When ideals collide... porn vs. feminism

[renie408]

I have found the entire porn debate that has been going on lately fascinating on several levels. It has got me wondering about how we all rank our progressive ideals differently. For some, First Amendment rights are paramount. Anything that smacks of limiting free speech is anathema. For others, the welfare of women is their primary focus and anything that objectifies women is the worst thing. Then there are those who just want to enjoy their porn without pondering it's political ramifications.

Here's what I wonder....Can there be a Progressive Theory of Everything where ALL the tenets important to a progressive agenda work cohesively? Or do we always have to triage our interests and place our concerns in the order they speak to us most? Can Free Speech (I don't know why I always feel compelled to capitalize 'Free Speech', but I do) live side by side with a concern for the objectification and minimizing of women?

It seems like each side of this issue is defending their position based on important progressive ideals. But what is the MOST important progressive ideal? What comes first? For me, it is along the lines of 'do no harm'. Free speech? Damn straight. As long as it doesn't potentially harm someone else.

P.S. I recognize that feminism and pornography are not mutually exclusive. I was trying in my title to succinctly represent the two sides I see being discussed the most.

[renie408]

1. Ok...I think I got all the typos

Typing anything on a Kindle at 5 in the morning when you have had four hours of sleep is DAMN hard.

[Democracyinkind]

2. While dodging your original and interesting question, let me just say this...

The whole debate is a parade of straw-men -- the people that want to ban porn are just as much a kooky minority as those that consume rape porn. Yet we automatically ascribe those positions to each participant in those threads, depending on which side of the issue we fall on, thereby pretending that the two extremes are more than just two fringe positions that almost nobody actually holds.

[FreakinDJ]

3. Good Answer

[renie408]

5. I know

Every time I say "maybe each person needs to think about how their consumption of porn works with their progressive ideals", inevitably somebody yells at me for wanting to ban porn. NO! I do jot want to ban porn. There are perfectly fine porn appetites which have no larger implications than a little sexual gratification. BUT... there are some which you would think would have to present a conflict of interest, as it were.

[kcr]

23. That pretty much sums it up n/t

[madinmaryland]

33. I am a bit confused by your assertion comparing pornography to rape pornography..

Are you saying that the two are essentially the same thing?

[Democracyinkind]

34. I compared two fringe groups

thos that want to ban porn, and those that consume rape porn.

Both are - IMHO - an insignificant minority.

[madinmaryland]

35. I don't know if that is even an apt comparison...

It has been shown that a lot of people (men) who want porn banned are also some of the biggest consumers of it. It has been shown that in some of the most conservative areas of the country, that they have the highest consumption of porn. Don't know what type of porn is being rented/viewed, though.

[Democracyinkind]

39. I only compared them regarding their numbers/significance.

[BainsBane]

4. I think there are two fundamentally different wordviews

One based on individual liberty and the other on the social good. In my view, the problem with placing such high value on the individual's rights is that it elevates those with wealth and status above those without, which often tend to be women and people of color. Capitalism, and hence the US form of government, is based on the rights of the individual to acquire property, wealth, and privilege with little regard to those affected as a result. I see porn much like any capitalist industry, not dissimilar to gun manufacturers. Those who own companies and can afford to purchase goods assume their rights are universal. Of course they are not. They are the product of varying degrees of wealth and privilege that exceed the status of workers in those industries and those hurt by the violence both engender. In my view, Ignoring the social good in favor of the individual's liberty leads to even further inequality and exploitation. Socialism envisions a greater role for the state to correct such imbalances, but of course this is not a socialist country. Individual liberty, wielded disproportionately by the privileged, trumps the social good. Capitalism requires such a conception of individual rights in order to justify the accumulation of capital and exploitation of labor integral to the system.

Even those without significant wealth or status vigorously defend the rights of the individual because they have been taught those values, which ultimately serve to justify capitalist accumulation and inequality. Or they defend the individual rights they see as benefiting them. For example, many here insist rape porn is protected by the First Amendment while rejecting the idea that money equals speech. Some insist the 2nd Amendment is inviolate while others reject that notion. Despite such differences, all of these conceptions of rights center around the individual because they come from the US constitution, which is the quintessential liberal document. That is, liberal in its classical sense, as the political corollary of capitalism.

Access to brutal porn is framed in terms of individual liberty. As with all rights based on the individual, it inevitably overlooks consequences to the greater society.

[OneGrassRoot]

9. Huge K&R to OP and this post, BainsBane...

So well stated.

[stevenleser]

11. I understand what you are trying to say, I just think tying 1st amendment to Laissez-fairism

which is essentially what your comment attempts to do, and saying they are both the same kind of selfish individual rights stuff doesn't work as a construct.

A large percentage of the most anti-capitalist people you can find would be very much in favor of free speech. I think most of those folks who participate in DU's Occupy group would fall under this category.

[Major Nikon]

55. I don't understand it at all

Porn exists under capitalism because of a demand for the product and a supply of people willing to produce it. Socialism doesn't change that dynamic. It just means labor gets a bigger piece of the pie.

[BainsBane]

131. That depends on how you define socialism

In a state run system, like Cuba before the fall of the USSR, there was very little private enterprise, so not much space for porn. Porn is a commerce. It yields profit. If a society is not built around profit, there would likely be some underground porn passed around between people but not the massive for-profit industry that results in tremendous labor exploitation and even slavery.

If on the other hand you are imagining a European social democratic system, the principal difference would be that a guarantee of a basic fair wage for work likely reduce the numbers of those who would choose to work in porn.

Neither of these scenarios, of course, account for the international commerce of porn and the internet.

My point, however, was not to imagine different forms of government that would eliminate porn but rather to point out that the emphasis on individual liberty that is the justification for porn--along with much else in American society--comes to us courtesy of capitalism. Our notion of rights as resting in the individual rather than the people as a whole is itself a capitalist notion. Our constitution is a liberal document--representing liberalism in its classical sense, in keeping with Adam Smith, John Locke, etc. . . Liberalism emerged as the political ideology underlying and justifying capitalism, which came to displace mercantilism.

Not only are notions of liberty tied to the emphasis on the individual essential to capitalism, but in reconciling competing rights, the marketplace--meaning corporate profit--becomes the determining factor. Money is defined as free speech because the ruling class benefits from such a notion. The Second Amendment emerges as inviolate because that conception guarantees profits for gun manufacturers, while porn is justified according to free speech and liberty because it yields profits for pornographers. Whenever rights come into conflict, as they very often do, they tend to be reconciled in ways that further the accumulation of capital (corporate profit).

[rrneck]

137. So

do you think that if we embrace some certain kind of socialism people will stop taking pictures of each other fucking?

[BainsBane]

139. As insightful as that question is

I direct you to the first paragraph where I already answered it.

[rrneck]

141. Ah,

so you're suggesting a barter system. Not a bad idea.

[ismnotwasm]

30. Well said.

But did you hear that swooshing noise? Right over heads.

[Tumbulu]

176. Beautifully stated

excellent writing and really sums up the issue.

Thanks

[PowerToThePeople]

209. This is truth. n/t

[Laelth]

6. You pose an interesting question.

While I have no "unified progressive theory" to offer, I will say that when I am shopping for a politician to support, I look primarily for a politician who is liberal on economic issues.

Here's a post on that topic from 2009: It's the economic issues that make us liberals.

-Laelth

[renie408]

13. I am.pretty much where you are...

I wouldn't support banning porn, but I feel like progressives need to consider where their sexual gratification collides with their political beliefs.

[ismnotwasm]

37. I don't think it needs to be banned

Like you've stated in your OP, I think it needs to be honestly examined.

Including the porn industry itself--which does not reflect liberal values--is supported by very large companies indeed. Occupy that, my friends.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/business/mainstream.html

[seabeyond]

44. i agree. i have never suggest banning, regardless of the strawman always thrown out. education,

awareness, honesty

[xulamaude]

56. A person who had not been following these

many threads would be led to believe that those most 'vocal' about the harms of porn (as opposed to the other two takes on it which would be 1. benefits of it, or 2. an ambivalence about it) are out to ban it.

However, having read pretty much every single exchange I can only recall a small few who have said outright 'I want porn to be banned.' and that from people whom I rarely see commenting on these issues.

It's fascinating (and disheartening) to watch how the reversal is accomplished.

[RainDog]

67. so what do you or others want to achieve?

the ones here talking about porn, that I saw recently, via links, were making specific claims about harm related to porn based upon links to a right wing think tank whose entire purpose is in opposition to liberalism and to DU.

do people just want to stand on the proverbial street corner and yell that they don't like porn?

...and then fight with others who say porn isn't your business if you don't like it?

okay. but don't post links to right wing sources in defense of a position.

there is no consensus on the harm of porn for women. the Dworkin and MacKinnon legal actions attempted to make porn a civil rights issue, even when the person involved consented, because of the opinion of a third party consumer.

that's pretty much asking for a horrid assault on 1st amendment rights, to be able to claim someone else's "speech" violated a third party's civil liberties. such law would not pass muster among any liberal in good standing.

what I have seen here is that people conflate their personal experience with universal experience, accuse people of things that are not part of their arguments (on another thread in a response from the person to whom you are replying, this person assumes there are multitudes here with a fetish for rape porn - which is a ridiculous assumption, but there you go) and then claim they are being attacked when this assumption is questioned.

this is a tactic that goes back to junior high school.

create your "in-group" by creating an "us vs. them" among people who, honestly, are simply saying that if someone doesn't like porn, don't pay attention to it. Find another hobby, that sort of thing.

[xulamaude]

73. I was simply making an observation.

If I choose to share what I would like to achieve here it will be readily available for everyone with an internet connection to see. As for others (here)? How could I possibly know that other than what I've already seen them post?

I did the rest of your post but all of the other points you bring up I have no comment on.

[RainDog]

75. okay

So, you don't want to make your opinion about this issue available here. interesting.

what do you think of Dworkin and MacKinnon's decision not to pursue a ban on porn because of their belief such a ban would drive porn even further underground?

I think it's interesting that they agree with the general understanding that prohibition of vice has the opposite effect of what is desired.

I also think the civil liberties argument was weak.

[xulamaude]

78. What's so interesting about it?

I simply have no comment on the points you raised.

[RainDog]

80. it's interesting that someone who participates on these threads

doesn't want to express their opinion about the issue.

this isn't the only thread you have commented on, iow, and you have made assertions about this or that.

so it's interesting, to me, that someone declines to clarify what they think about an issue when asked on a thread related to the VERY TOPIC - i.e. what do people who are anti-porn want in regard to the topic versus what others claim someone wants.

I would think, to make an assertion about what others claim would mean someone would be willing to talk about what they do propose in regard to an issue.

yeah, that's interesting to see.

[xulamaude]

88. "you have made assertions about this or that"

This or that? Which this and which that?

Mostly I am following along and watching the way these threads are playing out and sometimes commenting on points that interest me.

That's within my rights, isn't it?

[RainDog]

89. LOL

I'm not attacking you. I'm merely sharing an opinion, as are you. I read some of the more recent threads after seeing links to them on other threads and I noted you participated. You can read your own posts, if you want to know things you've written, right? there was no value judgment behind the "this or that" - it was like... said someone or another. Don't really care about the specifics, iow, since the purpose was to note you had participated on the recent threads.

It's certainly within your rights, as am I with mine to think it's interesting that someone participates on these threads but states a desire not to state a position.

A lot of times I read threads and don't have a definite opinion one way or another, etc. When the initial Snowden thing was happening, for instance, I didn't know what I thought about the issue because I didn't feel like I had enough information. My inclination would be to come down on the side of civil liberties, and esp. 1st amendment rights for journalists, like Greenwald. But I didn't want to state an opinion because I didn't know enough about what was happening. I was an observer.

so, I totally get that pov, too.

[xulamaude]

90. Well that's settled then. nt

[seabeyond]

86. wow woman. i am saying the smae in a subthread below. isnt that interesting. i addressed the

issue in the OP. said what i had to say. and seems to be a demand i go in a direction i have no desire to go. funny. odd. interesting.

i told my guy... no, too.

didnt listen the first time. will see with the second

no

[lumberjack_jeff]

135. I don't feel any such conflict. They're in alignment.

My firm belief is that my sexual gratification is my business alone, because consent is involved among all parties involved.

If I am to expect others to honor that, I anticipate that I'll have to reciprocate.

Do I have opinions about the relative merits of various consensual sexual outlets? Of course I do, and I would give my opinion if asked or if I felt given the circumstances it was important to get all "church lady" about it.

As I mentioned downthread, I feel the same way about the porn business as I do about the E-cigarette business. I have a hard time envisioning the people sucking on them to be exploiting the manufacturers.

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

138. Thank you for posting that link.

This is informative and thought-provoking. Thank you, thank you.

[Savannahmann]

8. I always liked the Wiccan Rede

Which has been reduced to the idea that as long as you don't harm anyone, do what you want to.

http://www.world-religions-professor.com/wiccanrede.html

[TDale313]

167. It's the pesky harming none part that always gets tricky.

In this discussion and with the Wiccan Rede in general.

[stevenleser]

10. I think you also unintentionally phrased your OP in a very heteronormative way

and most anti-porn posts also post from this perspective whether intentional or unintentional.

If any LGBT folks want to correct or amplify what I wrote please feel free.

[renie408]

12. Huh...you are right.

I didn't even notice. I guess because I am a hetero woman, that is where I wrote from. I did not intend to exclude LGBT interests.

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. Their entire argument is inherently heteronormative.

Does gay erotica/porn exploit the performers?

No, because absent a male/female interaction, there are no victims. Male performers aren't victims in gay porn because men aren't victims. Female perfomers in lesbian porn aren't victims because the customers aren't exploiters/victimizers.

If people would make their case without that fundamental assumption, they'd be worth listening to. Unfortunately, every single thread on the topic suffers from that same basic flaw.

... this thread very much included. Why is "feminism" the only appropriate dimension against which to evaluate the merits of porn?

Here's a bold, novel and unasked question: is it good for men?

I'm generally supportive of people's right to choose, and their right to free speech. I am at the same time sympathetic to people's right to a rewarding, safe and healthy workplace, and to be free from commercial exploitation by selling them arguably unhealthy products.

I see porn as an industry in pretty much the same way I see the industry of e-cigarettes. It's hard to see the customers who use them as exploiters of the people who sell 'em.

[Tumbulu]

177. At what jobs is it legal to actually hurt another person for pleasure and pay?

Last edited Mon Dec 2, 2013, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Filming someone being hurt is not OK to me.

Why is it legal to employ someone to beat, kick, punch , choke, whatever them for someone to film and make money off of?

I spent last Sunday with my vet. We had 18 rams to castrate. She sedated them before using a local anesthetic before affixing bands that cut the circulation off to their testicles. Normal ranchers don't use anesthetic, they just do this as fast as they can and say, oh that animal cannot feel it. The animal writhes around and then they seem to recover.

So, my vet and I are trying to figure out how do this in a humane way. She gave them a sedative, used a strong local anesthetic, and left them to slumber for a good length of time after banding. When they woke up they seemed totally fine. No agony, no visible pain. Today we had to catch them again and make sure that they were OK. All were fine, thank goodness.

This is what I think liberals care about. How can we do things in a way that reduces pain and suffering. That respects life and each other.

It would have cost less than $5 to castrate the normal way (which I cannot do). It cost me $45 each to do it this way. I have a very low income, but still, this matters to me.

I just cannot get over that people can condone doing mean and painful things to people ON PURPOSE for profit simply because someone somewhere feels it is their individual right to have whatever flavor of porn they desire served up to them.

I say no, it is not compatible with liberal ideology.

[opiate69]

183. Ummm...

Boxing, MMA, Football, Rugby, Ice Hockey, Wrestling... On, and on, and on.

[Tumbulu]

196. But there are safety rules and protective clothing

and I am sorry, people get hurt playing the games, they are not paid to be injured on purpose.

There is a difference.

[opiate69]

197. Nope.. I'm fairly certain...

That when an MMA fighter hits his/her oppenent in the face with a roundhouse kick, the intent to injure is there. Not to mention, you're making quite an assumption that safety protocols and procedures aren't in place during the making of these films.

[Tumbulu]

199. But this is a sport competition, not a paid job

and this is fundamentally different imo.

But I must say, my life does not include any of these sorts of sports, so I tend to not think about them.

[opiate69]

200. It's, at its core,

Entertainment, just as porn is.

[Tumbulu]

202. But workers comp and OSHA rules apply to a paid workforce

not sports competitions.

[opiate69]

204. Edited.

Actually, spectator sports do fall under the purview of OSHA.

[Tumbulu]

206. Yes, but employers are held responsible for safety of all employees

wether they are W-2 or 1099 ones.

Perhaps sports competitions (not being employers) get around this. But certainly the film industry must have rules and standards and I suspect from what I have been reading simply do not follow the rules, or the rules need serious updating.

[lumberjack_jeff]

190. Can't answer right now. Watching a football game. n/t

[opiate69]

192. ...

[Tumbulu]

195. So, do you think that they should go without helmets

and protective clothing to make it more exciting?

Are you against all worker protections?

[lumberjack_jeff]

208. I find it intriguing that sports injuries are rationalized as "he knew what he was getting into"

That is never the case in these porn discussions, even when there's no actual injury or abuse and the performers are simply acting out abusive roles.

Guys in sports are killed and crippled daily, so rules are made to improve safety with better equipment and better rules. What sports organizations do not do is attempt to shame and criminalize the fans.

It is my understanding that adult performers are required to get a blood test for HIV prior to filming. This seems like a good start which could be expanded to all STD's, and the production companies should have a liability if any of the performers catch one. I also think that the bait-and-switch that apparently goes on in the business should stop. A performer should know exactly what to expect. If the producer substantively changes the script at the last minute, a performer should be able to walk away and still get paid.

[Tumbulu]

211. Well, I don't have that attitude, do you?

When I was a kid a former pro football player worked for my dad. He went around everywhere telling kids (he was very famous and had lots of fans) to NEVER play football, to study hard and get a real job and forget about spending the rest of one's life in pain from the many injuries that can occur. My sister babysat for another pro football player who was also rich and famous and he never stopped telling people to stay away from football.

At least now there is serious talk about concussions, but it has taken a long time and lots of work to get to this point.

Should we stop trying because we have not made the sport safe enough yet? Of course not. We should always try to minimize injuries of any worker, regardless of the industry.

I am concerned about behaviors that lead to lifelong incontinence or painful infections. I am concerned that people are being hurt, even when they say it is all just play. Why is this even being discussed? Of course anyone being paid to work in an industry needs to be protected from injury. Period. Porn workers should not be exempted.

[lumberjack_jeff]

212. To an extent, I do.

People should be afforded the respect of allowing them their own legal career choices. Not "even" the ones I disagree with, but "especially" the ones I disagree with.

You're not a grownup unless you can make your own choices.

I think that society has a responsibility to make all careers as safe as possible. I agree with your last two sentences.

[bemildred]

14. The issue is coercion, by whatever means.

There is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to please a man, or a man wanting to please a woman, or any of the other possible combinations of that.

Now, that said, most commerical pORn is exploitive crap, exploitive crap is the only sort of porn that people will pay for in the age of the internet and the NSA, the net has always been a fountain of free porn.

So my attitude is that the friendly, loving sort of smut in which everybody is seen to be willing, of whatever variety, is fine, among friends, and violent coercive sort of smut is offensive crap, and no smut ought to be bandied about just to be crude or get attention, you have to have respect.

And that definitely includes all commercial porn.

[WinkyDink]

15. I'm still trying to get past your thread title, frankly. Pornography is an "ideal"? Where? Pompeii?

[lightcameron]

17. Don't like it? Don't watch it.

Some people aren't happy unless they have something to whine about. I personally find it boring. I'd much rather go to strip clubs.

[renie408]

18. See? This is pretty much what I am saying.

Each person must check their own conscience on this issue.

No conscience? No problem.

[99Forever]

19. Condescending much?

Does being a bit tired of outrage shoppers somehow offend you?

[renie408]

24. Seriously?

Really? You think I was being condescending?

LOL...gee whiz, that almost makes me want to be condescending again.

So, my condescension is an issue, but someone pulling a hit and run calling a good many people here 'whiners' is OK? Interesting.

[99Forever]

27. Yes. Seriously.

Why is it you are so damn driven to stick your nose into other people's choices?

And then deride those that tell you to bugger off, it ain't none of your damn business?

Freedom of Expression doesn't just apply to things you or I approve of, it means that EVERYONE gets to choose for themselves. If that puts your undies in a knot, that's a personal problem.

[treestar]

81. Not really an answer

I don't like it and don't watch it. But I can understand people being concerned about it.

iMO the First Amendment means it's pretty much here to stay. Doesn't mean it is not a symptom of something bothersome about attitudes towards women.

[Prism]

20. It isn't a conflict of progressive ideals

It's authoritarianism vs. civil liberties.

Now of course, being a gay man and being familiar with the persecution of people because of their sexuality, I will always come down on the side of civil liberty on sexual matters.

As the porn threads show, authoritarianism creeps. It started with rape porn, then crept to anti-BDSM, then categorized even mundane, innocuous practices as sexual violence and aggression.

It may start on a point most of us are skeeved about, but then it expanded and attacked the heart of sexual freedom.

The funny thing about this is, I don't even like any of this stuff. I don't like rape fantasy or BDSM or pain in the bedroom.

But I do know, authoritarianism may start at something I personally dislike, but it never ever ends there. And as the debate went on, that expansion of condemnation of a large range of sexual expression exposed the truth of that tendency.

It isn't progressive to run around screaming about how disgusted you are by people's sexuality. If you find yourself doing that, as a progressive, you've made a serious wrong turn and have inadvertently sided with the anti-human forces of the Right.

[renie408]

22. I think my problem is not with porn per se

Or with people doing whatever works for both of them in private. I do not support banning porn. Where I feel people need to stop and think is that place where their fun becomes somebody else's problem. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say the issue occurs when someone else's problems lay the track for your fun. (I don't mean YOU you)

[RainDog]

26. I find the "anti-porn" debate is like the "anti-abortion" debate

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 02:05 AM - Edit history (1)

As a former pro-lifer found, she ended up supporting pro-choice groups and thinking because those groups were focused on issues that actually help to decrease the number of abortions, rather than simply shout at others, attempt to shame them, and then abandon any woman who actually gives birth - because support for anti-choice, politically, becomes support for harm to unmarried mothers, economically. Anti-choice basically comes down to shaming, blaming and abandoning in this nation, at least.

sometimes it's useful to think about the unintended consequences of an initial reaction that may be based upon entirely good motives, but have the opposite effect when someone tries to legislate in regard to those views.

Rather than focus on the seeming straw man/woman of whether or not people who support civil liberties, even in porn they don't like, as a way to blame, shame or dismiss someone, those who oppose porn would do more to help those who choose to do porn for economic reasons by supporting things like a living wage, or universal basic income, a social safety net, etc.

These sorts of things provide economic options.

Those who choose to do porn without the economic incentive are not going to be dissuaded by someone's blame/shame or by economics. Those who choose to watch it do so for their own reasons of which I have no knowledge - again, I'm not a consumer of porn, tho I do like some erotica - tamer sorts of things- and the issue gets to the slippery slope -

what's one person's porn is another person's greatest novel in the English language (Ulysses - which was banned in the U.S. for years because it was considered pornographic.)

So, I think those who want to restrict others' civil liberties, or shame them for their choices need to think about what they are proposing - to make themselves judge and jury of others. You cannot assume that all porn is at the expense of someone else, but if you do, that gives you license to go from that view to shame/blame, etc. etc.

You would be one of the people who wanted to keep Ulysses from publication in the U.S., in other words.

Is that who you are?

[Prism]

77. And there would be a lot of common ground in that discussion

If, for instance, we were not discussing the UK law banning simulated rape porn, but instead were promoting suggestions and regulations to ensure what people are viewing is legally consented to, I think we'd have 99.9% agreement on DU.

Tighter controls that protect the performers and prosecute illegal activity more vigorously? I'd be all for that, no problem.

Unfortunately, that wasn't the discussion we're having this week. We're more or less having it over moral judgements of sexual preference. That just isn't very liberal to me, and it was guaranteed to sow strife and discord. Once someone's sexuality is judged and condemned, game over. The conversation isn't going anywhere good.

[LWolf]

21. I love this post.

I've been avoiding the debate, but I recognize the constant tension between competing ideals. Generally, liberals choose to err on the side of protecting liberty, even if it comes at a cost. That sounds like a conservative statement, doesn't it? Conservatives' idea of "cost" is a military cost. Ours is a cost of allowing some injustice in order to prevent authoritarian attacks on civil liberties.

I've noticed that we don't all define "speech" in the same way. At the foundation, we acknowledge that "speech" means self-expression, and we want people to be free to express themselves. I tend to define "free speech" in more limited terms than some. I don't, for example, think that money is the same thing as speech, and that it's okay to buy a louder voice.

Whenever the tension between ideals comes up, I remember something a political science professor told me 3 decades or so ago: "Rights stop at the end of your nose. You've got them, they're yours, but you don't have the right to impede on the rights of others." That's similar to "do no harm." I agree with it.

As far as pornography and feminism go...I understand both sides of this debate. Personally, if I have to declare myself, I'll say that, as a woman who has experienced sexual discrimination way too frequently, and has experienced sexual harassment in a variety of settings and contexts, I'll land on the side of feminism until discrimination and harassment are extinct.

[RainDog]

31. It's not an either/or issue

Many feminists oppose the anti-porn crusaders.

Some of my former professors include women who wrote some of the most incisive feminist critiques of literature in the 20th century - who won awards and commendations for their work.

They were also opposed to the anti-porn crusaders - specifically Dworkin and MacKinnon, tho, at the time, I remember a specific talk and one woman was hesitant to bring those critiques outside of the circle of feminist groups because of a support for solidarity among women.

However, their support for 1st amendment issues won out because the harm censorship has created for women over centuries is greater than the harm of porn.

The same impulse that leads people to support bans for consensual representations was the impulse that led to suppression of birth control information for women in the 19th century, and, in the 18th, a refusal to even consider birth control among those who were considered the progenitors of feminism in the west.

Their positions were wrong, tho they had perfectly sound moral reasons for them in the context of their time.

One can be a committed feminist and still support civil liberties because civil liberties are a feminist issue as much as porn may be.

[nomorenomore08]

93. Great post. Whatever the problems at hand, state tyranny of any kind is not the answer.

Frankly, I think the real solution to violent, disturbing porn - of the kind that has proliferated in recent years - is people choosing not to watch it.

[LWolf]

103. Of course.

And that's where I usually am. IF, however, there is a direct conflict between the two, I'll pick feminism, because I don't really see porn as "speech," and because I DO see that it can, and often does, objectify women in a less than positive way.

[RainDog]

107. I think monotheisms are far worse for women than porn

I think religion does far more harm to women than porn. It's far more pervasive, it begins indoctrinating girls before any age of understanding, much less consent, the texts are sexist and repulsively androcentric...

but I don't want to ban the bible or any other such religious work.

even tho I think it does far more harm.

As a feminist, I definitely come down on the side of those who choose not to raise their daughters in these religions.

but I don't want to tell someone how to raise her daughter.

Since religion objectifies women far more than porn within the society - why aren't women here posting in support of consciousness-raising about the harm of monotheism?

I always wonder about that.

[LWolf]

119. I think we have.

I know I've participated in threads that dealt with religious repression of women. It seems like porn has been the topic of the week, although this is the first thread I've joined.

DU is like that.

[RainDog]

120. I've been called a bigot for doing so here

by someone who identifies with the hof group. that same person tried to have me banned for saying that I view religions as superstitions by taking something I said out of context.

another person from the group tried to insinuate I was aligning with a pedophile by questioning the validity of a blog as a definitive source while mainstream Democratic candidates were on committees with the alleged pedophile in question.

another person from the group insisted that a woman who supported 1st amendment rights rather than a statement by Gloria Steinem was not a feminist, even tho that same position on 1st amendment issues is held by leading feminists, but you know, whatever allows someone to act like a jerk, I guess, while the same person linked to Judith Reisman, a person widely regarded as a right wing nutcase to support an argument here, then complained that anyone objects to someone who tried to sue the Kinsey Institute based upon specious claims. but, you know, whatever.

anyway, that's why I find hof a waste of time and give little credibility to anyone who supports the three toxic individuals noted above.

I don't find a broad overlap between those who constantly talk about the harm of porn talking about the harm of religion.

Instead, I see a lot of support for right wing religious sources, including links from yesterday that were from a right wing think tank.

I constantly wonder why this sort of worthless trash of an argument is allowed on DU, but it is, sadly.

Maybe I've missed those threads where all the anti-porn "feminists" are talking about the harm of indoctrination of girls from childhood into belief systems that tell them they are second-class citizens.

Considering the percentages of people who are exposed to one thing rather than another (i.e. the most deviant porn versus the deviant religions that are perfectly acceptable here in their loathsome myths about women) - it seems stupid or else just someone's personal fetish to focus on porn at the exclusion of religion.

but I could be wrong.

[xulamaude]

130. "I don't find a broad overlap between those who constantly talk about the harm of porn

talking about the harm of religion."

That may be because the vast, historical harm religion has visited upon women is taken as a given by those who speak of the harms of porn. Patriarchy was planted in religion, but its branches spread far and wide.

Also one of the sad truths of the long conservative era we've been through is that entirely too many 'studies' (therefore a great deal of the 'information' available) was funded by... less than savory... interests.

[RainDog]

133. If that's the case

those people would not be linking to right wing religious sources to make claims related to feminism - unless you are saying that they are so indoctrinated by religious sexism that they validate it in their own lives by aligning with it.

...and someone wouldn't call someone a bigot and try to get other person banned if they really gave a shit about religious oppression, would they?

The studies are crap.

If someone has to link to discredited sources to make a point - maybe the point isn't valid or worth making.

In fact, when Dworkin and MacKinnon, etc. were trying to create a legal case to sue the porn industry out of existence, they could not find ANY feminist, Dr. Everett Koop, the Surgeon General of the time, and so on who could support their claims via meta-analysis of primary data.

So, the reality is that these people are aligning with the religious right by choice.

Take from that what you will.

Me? I generally assume their "feminism" is a cover for their religious proscriptions.

And they find broad agreement among many women because of women's personal dislike of porn that is so often created for a male viewer, rather than female, and because people use the most outrageous examples as tho they were the norm, when, as noted here on other threads - most porn is not violent, nor does it simulate rape.

But this speaking out on porn is a really, really stereotypically traditional role for females when they had no power. There's nothing really progressive about it - it's merely another iteration of Victorian woman on a pedestal bullshit. imo.

[LWolf]

151. It's easy to miss things

when the front page of main forums are filled with sensationalism. You have to sort through to find things worth reading and responding to. They are fewer, and often don't get the post count that "hot" topics do.

For example, this thread is the only porn thread I bothered with, and it wasn't because I wanted to attack or defend porn. It's because it acknowledged the tension that occurs when ideals conflict. In the bigger picture, I agree that the tension doesn't have to mean that both ideals aren't worthy. In the smaller picture, it's pretty common for people to choose one over the other, right or wrong.

[RainDog]

163. True

I have some people on ignore here because I'm not going to bother with their worthless bait and switch sorts of arguments. However, I read this thread while logged out and found some of them are here, and one of them is true to form with her idiotic "hm, interesting. people ask what people want" and oh, someone's laughing about a serious subject - because the purpose of these people is to attack others here, not to accomplish anything worthwhile - and this is why I don't, thankfully, usually see what they have to say here.

All those who opine about liberal or progressive ideals and pornography would do well to ask themselves, perhaps, about their consumption of technology made by women who are kept in work ghettos.

Can anyone be a real liberal if they have an iPhone?

Mostly I find the porn-related threads a waste of time, but sometimes I feel like wasting time.

[seabeyond]

45. well said. i agree. nt

[Iggo]

25. jeez

[rrneck]

29. Finally! An intelligent OP on the subject. Thank you.

I expect the last thing we would want is a Progressive Theory of Everything as attractive as that may sound. Such a theory would be codified into an authoritative holy writ against which others would be measured and, more importantly, would be punitively defended because of the emotional and financial investments of those who control it. Banesbane has pointed out the inequities of capital distribution in financial systems but has overlooked the the dangers of iniquitous intellectual capital distribution.

Only a fool would argue that feminism hasn't been a benefit to society and that many of the objectives of feminists carry with them considerable moral authority. But there are inherent dangers in the transformation of any ideology into a holy writ to be defended rather than a tool for cultural development. When ideology becomes an object, it becomes a product and when that happens it can be coopted by capitalist interests. Everybody wants to be told what they want to hear, and there will always be somebody out there willing to do that for a price.

Now, here's the money quote: Pornography is art. It is a fictional representation of human activity. So when freedom loving, fearless novelty seeking, big tent inclusive, personal expression accepting liberals run into rape porn we are forced to put our money where our mouth is. The intellectual and emotional discomfort and conflict ain't pretty, but it's real. That puts people like me in the unenviable position of defending something they find disgusting. I don't like rape porn. But then again, I'm not interested in seeing a bullwhip stuck up some dude's ass either. And I'll go you one better than that. I'll even defend Thomas Kincaid's shit as art. And that one really hurts.

[seabeyond]

32. i think HUMAN BEING trumps a piece of paper. and we are talking world wide, not just

the u.s. with a piece of paper. further, we are talking about more than objectifying, but abuse, violence, rape and death of a HUMAN BEING compared to a piece of paper.

[rrneck]

54. To deny someone the freedom of expression is to dehumanize them. nt

[seabeyond]

57. funny. like that compares to abuse rape enslavement coercion death. and again, as i said in post

above. i am not suggesting banning and never have. not possible anyway. a waste of time in my opinion. i am after so much more

[rrneck]

59. Actually, you're certainly suggesting banning.

Expressions of outrage hardly suggest acceptance. And that's okay. If you want it banned, that's fine by me. Lots of people do and for good (emotional) reason.

[seabeyond]

60. wrong. wrong wrong wrong. fuck. i have fact yet you throw it to emotion.

i say no to ban. yet, you totally disregard what i clearly say and you tell me that is what i suggest.

thank you so much for dismissing me in the typical sexist manner. but i promise you rrneck. i will actually address what you say without making you into a helpless emotionally driven person.

so, if i do not ACCEPT or RESPECT (as another pro porn poster said i must do), then that equals a banning of it? i must respect the choices even though i clearly see the unhealthy of it? i am not allowed to speak about the harm? cause i am not accepting? that is ludicrous.

[rrneck]

61. Then explain post #32.

How is the brutalization of people half a world away germane to the production of fiction?

[seabeyond]

62. post 32 is the reality. fact. we are comparing the constitution to the abuse, coercion, rape,

death of human beings. and it is world wide, not just the u.s. it is over half of the adult human being on the planet. and it is children also.

that is a fact.

what is there to explain?

what a concept if people actually understood that very simple fact.

and still. i am not calling for a ban. i do not think it would work. i think it is a waste of time and energy

[rrneck]

63. What does that reality have to do with fiction? nt

[seabeyond]

65. and then there are those that need it all wrapped up in a pretty bow

[rrneck]

66. Actually, I thought I might learn something.

Why don't you try to actually explain it? People are brutalized all over the world. What does that brutalization have to do with fiction? What is the relationship? Why did you even bring it into the conversion? You must see some sort of relationship or it wouldn't have occurred to you to mention it.

[seabeyond]

69. cause, i have only explained it for about mmmm, years. and because we have had a week of many

explaining. and those that did not want to hear, wrap porn up as "fiction" with a pretty little bow, ignoring all the harsh ugly realities. you make it simple. you need it simple. if you are asking me this question here and now, it tells me basically all you are looking for is a round of arguing. i am not in the mood.

[Major Nikon]

72. And yet we are still no closer to establishing cause and effect relationships to those who consent

I just don't see how blurring the lines between consent and non-consent helps. Certainly there are harsh realities that deal with the non-consensual. I haven't seen anyone endorsing those here. Perhaps I missed it.

[rrneck]

74. You refer to "ugly realities" without being very specific.

Let me help.

Labor issues: People who perform in pornographic movies have the right to a safe workplace and to a fair wage for doing so.

Social issues: There has always been and there will always be art of one sort or another that people find repugnant. Some of it is good repugnant art, some of it is bad repugnant art. That distinction generally lies in the intent of the artist and the individual viewing the work. It is impossible to regulate artistic interpretation, although artists have a grand time tweaking the noses of those who try.

Marketing issues: It's one thing to rail about the genuine travails of anonymous people half a planet away. It's another to offer the public a convenient handle to give an agenda an added punch. We don't see people brutalized over there, but we can rail about fictional presentations of it right here and free associate our way to mutual moral outrage. Are women and children enslaved to make violent pornography? Of course. Do people consent to and get paid to perform in violent pornographic fiction? Yep. But it's difficult to decry constitutionally protected speech, so a measure of accessorizing is in order.

That's how we get mention of fair wage practices, crimes, outrages against humanity, specious sociological studies, personal tragedies, and who knows what else that actually have nothing to do with the right of people to make bad movies. All that shit gets added on for emotional impact to drive an agenda, the nature of which is as hard to determine as artistic value since it varies from individual to individual.

There, can you work with that?

[seabeyond]

83. see. cause this is not what i am going to do. i am not going thru this shit again.

i have been doing it repeatedly, and have been repeatedly ignored. so... no. i am not going to do this circular argument.... again. not in the mood.

hey wait. i think i said

no

just the post before this one

have a good turkey day rrneck

[rrneck]

85. Okay. You too. nt

[seabeyond]

87. thank you....

and btw, i had a funny up thread with this, but.... thank you for just having a good day. me, too. i need some music.

[Threedifferentones]

152. Your posts are a perfect example of the strawman argument mentioned in the OP.

You assert that the entire porn debate is about slavery, rape, and abuse. Then, when someone points out that sex frequently occurs on video between willing people, you yell at them about how they do not care about slavery, rape and abuse.

The problem with your point of view is that 99.9999% of DUers are abhorred by anyone being beaten or raped. So, every post that boils down to "THIS IS ALL ABOUT RAPE AND ABUSE AND YOU SEEM NOT TO CARE" is thus erroneous.

[el_bryanto]

157. The argument might well be that when fictional representations of rape and abuse

are prevalent than it normalizes actual rape and abuse. If you are the sort of person who enjoys watching people rape and abuse women how far are you from being the sort of person who actually rapes and abuses women?

Bryant

[Bonobo]

162. Why not rephrase that in a form of a statement?

The question approach is a bit passive, no?

[el_bryanto]

166. Because I am trying to understand it - not asserting it. nt

[EOTE]

215. About as far away as a person who enjoys watching horror movies enjoys actually murdering people.

But go on asserting that all members of the BDSM community are torturers and rapists.

[el_bryanto]

217. I don't recall having asserted that

But I'm sure you are right.

Bryant

[EOTE]

218. You didn't suggest that people who would watch such things would be likely to do such things?

I guess I was completely misreading your question: "If you are the sort of person who enjoys watching people rape and abuse women how far are you from being the sort of person who actually rapes and abuses women?"

[el_bryanto]

220. I am repeating an often made argument

As you would have revealed if you had quoted the whole thing. That said here's the thing.

Some people might watch such videos and enjoy them in the context of a BDSM relationship. Other men might watch them, and find the idea of victimizing women, raping women, erotic and exciting.

Bryant

[EOTE]

221. That "whole thing" wasn't in the post I was responding to.

If it was, I probably would have had a different response. Yes it's true that different people can enjoy things for different reasons.

[smirkymonkey]

236. Good point.

[Major Nikon]

70. Then what is your remedy?

I'm all for banning all the non-consensual stuff, so perhaps my remedy is more invasive than yours. Child porn already is banned.

[seabeyond]

82. here is the point where so many fail. i ercognize the very real deal of it all, and can

acknowledge it. i do not have to change definition of words. i do not have to ignore harsh realities.

what i do not do, is stay quiet when people have to, insist, demand, words are redefined. or wrap it up with a pretty bow. that is lying, for me. lying to myself. i do not do that. if i lie to myself out loud, i will help someone else to come along and lie to themselves. firstly, it is dishonest. secondly it creates havoc with our self. i do not believe in it.

so.

constitution vs human beings. as i see it


human beings will win out each. and every. time. i promise you.

how i see it, for so many on the thread, this pro porn crap is such a giggle (game) for many.

i never walk into these threads giggly, and i only see it seriously.

remedy? first, we have to be honest with ourselves when looking at this issue and too many are not there if we hae to redefine words and wrap up in a pretty bow.

that would be the first step to a "remedy"

[Major Nikon]

100. I would never claim anyone has to like it

To some extent I think it needs to be regulated to prevent exactly the sort of things you mentioned that deal with non-consensual issues. I think the record keeping seems to be working. I haven't heard about as many underaged people being involved with it domestically like you did back in the 80's, but I'm making some assumptions here. I think those policies should be extended to all sex workers if they aren't already. No children should be involved, period. I think some working conditions issues may need to be addressed on the commercial side of it. No employee should be compelled to work under unsafe conditions, but my opinion on that doesn't change regardless of the industry. It's already against the law and it should be enforced better for everyone, not just sex workers.

I agree that it is a serious issue that should be approached seriously. I understand some believe in objectification theory and they may be right. I don't. I'm not alone in that, even within the feminists community. Even if you do believe in it I don't see the value in condemning anyone involved in the consensual aspects of it and I do see some harm. Repressing consensual sexuality has never done anyone any good and I just don't see how you can keep from that if you are pointing fingers at consensual sexual activity and saying it's wrong. Whether there's a camera involved or not is irrelevant to me. The effect seems to be the same and not really that much different logically as the patriarchy telling people what is right and wrong sexually. I think everyone should get out of that business.

I'm not sure what you mean by redefining words. I'm not sure what changes by calling it something different. I'm not sure how that would work even if it should.

[nomorenomore08]

94. When you can't tell one from the other. When the one is *presented* as the other.

So long as a given pornographic work is clearly presented as consensual - disclaimers etc. - I don't see a huge problem. It's when these "consensual" depictions are indistinguishable from the real thing, that a problem arises.

[rrneck]

98. The objective is to make it indistinguishable.

There is no objective standard for the relationship, so it would be impossible to regulate. This looks real to me

I can certainly agree that regulation in the form of certification that the activity depicted is fictional and the persons are doing so without coercion and are legally able to participate. The infrastructure is already in place to do that so it doesn't constitute an unnecessary burden on the producers of such material.

[nomorenomore08]

101. I can see what you're saying. But I still think that, with the amount of *real* rape/torture footage

out there, there needs to be a better distinction made between stuff that's actually consensual and stuff that isn't.

[rrneck]

102. Absolutely.

The only sure fire way I can think of is if there is any question the production company would have to produce a contract and a cancelled check both signed by the individual in question. That would prove consent. I understand that the actors in porn shoots actually record consent on video as well. There's nothing wrong with the requirement of a disclaimer and certification at the beginning of each presentation.

The graphic nature of pornography is shocking and it's ubiquity courtesy of the internet is more shocking still. But a rape scene doesn't have to be graphic to appeal to those who would enjoy such things.

[BainsBane]

132. to treat them as property is to quite literally dehumanize them

That is the point of rape porn--to dehumanize and violate the victim. That is WHY some get off on it. Your conception of humanity is based entirely on the producer and consumer while excluding the worker entirely.

Is it dehumanizing to supporter workers rights in retail? Why would it be in porn? Is it dehumanizing to consume responsibly in retail and manufacturing but not porn? Why?

[rrneck]

134. What are you talking about?

The point of fiction is to depict events without reproducing them and that do not actually occur. Actors act. It's what they do. They should work in a safe environment and be fairly paid.

[BainsBane]

140. You do realize that the actors are human beings, right?

That you say they "should work in a safe environment" is meaningless if you don't take efforts to consume porn that is produced in such environments, for example by licensed and regulated companies.

People seem incredibly comfortable with absolving themselves of any responsibility for the exploitation that they subsidize.

[rrneck]

143. Are you typing these posts on a computer

in the United States? Do you drive a car? Do you have electricity? All of these activities support oppression somewhere in the world. Again, you don't actually have a point but plenty of unfocused outrage.

[Tumbulu]

179. No they should not, and we as liberals do work to continually improve worker safety matters

There are OSHA laws for workers and unions and we as liberals generally stand for workers rights. Worldwide. We have a long way to go, but we try, and have tried for centuries.

How can it be legal to hit, punch, choke, hurt cause pain for pay and profit for a corporation?

I am sorry, this is not OK to me at all.

[rrneck]

182. It's legal when it's fiction.

That's how all those war and murder mystery movies get made.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

36. Rape Porn is a Narrowly Defined Subset of Porn. Rape is Illegal. Rape is Violence.

Rape is NOT Sex.

[nomorenomore08]

95. Exactly!

[Vashta Nerada]

38. Why should they collide?

If it's consentual, why should that ever be a problem?

[Niceguy1]

53. I was told

By hof that even if consent is given that she might not be consenting after all and since we can't tell the difference between consent a d non consent so we must throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Vashta Nerada]

68. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

So, what they're saying is consent can never be proven?

[Niceguy1]

91. if the actress

Is broke and doing it for the money is one of the examples I was given.

The vibe I got was since there was no way to prove consent .....
...

[Vashta Nerada]

104. Sounds like a crappy excuse.

There's other lines of work to get involved in if one was broke.

[Niceguy1]

105. I know

But that kind of talk got me banned from hof....


I thought life was about being able to be free to make choices.

[RainDog]

71. do you have a link for someone making this claim?

I don't read hof, so I hear about these things secondhand - I think that copying/pasting the link AND the actual remark would be useful when people read about this issue on threads in GD.

[LadyHawkAZ]

115. I do, since I had to c/p it earlier

although I don't read HoF either so I don't know if this person is a member there or not. The claim is repeated a few more times in the subthread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024073698#post309

[RainDog]

116. thanks

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 01:02 AM - Edit history (1)

this is the same person that didn't find that there is a broad consensus on DU about regulating the industry, not allowing criminal acts, etc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024103833#post8

another one was when Warren De linked to DuffyDuff saying no one can consent to porn because it's porn.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4098542

NCTraveler came out in support of a ban in the same thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4096321

NCTraveler (2,451 posts)
41. I really don't mind saying I think porn should be illegal.

You are correct about doing a search for porn. It is clear what type of porn is driving the industry. I trust that they know their customers, and the images and words they display on their home-pages shows a clear direction towards pain and violence.

I think that all porn or sex trade business, where some form of trade is made for work that requires any type of penetration, should be outlawed. I also think the laws of a state should govern the actions of fetish porn.

that thread is full of people making conjectures that go "I'm sure porn has done x or y" because... because someone doesn't like it.

So, some here. Mostly, tho, people who just want to talk about porn because it's nasty, dirty, filthy stuff...

and that's from both sides of the issue.

[LadyHawkAZ]

118. LOL!

That's mighty observant of you.

Happy Thanksgiving.

[Tumbulu]

181. How can you justify hurting someone for pay?

On purpose as part of the job description?

Sorry, it is a real clash in ideology.

The OP has stated it clearly.

[Vashta Nerada]

187. People choose what they want to do.

If someone wants to get paid to get hurt, so be it. If someone wants to get paid to hurt someone, so be it.

If you don't like it, don't do it. If you don't like it, don't view it.

Simple. As. That.

[Tumbulu]

194. Oh, sorry, this is called libertarian, not liberal nt

[mwrguy]

234. Some people truly enjoy being hurt in various ways

If Bob likes to be hurt, and pays Tom to do it, does that make Tom a bad guy?

What if they do it on camera so that Dick and Harry can enjoy watching it later?

[The Straight Story]

40. Guns sort of fit into this mindset

As a progressive I am for the rights of people not to be trampled on by the few in power. There a very few in the US that use guns in a bad way, so some people think anyone that owns one is not liberal and will snap any second.

Own more than one? You are a bad bad person and probably want to go on a massive killing spree.

We judge and fear the many based on the few.

With porn - there are a small few that use porn and it fuels other things (that were already there) so again some rail against people who enjoy it.

Same with video games.

The problem is we are going about things the same way the right does with Islam, create a problem based on the few, say the many are just ticking time bombs, and the blame the things instead of the person (and work to shame people into not having things to avoid it happening in the future).

As a progressive I try not to stereotype others and create a bias/hate against the many who do things I don't do (like own a gun).

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. question for you and/or anyone else that might know:

Do you know how many laws there are in The USA that regulate porn (1A) vs. laws that regulate guns(2A)?

Which industry do you think is more regulated?

[The Straight Story]

42. both are probably over regulated

Placebos thrown out to make people feel better.

If people are willing to ban how a gun looks (cause it looks scary) I can imagine they would love to do the same with other things.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

43. so then, is it fair to say that, you are for deregulation of both industries?

[The Straight Story]

46. it is fair to say:

We don't need to waste resources and money on regulations that don't really do anything.

I realize some love new laws and less rights and such as it makes them feel safer from the boogeyman, but we already have laws in place to deal with issues - rape porn? If someone was raped and it was taped that is already a crime. Plenty of gun laws as well already - what we lack are the resources to enforce laws. So people complain and a new one is made which doesn't get enforced either because we don't allocate the resources to investigate and such.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. Do you think Rape Porn depicts an act of sex (a sex scene) or an act of violence?

[The Straight Story]

50. sex

As discussed by others many have such fantasies, porn depicts fantasies. BDSM could be seen as that well (restraints, etc and so on).

If you fantasize about it in your mind, does that make you someone who wants to rape/be raped? Does it turn you into a violent psychopath?

When it leaps from mind to paper does it do so?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

113. I am not your stepping stone.

[BainsBane]

237. That it's a simulation doesn't change what it depicts

Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2013, 11:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Rape is not sex. Rape is a violent crime. Rape is not BDSM or any other kind of kink. It's willfully violating another person's right to control her body, depriving her of her right to consent. Your post points to why the genre is so dangerous: if you think rape can ever be an expression of sexuality, that is a very seriously problem on your part. Rape is an act of violence and hatred. Men who like women don't rape. Men who like women don't fantasize about raping. That is what rapists and would be rapists do.

Then there is the basic fact that if the other party is into the sex, it's going to be a hell of a lot better. But I'm guessing the level of hatred these people have for women (or men, if homosexual) is so great it leaves them unable and unwilling to even think about satisfying a partner.

[Orrex]

213. Typically it portrays an act of fictional, stylized violence or domination.

Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:47 PM - Edit history (1)

However, I propose that the question is not "is it violent?" but rather "is it necessarily bad that it's violent, and if so then why?"

As noted elsewhere, such depictions might be intended as pure fantasy. They might also be intended as satire or as social/political commentary (e.g., A Clockwork Orange, A Serbian Film). They might be intended as exposition in order to establish conflict to be resolved later within the story (e.g., Deliverance, Pulp Fiction, I Spit On Your Grave, Last House on the Left).

Granted, these films don't depict graphic penetration, they're of widely varying quality, and they're not typically seen as "spank material," but I'm not sure that any of that is central. Even if violent fantasy doesn't engage the viewer in higher-level discourse, there's plenty of violent fiction that likewise doesn't aspire to anything more than entertainment or distraction. Should "rape porn" be held to a higher standard? If so, then why?

Obviously we're not talking about actual depictions of rape, which are certainly illegal and should be prosecuted as such.

I should disclaim that I'm not an afficianado of rape porn, so I'm hardly an expert, but the subject has considerable overlap with non-porn-related fiction that might likewise be criticized as subversive, violent, dehumanizing or destructive, and the discussion interests me primarily on that level.

[BainsBane]

238. The question is central to the issue

because the inability of some to distinguish rape from sex shows just how dangerous treating rape as a form of eroticization is. It's a genre that appeals to rapists and would be rapists, those filled with anger and rage at women or men (in the case of homosexual rape).

[AtheistCrusader]

170. I don't understand the multiple guns fear thing. I only have two arms.

If I had more, hell, I'd be in porn.

[KittyWampus]

47. There's also those of us concerned with work place conditions and remuneration etc.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

49. Do you think a person can give legal consent while under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

[seabeyond]

51. Or kidnapped and forced. Or dominated and controlled. We can't make it simple cause it is not.

That would be the difference between pro porn and liberalism

[Threedifferentones]

153. Who is trying to make it simple? You.

If a person does not yell that all violent porn is bad, then they clearly support whatever portion of it is made through coercion and slavery. So, you either hate porn or you are not liberal. Okay, got it, that's simple.

And it is an inaccurate strawman. Take your own advice, deepen your thoughts and let it be complicated.

[cthulu2016]

52. Free Speech is a liberal ideal, not a progressive ideal

[nomorenomore08]

96. But on the other hand, being anti-free speech isn't generally seen as progressive. With good reason.

[Major Nikon]

58. Are abortion rights a free speech issue?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Roe v Wade was decided on privacy issues and denying self-agency to women, not free speech. How would this not also apply to porn? If a woman deserves the right to self-agency and to be left alone if she decides to have an abortion (and I'm pretty sure women should), then why do they not also have the right to have sex in front of a camera if they so choose and be left alone in the process?

[Hippo_Tron]

64. Pornography, much like retail shopping, is not problematic in and of itself...

The porn INDUSTRY much like the retail shopping INDUSTRY as they exist today are both largely abusive institutions that progressives ought to be concerned about.

In my ideal progressive world, retail shopping isn't banned, but all retailers treat their employees much like COSTCO does. Likewise, pornography would not be banned. But it would be produced with absolutely no coerced participants (economic or otherwise). It would also generally portray women as real people who have real orgasms and not simply objects for men's pleasure. A little objectification here and there is fine, but it should not be the norm AND both men and women should be equally objectified.

[Evoman]

76. There are things we shouldn't do or are not allowed to do no matter how much money is offered.

That's where I think brutal porn and rape porn should sit. I can work at Walmart for minimum wage, but no matter how much they offer me, they can't use my testicles and ink to mark down great prices. Even if I consent.

Rape porn and brutal porn like double anal would be illegal, no matter how much people consent. Its dangerous tio performers, not to mention society. A lot of women who do this shit end up incontinent or getting stitches or messed up mentally. We need protection for workers, be they Walmart associates, rig pigs, or porn actresses.

[Vashta Nerada]

84. Aren't women capable of making their own decisions?

If a woman wants to have two men have anal see with her at the same time, why should it matter to you? It shouldn't.

If you don't like it, you don't do it. Don't force your beliefs on everyone else.

[Evoman]

122. shouldnt i be able to decide to work for Walmart for ten cents an hour? Its my body

No. Desperation, poverty, and psychological problems can get people to do things that shouldn't be done to them. Its why we have protection in the form of laws and policies. Porn can be legal without the extremes that hurt women being legal.

[Vashta Nerada]

128. Yes.

I'm sure women like Jenna Jameson, Chasey Lain, and Sky Lopez had long porn careers because they were desperate and coerced into it.



Weak argument.

[Tumbulu]

184. No, it is the argument that makes sense

this is why we have OSHA and minimum wage laws and overtime pay, etc.

This is a workers rights matter.

[Vashta Nerada]

189. Uh huh.

Sure.

"Worker rights matter".

[NaturalHigh]

112. "It is dangerous to performers..."

So is football, boxing, MMA, hockey, wrestling...I could go on and on. Should we ban those?

[Major Nikon]

117. It should be safe from excessive risk of injury

The same goes for all those other things you mentioned and all jobs for that matter. Football is just now waking up to this. I'm not sure to what extent other sports are.

I'm not sure to what extent this happens in porn and what data there is available on it, but Cal/Osha lists some of the hazards:

http://www.dir.ca.gov/DOSH/AdultFilmIndustry.html#hh

[NaturalHigh]

126. I don't think you can ever remove the risks...

of very serious injuries in those sports. By nature, they are violent, and nothing short of banning those sports will ever make them safe. That won't happen soon because people enjoy those sports, and participants knowingly assume the risks.

[Major Nikon]

148. Safe is relative to the occupation

Some occupations are more or less safe than others. You can't compare tree loggers to cubical workers. However, that doesn't exempt employers from the responsibility of being pragmatic when it comes to safety. That's why I'm a big fan of unionization and I think our labor laws should be changed to make it much easier for employees to organize and have more of a say in workplace safety. The best safety solutions come from the employees themselves. This is what is happening with pro football.

[Evoman]

123. probably.

And even though we don't, there are at least rules set up to minize damage. Why not allow baseball players to stick bats in each others orifices in order to prevent a home run. Oh right... Because it's crude, and harmful to the players.

[NaturalHigh]

125. Uh...probably because that has nothing to do with baseball.

[Tumbulu]

185. They have rules and regulations to protect the players

and if they are not adequate, then we as a society work on them. Helmets, knee pads, better footing, it goes on and on. The goal is not to injure people.

This goal for some reason seems to have been set aside when it comes to the porn industry.

[Warpy]

79. The question of harm is the legitimate one

First, was anyone harmed in the production of fantasy material?

Second, is anyone being harmed by legitimizing the violent stuff?

All questions boil down to these two. The second one is the more contentious.

[duffyduff]

92. If porn is considered an "ideal," civilization really has scraped rock bottom. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

97. "Anything that smacks of limiting free speech is anathema."

That pretty much sums it up for me.

Porn isn't an "ideal" to me. I don't like porn and don't watch it. Frankly, I wish it didn't exist. I just don't like anyone telling CONSENTING ADULTS what they can watch or do in private.

Don't like it, don't watch it is my philosophy. It works well for me.

[Tumbulu]

186. You do not think that the workers deserve any protection?

Do you think it is all right to brutalize them?

This is the issue being discussed, not if we watch it or not.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

99. I heard a funny joke on the radio on this topic...

One guy was upset because his favorite football star was caught using steroids: He said How would you like it if your favorite porn star was caught using Viagra? The other radio personality replied. "I find it disturbing that you think that my favorite porn star is a male!"

[Warren DeMontague]

106. Here's a post which sums up why this "debate" is totally pointless:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125530131#post33

It is NOT depicting "consenting adults" because logically speaking nobody would choose to do this if it weren't for the financial or even slavery pressures forcing people to do it.

Got that? It is physically impossible for a human being to consent to get naked or have sex in front of a camera. Because I said so!

Yes, but no one wants to ban pornography, right? No one here deserves the label "authoritarian". No one is a control-minded busybody who wants to tell consenting adults what they can do with their own bodies and sexuality.

Give me a break.

[nomorenomore08]

108. Except that only a few people here actually take it that far.

And likewise, only a few (at most) are actually condoning violent "rape" porn.

[Warren DeMontague]

121. This is true.

But as such, I'm not sure what the debate is supposed to accomplish. The people who are seeking out the egregious stuff already are probably not going to be terribly receptive to arguments as to why they shouldn't watch it. The people who watch the rest of porn, the stuff that is NOT egregious or violent, are already not the target audience for a "don't watch violent porn" message.

[nomorenomore08]

124. I think you're probably right. One could argue that it's a matter of raising greater awareness -

which I respect - but I'm not sure how far that really goes. Of course anyone with any human decency knows that rape is an awful thing, and that overly realistic depictions of it - not in feature films but in videos presented as real - are problematic at best. Though I guess some may not know the magnitude of truly ugly material that's available online, or what that says about the world we live in.

Otherwise, yeah, I suppose we are all preaching to the choir...

[RainDog]

142. people just want to talk about porn

I've come to the conclusion that the goal of all the porn threads that post links to right wing religious sites, etc. is just to say how much they don't like porn, no matter whether studies are valid or not. the studies are merely the starting gun for another lap around the porn argument track.

the majority claim they don't want to ban porn. they just want to be able to harangue others who disagree that porn is responsible for all the problems of the world...or most of them...no matter that there are other topics that actually demonstrate positive effects on women's autonomy (like education and better wages and other meat and potato liberal issues). And no matter that the harm of porn has not been demonstrated as a cultural issue after nearly a half century of trying. Even after Everett C. freakin' Koop couldn't do the job. The only ones who have positively found a causal link to anything are those who dwell in the creationist theme park of sociology land.

some want to assume that all support for the right to freedom of artistic expression means that they must, like a preacher, ask others to examine their consciences to see if they're right with the progressive god... even when people don't actually want to view the porn in question but support the right of others to view things they would not.

I think, for some people, the discussions are triggers for past abuse and those people act out some anger from that abuse by expressing their disapproval of others' consumption of porn. Displaced anger, iow.

They might be better off avoiding porn threads via the word hide feature, rather than expect random strangers online to view their personal experiences as the template for everyone else's opinion.

Considering the long-standing feud on DU about this issue, no one should expect their personal experience to take precedence over the consistent anti-homosexual, anti-choice, anti-feminism sources that make up the bulk of support for condemnation of porn. iow, some people here should protect themselves rather than revisit issues that have caused them trauma in the past - because a political board is not a substitute for therapy - and may be detrimental to some people.

some here seem determined to misunderstand what others say. it seems a lot of "talk" isn't talk at all. it's merely affirming a pov among a peer group. I think a lot of interactions here are worthless because they're nothing more than a reiteration of positions that are based upon emotional reactions rather than empirical research.

Some disparage a stance that is derived from others' well-thought out principles related to 1st amendment issues... even when the protection is for speech that may be personally offensive, then run to the hidey-hole of true feminism to disparage DU as a cesspool of racism and sexism that is not progressive AT ALL, and, thus, they must seek out reassurance, rather than, say, simply not participate if someone finds things here so offensive.

Rather than admit the long-standing association between civil liberties activism (like the ACLU) some people now seek to create their own realities in which only libertarians are concerned with civil rights and, therefore, anyone here who supports civil rights and civil liberties isn't a progressive or liberal.

yeah. it's like McCarthyism.

at one point, one doofus was even trying to float the pile of shit claim that people who align with 1st amendment issues in this situation are "1st amendment extremists."

You have to be pretty fucking desperate to buy into such a worthless argument, much less make it.

[Warren DeMontague]

144. Yeah, I'll wear that label proudly.

"First Amendment Extremist".... eeeewww!

[Major Nikon]

150. Seems like more than a few, and only a few are calling bullshit when they do

Essentially what this is saying is that women (or anyone for that matter) should be denied self-agency in the name of protecting women which is exactly counterproductive. Remember that anti-abortionists are making the same argument. If it's OK to deny self-agency to fully informed and fully consenting women in one setting, it's OK to do it in another. Feminists figured out the hazard to that position a long time ago, yet still we have to keep having these debates. The arguments haven't changed.

"To suppress free speech in the name of protecting women is dangerous and wrong."
-- Betty Friedan

Notice how Friedan's language here was very strong and pointed to those who sought to deny self-agency to women. I'm pretty sure she wasn't condoning porn.

[nomorenomore08]

156. I agree completely with the Friedan quote. And for the most part I'm strongly anti-censorship.

In my mind, only actual recordings of criminal acts - more akin to snuff films or underage porn - should be illegal. And I wouldn't consider that "censorship" so much as simply prosecuting assault.

I'm not a mind reader, but I tend to take people at their word here RE: their actual beliefs, unless they give me a strong reason to do otherwise. Merely disagreeing with me isn't enough.

[Major Nikon]

158. At some point you have to decide it's banal

I'm fully down with the idea that I'm not always right and a closed mind has pitfals, but the 'porn causes rape' argument hasn't changed at least since the 70's and not one iota of proof exists for it. Condemning something is not the same thing as calling for a ban. A ban requires a pretty high degree of evidence for cause and effect and then we can start to have discussions about weighing adverse impact vs free expression. They never cleared the first hurdle and here we are 40 years later still raking this over the coals. It's not as if millions haven't been spent on the effort coming both from the right and left and if anything the evidence is suggesting the exact opposite relationship exists. It wouldn't be so bad if they could just be written off as lacking real arguments, but quite often they have shown they have no problem allying with reactionaries who are the exact same people also seeking to deny self agency on other issues like homosexuality and abortion. It's happening right here on DU. The "dangerous and wrong" aspect of what Freidan was warning us about still very much applies today if not more so.

[nomorenomore08]

161. Oh, absolutely. I certainly don't subscribe to any "porn causes rape" theory - other than

perhaps desensitization to violence against women, via watching particularly violent porn. More than anything, I just want people to be more thoughtful about the images they consume, and what those images suggest about our society. And I say this as a fan of (often extremely violent) horror films.

[Major Nikon]

165. I have no problem with anyone who wants to boycott

I boycott the stuff myself. Not because I have any particular problem with the content, but because I just don't have any use for it. I'm sure Betty Freidan would have had no problems with calling for a boycott. Banning is something else and it's something that should be called out as "dangerous and wrong".

[Vashta Nerada]

110. Yeah. Jenna Jameson had a long career in porn because

She didn't concent to it.

Give me a break.



(not attacking you, btw)

[Major Nikon]

154. Nina Hartley has been doing it continuously for 30 years

Also a feminist, socialist, and sex educator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Hartley

[Kurska]

111. 10/10, best post I've seen on this topic. n/t

[BainsBane]

127. If you weren't going to try to respond to the question in the OP

why write anything at all?

[Warren DeMontague]

145. I find it oddly ironic that your extremely non-responsive response to my response

accuses my response of not being sufficiently responsive.

[BainsBane]

146. I see what you mean. It was poorly executed.

Have some butterflies

[Warren DeMontague]

147. It's all good.

Animated gifs are an under-appreciated emerging art form, IMHO.

[Orrex]

159. I hate you

for posting that.

[Warren DeMontague]

160. Indeed

[hughee99]

168. I've seen this same idea expressed in other posts,

though I'll admit it doesn't seem to be all that popular, even among those who are more open to banning some types of pornography.

[Tumbulu]

188. I think that the discussion is about violence

hitting, punching, choking, etc.

[mwrguy]

235. Don't forget spanking, clamping, and strapping

Is that OK between two consenting adult males?

How about five?

[procon]

109. This is an easy answer for me

The abiding principle is always -- Do No Harm.

Just as there are limits to freedom of speech in so far as it may harm others. Likewise, this applies to most things we do as adults. While it is a fairly obvious choice for me to not engage in activities that might potentially place someone else in harm's way, there are outliers in any society who will diligently try to convince themselves -- and others -- that their self-serving interests take precedent above all else.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

114. very. well. said.

[Major Nikon]

155. I see no problem with boycotting

[Dash87]

129. I personally don't have a desire to attack "rape porn" for the following reasons:

1 - It's a symptom of a larger problem.

2 - Much like I hate the KKK but think they have the right to speak, people also the right to make rape-simulating movies. Yes, the concept is stupid, disgusting, and trashy, but that's not grounds for banning something.

It seems lazy to attack vile porn like this rather than asking why there's a substantial audience for it in the first place.

[bluestateguy]

136. One can criticize content without calling for censorship

One can respect the legal right of free speech, while also criticizing the content and substance of that speech. The right of free speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

Some people are incapable of compartmentalizing that way, as they will always demand that anything that offends them be censored and made illegal.

I side with free speech. But I'll support's one right to use their free speech to criticize others. As soon as those people start advocating criminalizing speech, then I have a problem with that.

[Major Nikon]

149. That's exactly the way I look at it

The best way to change the culture is by the free exchange of ideas, not by force of law.

[Warren DeMontague]

164. And shockingly, here we are 7-8 threads deep into this topic, and

no one has posted this, yet:

[RainDog]

169. And DU was made for porn fights!

Here's my breakdown of the latest porn fight - tho I would imagine I've not read all the threads related to it. since my tgiving stuff was yesterday and today, tho, I did read some threads via links to catch up on twerky day.

Straight Story published a thread noting GB was bringing possession, not just production of porn, in line with its previous law. Possession of actual rape-created porn was made illegal.

(Great Britain, fwiw, has some of the most oppressive censorship laws of any western nation, and has for a long time. Canada's more stringent obscenity laws that prohibit sale of certain things considered "mainstream" in the U.S. stems from this association with GB's harsher reaction to offensive speech, pictures, etc. This is why Antwerp became a great center of publication during Britain's religious wars - people would publish their opinions in tracts and smuggle them into GB in the 1600s and 1700s - GB was also a censor of political tracts during the revolutionary era in the west and put people, including the publisher of Blake and Wordsworth, in prison for publishing political tracts in the 1700s - and put people into prison for publishing "indecent" works into the 1800s.)

anyway...then it was off to the races!

Group 1 conflated actual rape with fictional rape and was horrified to know that the overwhelming majority who disagree with them supported actual rape porn, despite being told this was not the position presented.

Group 2 conflated fictional and actual rape as part of the GB law and was horrified that an overwhelming majority who disagree with them was unwilling to see the difference between the two. This group also noted they made a distinction between fictional and real situations and only supported consensual sex porn, in any iteration.

Group 1 countered that anyone who wanted to view a fictional representation was a pervert and no one could know if such fictional presentations were fictional or not. In addition, women and children are kidnapped and used for rape porn; therefore, no one should, in good conscience, watch such if the chance it was coercive exists.

Group 2 countered that there are protocols that exist for such scenarios where consent is expressly shown in the context of the videos, and much porn has moved on from the San Fernando Valley to John and Joan and/or Jeff and/or Jane (and/or Cookie Monster, and/or vampires, etc. etc. etc.) in their bedroom with a web cam chatting with viewers, and obviously not in non-consenting scenarios. SF Valley porn producers and those who sell their works do not work within the same venue as any illegal real-rape porn involving children or women and, for those who do do this, it is already illegal and laws exist to prosecute such crimes.

Group 1 said they questioned the morality of anyone who would watch simulated rape porn and porn, because it is porn, cannot be done with consent by women. Also, porn is icky.

Group 2 said they questioned the morality of anyone who would tell others what they may or may not choose to watch (or do) in the privacy of their homes and porn is also done by men with other men - but this reality disappears in these discussions because it doesn't fit the "victim/abuser" scenario of hetero porn for those who cannot accept that any woman would consent, even when she does.

(Rinse, Repeat, with minor variation, ad nauseum.)

Threads were created by various people that included labeling all anal sex as abnormal or rape, all who view porn as abusers, etc.
Threads were created by various people (or maybe just replies) that asked if the thread-makers and his/her supporters were labeling homosexual sexual expression as deviant.

Within these threads, misrepresentation of what is written abounds, whether deliberately or in the heat of a passionate argument. Responses degenerate to personal insults.

Chomsky and Hedges were trotted out in support of opposition to porn.

Supporters of choice noted the move from "rape porn" to all porn, and noted context, for Chomsky (as well as his hinkie thinking, per late comer to the fray, Josh). Hedges maintains his position as the John the Baptist of America, as is fitting from someone who still speaks/writes like a divinity student. He has a right to his opinion.

As do others, so say those others.

Accusations are flung from all sides with standard ad hominem attacks, standard catch phrases to indicate a dislike for the others' pov, and standard retrenchment among those who share a particular pov.

Anti-porn posters, for the most part, indicated they did not have a desire to ban porn. Instead, they want to shame those who choose to consume porn for their choices because this allows them to create multiple threads that attack those who disagree. They tell people here those people are not politically okay if they like porn.

Pro-porn (or 1st amendment) posters, for the most part, don't really believe the anti's when they say they don't want to ban porn because, too often, the line between hectoring and banning seems to be a matter of... it won't happen, but if it could... They tell the anti's they disregard male homosexual porn because it doesn't allow for the same stereotypes that are part of most anti-porn assumptions about actors, agency, and societal position related to porn.

Some enterprising person could invent the "porn thread fight generator" app that would allow these threads to run, ad infinitum. But the app would fail because the "say's the thing."

And someone, somewhere, wants beer and travel money, in spite of, or because of these threads.

[TreasonousBastard]

171. Apparently, porn has replaced...

the Kucinich battles of olden daze, along with the pondering of the ultimate worth of semi-organized street protests like Occupy filling in until Hillary vs. anyone around battles resume. Hasn't anyone done a study showing porn and cornflake chicken arguments slow down as we get closer to an election? Posters, it seems, must post.

For now, though, we have the same circular and endlessly repeated arguments (many of which I admit to having made myself). If we could figure out how to plug into them, we could have an infinite source of power.

But, curiously, hardly anyone has actually attempted to define "porn," much less "rape porn" and without a proper definition how can we know what we are actually talking about? As the entertainment industry as a whole evolves, the definitions must also evolve.

And no one has answered why depictions of rape in porn are worse than depictions of rape in "straight" movies and TV. Several R and unrated movies had the most terrifying rape scenes I could imagine. The actors were later interviewed and often said they were hit hard just by doing the scenes. Why is "porn" any worse? And why is depicting rape under any circumstances seen as worse than depicting murder, thievery, or just a good ass-kicking?

[RainDog]

173. this will explain all

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024117420

I just enjoyed having the opportunity to note that Chris Hedges always reads/sounds like a divinity student, to me, because that's how I've viewed his work for a while, outside of any discussion of porn. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading/hearing his voice, but I always have that in the back of my mind, and it often puts me off his work - he has points to make, but I don't always agree with them as he presents them.

[TreasonousBastard]

175. "Reefer Madness" was special and I can't imagine...

that any of today's Puritans have the wit to reproduce its special wackiness. So I can't watch the full hour of that foolishness. I'm getting older and every hour counts.

Chris Hedges, though, while quite popular in various Quaker and progressive religious communities for quite a while, increasingly sounds like a Protestant student in front of the Inquisition. Which perhaps he is.

[TreasonousBastard]

172. Progressive ideals? I'm not sure that's the point in a lot of this...

Some posters are pretty obvious in where their biases lie, while others are better at covering them up. But I can't imagine that anyone could justify expending such a vast amount of energy on a question that is almost invisible in the general discussion. Most of the discussion appears to originating from an emotional level-- far from any rational "progressive" thought.

Kiddie porn we know exists and the law is on it. If we can eradicate it is an open question, but at least we're working on it and have public support for the effort.

But "rape porn"? What is it? Where is it? What's the problem with it if it actually exists? If it's like snuff films that purport to be an actual murder for the excitement of truly sick minds, then it would be finding real rape victims to film while violated to excite another group of sick minds. And it's illegal under current law, as well it should be.

Other than that... it's people being paid to have sex in front of a camera. They are pretending to like each other or hate or fear each other-- it's called acting. That's all it is and since sex seems to be the only significant distinction between porn and any other filmmaking, violent or otherwise, sex is the problem for the anti-porn people. It is up to them to describe precisely why paying people to have sex in front of a camera is wrong.

The rest of us will watch it or not watch it as we see fit and would just prefer the noise level to be reduced a bit.

[RainDog]

174. Seriously - I don't think free speech and social justice are separable

To pretend the two exist in two separate realms is fictional since the reality is that free speech has been the basis for social justice, repeatedly, throughout history and most especially in relation to women.

So much free speech that is outside of the social conventions of the day related to women has had to do with helping them to avoid unwanted pregnancy via education about birth control, helping them to avoid religious stereotypes about their place within society and develop their own identities, and helping them to express their own sexuality without mediation from other sources acting "for her own good."

All of these have been topics that others wanted to ban.

The issue of pornography and females isn't an either/or issue, as well, since females create and view porn themselves.

The issue, inevitably, comes down to some who don't like what others like and find those things offensive. That's something you have to put up with in a society in order to be free to speak your mind or watch what you want to watch, as well.

[Buck Stopin Harry]

193. So can I

go back to my texas chain saw movie . My war movies. I got a lot of those. but I don't want to go to war.
Not again.

[YoungDemCA]

178. As BainsBane said upthread, the intellectual/philisophical justification for porn...

...is based on individual liberty, not the good of society as a whole. And those who have the most stake in the existing social order-dominant groups and classes-make society in their own image.

Furthermore, those who defend pornography inevitably use libertarian arguments, which should give a big clue as to the decidedly non-Left-wing nature of porn's intellectual defense.

[RainDog]

191. This is blatantly false

Freedom of expression and 1st amendment rights are entirely based upon the idea of the good of society as a whole and are central to the idea of a "good society."

Libertarians agree with liberals on some issues - this doesn't make the argument libertarian, unless someone is ignorant of the history of this nation, or else is just engaging in some lame attempt at propaganda/smearing.

For you to claim that everyone who defends 1st amendment issues as non-left wing is only true in the warped imaginings of those who are so emotionally invested in a position they refuse to look at empirical evidence that demonstrates they are wrong.

This, as I noted elsewhere, is the new meme that social conservatives are trotting out for buttress any claim they want to make.

If you want to believe this, you will.

But you'll be wrong and you'll make intellectual errors based upon the error of this assumption - which, again, is assuming it's an actual assumption and not just yet another trollish attack done by the same people here over and over again.

[Warren DeMontague]

233. So the ONLY things that are valuable are those which benefit society? What a crock.

If that makes me a "libertarian", fine, whatever.

I think individuals should have the freedom to make their own decisions and enjoy their own lives, insofar as they aren't directly hurting or interfering with the lives of others.. SHOCKING! BLASPHEMY! Our lives belong to the state, "God", big brother, right?

[MNBrewer]

180. Some pornography contains NO women.

Stop being so heterosexist!

[mwrguy]

232. Amen

My porn certainly doesn't.

[Tumbulu]

198. I'm in the "do no harm" camp

It is a very large part of my life and work. I have a biodynamic farm, raising row crops and merino sheep for their wool.

Last Sunday my vet came out and we castrated 18 ram yearlings. She sedated them before using a local anesthetic before affixing bands that cut the circulation off to their testicles. Normal ranchers don't use anesthetic, they just do this as fast as they can and say things like "oh that animal cannot feel it" or "they get over it fast".

So, my vet and I are trying to figure out how do this in a humane way. She gave them a sedative, used a strong local anesthetic, and left them to slumber for a good length of time after banding. When they woke up they seemed totally fine. No agony, no visible pain. Today we had to catch them again and make sure that they were OK. All were fine, thank goodness.

This is what I think liberals care about. How can we do things in a way that reduces pain and suffering. That respects life and each other.

It would have cost less than $5 to castrate the normal way (which I cannot do). It cost me $45 each to do it this way. I have a very low income, but still, this matters to me.

I just cannot get over that people can condone doing mean and painful things to people ON PURPOSE for profit simply because someone somewhere feels it is their individual right to have whatever flavor of porn they desire served up to them.

I say no, hurting anyone on purpose is not compatible with my idea of liberal ideology.

[RainDog]

201. Consent is the issue regarding harm. Your sheep did not get to consent.

I don't understand how so many here are unable to distinguish between an adult consenting to do something in a fictional setting and actual harm - or how someone who enjoys bondage scenarios, etc. is not allowed to engage in the same with another consenting adult, and film it if they want to, and why is it someone else's business when the other someone doesn't want to do the same.

No one is promoting or endorsing non-consensual acts of any kind.

Yet some here continually refuse to acknowledge this.

At one point you could not distinguish between people (in that case, it was two men) who would consent to rape fantasy play between themselves and actual rape. What about two women who consent to the same with one another? Are they violating your rights or anyone else's to do this? Should they be prohibited from this because others don't do it or like it?

But the pov that allows people to elide the difference between consent and non-consent depends upon an assumption that a female is involved and a male is doing the harm.

Surely the people who continue to do this do not want to render the GLBT community invisible in regard to their rights. Right?

[Tumbulu]

203. I do not think that someone consenting to do something that hurts or maims them

should be allowed to do it for pay. I am not concerned if it is male or female, no one should be hurt on purpose for profit in this way. From reading what others post on this is appears that the lion's share of the violent porn is directed against women.

You keep throwing in all this stuff about people doing things voluntarily and filming and sharing it.

I am missing why you are you even in this discussion.

We are discussing people in the porn INDUSTRY, at least that is what I think we are talking about. How is what you are talking about anything like this profitable industry?

And it is the same thing, how I feel about my sheep and how I feel about workers anywhere.

I do not want people or animals hurt on purpose for profit.

In my life and in my work I care enough to go against my financial interests to figure out ways to reduce pain and suffering. This is what I think most of us care about a lot.

[RainDog]

205. as others have noted

porn has changed quite a bit recently.

but, sure, you can talk about it as something done for pay, as well. Consent is still the issue.

Some would argue that castrating animals harms them without their consent.

where do you stand on the issue of iPhones? Should people be allowed to purchase iPhones, even with the knowledge of harmful working conditions, most often for young women, who are locked into work ghettos to produce those products for you cheaply? Not to mention other computers and similar technology.

Are you doing harm to own computer technology?

Why point the finger at others so often instead of looking at your own actions?

[Tumbulu]

210. So where does all this go?

Are we to stop TRYING to improve the life of people and animals?

Just fyi, rams can kill each other by butting heads too much, or can kill people by knocking them down and trampling them. My border collie has saved me three times from being pummeled by rams who decided to knock me down and stomp all over me. They have to be kept separated from the flock and handled carefully. Normally ram lambs are castrated early and then at maybe 6-8 months of age sent to be made into meat. My sheep are wool producers and because of this the rams (if castrated) can live long lives (8-11 years is normal for this breed) with the ewes in the regular pastures and are safe to be around. The ramming, butting heads, knocking people down and stomping on them behavior goes away, in general, with the reduction in testosterone. So the choice is between castrating them and having a long life, or making them into meat. A few get to stay rams, but I generally pick the ones with the nicest temperaments (not the ones knocking all the old sheep down) to keep as rams. I don't like taking them to the slaughterhouse, it is upsetting even when they are the meanest ones, and the amount of meat from a wool breed sheep is not even economical. Hence the search for a humane way to do this awful task.

But isn't this what we expect each others as liberals to do? Look for ways to make the world safer, more humane, more respectful of all of life?

[RainDog]

216. It's interesting that you choose not to address the issue of your own actions

How do you contribute to the mistreatment of women, and, often, underage girls in China who are taken from their rural villages and put in work camps for 6 months at a time to assemble cheap technology to sell in the west?

You, like most of the rest of us, ignore your own culpability.

I wasn't going to reply to your response at all, but in case you missed it - you can look at your own actions, as I mentioned, to see what you are doing rather than focusing your attention on the actions of others.

The hypocrisy of the religious has always been noted in the religious idea that one shouldn't point fingers at others about their actions, but, instead, look at you own.

Since you're a fan of the new Pope, maybe that's an insight you can apply from the teachings of Jesus right here on DU.

[Sissyk]

222. I was #1.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:44 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

It's interesting that you choose not to address the issue of your own actions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4126385

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This is a personal attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:54 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: That is about as far from a personal attack as I have ever seen. Hopefully, this will be 0 - 6 and you can't alert again for 24 hours.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: seems tame by DU standards
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is not a personal attack. It's not even rude.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Personal attack? Um, no.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[RainDog]

226. desperation, looks to me

or, more to the point, an attempt to censor what someone doesn't like to see...

[Tumbulu]

223. Are you implying that because you defend violent porn that you therefore

have the right to buy cheap technology, scott free, no guilt for you!!! Torture and exploitations are just your thing! Only those of us who care about people should feel bad about workplace issues?

And how about your clothes and textiles? Do you only buy US made goods or do you (like me) grow, spin, weave and sew your own clothing? And only use US manufacturers to do any fabrication? Just so that you know that no one has been exploited?

Attacking me over this one is a wild and ridiculous move. But it does illustrate how crazed people who defend the torture of mostly women in the demeaning porn productions really are.

This entire thread simply allows the illumination of how dreadful the entire group really is.

[RainDog]

225. LOL.

no. I'm tired to trying to talk about this rationally.

I talked about the way ALL of us are complicit in various things.

[Tumbulu]

228. Well, many of us are not

and many of us have spent our lifetimes working against workplace exploitation and environmental degradation.

It is an attitude. If you care for one thing, you care for all.

And reading all these miserable posts defending the injuring and humiliation and painful treatment of mostly women in this porn industry is really disheartening.

It may not be censored (due to the power of the cruel people who hold the $$ strings), but all those defending it should be very embarrassed to be doing so.

[RainDog]

229. thanks for sharing your opinion...on a computer n/t

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2013, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)

[Riftaxe]

207. The recent spate of threads

were just an exercise in egotism, interesting reads, but in the end just that.

No one other then those shouting "look at me, look at me" had a beef against what consenting adults do.

It seems invariable that the posters from Hof insist upon the "look at me" message, but i suppose they are probably pretty bored after the last pogrom. They do very important issues a disservice.

[RainDog]

214. The OP calls for censorship, whether this is understood or not

With this quote:

For me, it is along the lines of 'do no harm'. Free speech? Damn straight. As long as it doesn't potentially harm someone else.

This is in opposition to the entire issue of freedom of expression and this pov has been, repeatedly, ruled as against the values of a good and just society for decades.

It's the same impulse that would like to criminalize any speech others don't like - such as neo-nazis in the U.S. who, even though the overwhelming majority of us do not agree with them, cannot, in our society, impede their rights to free speech without harming our own.

This is why, within this argument, so many find claims that "for your own good" are little more than censorship arguments, no matter the how the argument is ornamented to claim that this issue is not like others regarding issues of 1st amendment rights.

The only way such an argument has legal standing is in the case of minors. Therefore, the issue comes down to whether or not some think women should be treated as minors rather than adults.

This is, again, a conservative/traditional argument about women - although I'm sure many don't realize they are putting forth an argument that is, at its core, an argument against all women.

But that's what it comes down to.

[Tumbulu]

224. and yet another illumination

of the desperate need to protect that which is hurtful to so many for the enjoyment of a few.

[RainDog]

227. yet again, you miss the point

so, let's just agree we disagree about whether censorship is a worthwhile goal... which, obviously, we do.

[get the red out]

230. Do no harm

I REALLY like that!

The collision of ideals is the reason why I'm not "a good" liberal.

[Egalitarian Thug]

231. There are conflicting ideals, but they are not porn v. feminism.

The conflict is one between egalitarianism and authoritarianism.

The authoritarians believe that coercion is right, that people must be forced to comply in order to accomplish some goal. Egalitarians believe in actual equality for everybody. The very idea of coercion is impossible in an egalitarian society and why it is absolutely vital that people never learn the real power of 'no'.