or verbal abuse against women. That's proper empirical evidence-based research. But that is not what these women do. Their research is not evidence-based."...

What people don't realise, she says, is how much pornographic material now is violent. Rape Crisis South London carried out simple research that involved typing "rape porn" into Google and then quantified the results: 86% of sites that came up advertised videos depicting the rape of under-18s, 75% involved guns or knives, 43% showed the woman drugged, and 46% purported to be incest rape.


It's true. People don't realise. Or at least I didn't. After reading the Mail article, I type "rape porn" into Google to find more articles on the subject. But "rape porn" doesn't bring up articles on the subject. It brings up videos of women being raped...

Porn wars: the debate that's dividing academia | Culture | The Observer

When I was active in a different forum, there was a time when some threads were made spamming/advertising porn. When I opened the thread I saw pictures of men robbing a shop, and they held two women hostage and had guns pointed at their exposed vaginas. (I assumed it wasn't a real hostage because it looked very posed)
But it made me think, why would anyone want to get off to that?

 

[DallasApple]

[QUOTEBut it made me think, why would anyone want to get off to that?][/QUOTE]

Power.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

[QUOTEBut it made me think, why would anyone want to get off to that?]

Power.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I know, power, hate for women, etc. What I mean is I will never understand it. Guess I was being rhetorical.

 

[DallasApple]

Power.

Yeah I know, power, hate for women, etc. What I mean is I will never understand it. Guess I was being rhetorical.[/QUOTE]

Adrenaline.

I think you understand it .Just could never get that affect your self from it .Maybe.

 

[DallasApple]

But believe me you .Its only cowards that get that "kick" out of what you described.They are very weak people.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

When you put it in that context, the issue, well, especially her particular approach, makes sense. I suppose there was a time in which women as sexual beings was entirely disregarded for being unbelievable. So, I don't hold it against here. These arguments are good for the consumer, for women wanting to explore whatever is out there.

The only issue I have with the notion is that pornography is seen somewhat as educational tool, and it seems, in this position, to be something better then what can be learned through actual interactive with people. I hope that makes kinda sense, but I feel like the issue of sexual education is something that can only be legitimately explored or understood by virtue of actually engaging in sexual activity with partners who are receptive and understanding.

I totally agree. Porn is a horrible educational tool. I take a radical view of seeing pornography as art, because there is such a thing as representing what fantasies exist in the minds of the producers, or the viewers, and the medium itself being filmed sexual acts and pieced together to create whatever story or narrative they want.

So, for me, porn is something to see as a denotation of how we as a society view what sex looks like. Or that it should look like. Or how people wish it looked like. I think it speaks more about us as a culture than we would like to believe.

For example, I'm not sure I really feel like I've learned much from watching pornography... or anything, I guess, that couldn't be learned through another means. And there are certainly things I've learned in intercourse that I've never even seen.

But the majority of things I've picked up from pornography seem to myths to some extent. It's hard to tell at this point, but there is... well the power of production and editing that can... easily misrepresent something that is very different in practice.

Very true. FWIW, I like porn. I like it, however, in a way that I like B-movies. As a consumer, they're just hilarious and in-your-face (literally). But how campy B-movies speaks so much about us as a culture, I see porn as offering the same opportunity for contemplation.

I agree with your assessment. Do you suggest that is stigma went away, we would see less problems in the porn industry by virtue of people not considering workers non-people who, when attacked or what have you, remain invisible to the public eye?

Call me PollyAnna....yes. I think the stigma is a major causative effect on the influence of underground crime. It happens with many other vices that are either heavily shamed or illegalized.

I think that is fair; I'm just curious to see what plans anyone has to accomplish (b), because as long as our society is based around market principles more so then anything else, I don't think we are going to be seeing a difference anytime soon.

That being said -- porn is great outside the context of money. There is no concern for me in such events because there is no haziness in the autonomy. But, to say in such circumstances where a woman is balancing the need for several dollars quickly in order to make rent and/or feed a kid, or simply malnourished their child waiting longer to receive an even more time-consuming job in which one must wait two weeks for a check, etc. etc., I start to fail to see the autonomy. I'd be a little less sketchy. When an 18-year-old girl can earn 10 times as much in a day then an entire month doing any other work, I get a little concerned about what opportunities are actually available for women.

Yes. Which is why I disagree with anybody if they were to suggest that patriarchy is dead. It isn't. It's alive and well and thriving off antiquated views of a woman's sexual and financial autonomy. The porn industry is yet another symptom of it. It needs a lot of improvement.

 

[dust1n]

I totally agree. Porn is a horrible educational tool. I take a radical view of seeing pornography as art, because there is such a thing as representing what fantasies exist in the minds of the producers, or the viewers, and the medium itself being filmed sexual acts and pieced together to create whatever story or narrative they want.

So, for me, porn is something to see as a denotation of how we as a society view what sex looks like. Or that it should look like. Or how people wish it looked like. I think it speaks more about us as a culture than we would like to believe.

That, I could agree with.

Very true. FWIW, I like porn. I like it, however, in a way that I like B-movies. As a consumer, they're just hilarious and in-your-face (literally). But how campy B-movies speaks so much about us as a culture, I see porn as offering the same opportunity for contemplation.

I think that's a legitimate perspective.

Call me PollyAnna....yes. I think the stigma is a major causative effect on the influence of underground crime. It happens with many other vices that are either heavily shamed or illegalized.

That's a good point, though I'm not %100 sure all vices will act on the same principles, but I can't deny that the stigma plays some major role, perhaps one I'm can't fully quite grasp.

Yes. Which is why I disagree with anybody if they were to suggest that patriarchy is dead. It isn't. It's alive and well and thriving off antiquated views of a woman's sexual and financial autonomy. The porn industry is yet another symptom of it. It needs a lot of improvement.

A ton of improvement.

Thanks for your response, btw. It's rather insane to me how much something pornography is related to some many other societal issues, and how they mix. There is something undeniably powerful about it.