Since this is the HISTORY of feminism, I have a question about HISTORY

[Tuesday Afternoon]

as it regards the ToS on DU ...

How can a History of Porn NOT be Porn?

isn't the

History of Feminism; Feminism ... ?

How does one discuss the history of anything with out discussing the actual subject itself?

How Meta is it all?

Don't post "shock content" or porn.
Do not post or link to extreme images of violence, gore, bodily functions, pain, or human suffering for no purpose other than to shock and disgust. Do not post or link to pornography.

taken directly from:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Now, honestly, if the Admin want to allow for Porn, that is their decision but, shouldn't they revisit their own ToS and either delete or reword their own ToS ... ?

[ismnotwasm]

1. Has porn been posted?

Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)

The history of pornography is quite interesting, the problem being pro-porn folk thinking every picture depicting a sexual act is "porn".

One of the limits to the whole discussion is not being allowed to post what I mean. People are acting like porn is all cable TV soft core. Rape porn is nothing like that.

I've trashed every porn thread, and currently have no desire to discuss it out side of here.

This was the catalyst for it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024120165

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. that thread subject, imo, is discussing the politics of the porn industry and seems

that poster takes an extreme Libertarian view on the regulation of industries.

There is a reposted thread in Video and Multimedia that I was just called to jury on and I am confused about how to uphold
this site's ToS and especially how to apply it via Community Standards.

In my mind the ToS sets the tone for the community standards that the Admin would like us to follow.

[ismnotwasm]

5. Oh that

Well I wouldn't have hidden it-- it is an interesting series. But I understand your objection and your question.

The series certainly doesn't address the problems of pornography today or then IMO, and it sets the "moral" tone of objections it rather that the objectification and degradation modern porn provides. I don't have a moral objection to pornography, I have a human rights one. ( as well as a quality one; Oi) You'll notice the male gauze is still what it's about, (did you see that've quasi-violent hair pulling) Women are participants of course. In the 70's This is right before the time when Catherine McKinnon started her campaign against pornography as a human rights violation. Almost all anti-pornography movements were doomed to failure, and part of that *is* embedded in that series -- pornography had been around a long, long time.

The series isn't a true analysis; of course; my area of interest is Victorian pornography, written, not pictures, which did all kinds of weird contortions to keep the female "virginal"-- fascinating stuff one of those sadly ironic situations that makes me laugh.

The real question is, what rights did women have during the time of any particular pornography, NOT that it existed--we know it existed. Did that fact improve the rights or roles of women?

We've heard from a couple of actresses objecting to how they were treated in the 70's and 80's including Linda Lovelace. I should look for an article that discusses how many of them ended up. Dead or destitute is what I remember, aside from a few-- just like any other aging female sex worker. Today, it's the rare actor in vanilla porn who is at the top of her game past 25 or so. Men last longer.

And now, as always, because it's also not new we have trafficking.

Also in certain old, say Japanese porn, it was a free for all with every conceivable act painted with great care. Is it coincidence that it was one of the more patriarchal societies? It has the first "monster" penises, among other things outside of demonology. Someone was saying that restrictive laws on pornography in Japan lead to "Monster" anime. I would suggest its a long tradition in Japanese art.

In India, pictures of sexual acts had a different meaning, well in a way. India also brought us tantric sex, which is very different from pornography, but we don't have the language for it. Or bother to try it.
It's a big topic, and a few you tube clips don't begin to cover it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. all this talk is fine, discussion is good. I understand but, I don't understand the ToS or how

to apply it regarding Community Standards especially in my role as a juror.

[ismnotwasm]

9. You're probably right

On thinking about it. Probably got the wrong jury.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. it was close 3-3.

results are posted in Video and Multimedia by Iggo.

[Little Star]

3. How can a History of Porn NOT be Porn? Good question.

[MadrasT]

4. I dunno... it's probably OK.

Although I get the feeling that some folks are getting their kicks seeing how close they can come to the line and "get away with". It's a way to poke their fingers in the eyes of people on DU that they dislike.

To me it is juvenile, tedious, and at this point I have keyword trashed "porn" (and several variants) because I am tired of the circular arguments. I really don't want to hear about other people's sex lives, their porn habits, or their fetishes. It's just not something I am interested in knowing about.

Been there, done that, moved on.

[ismnotwasm]

6. Yup

Me too.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. yes, me too ... I really do not care to hear about personal preferences but, in a larger context

I am interested in how politics comes into play regarding porn as an industry.

Some people seem to have a need to share in detail what they like and how they want it done and by whom and how many.

They seem to have no boundaries regarding this.

That is fine. Others, however do have boundaries and it would be nice if there was a modicum of respect given for that.
It is one reason why I could advocate a Porn Group on this site.

[ismnotwasm]

12. That would be hilarious

The admins would never go for it though.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

14. I don't know ... they continue to allow GC&RKBA much to the chagrin of a lot of DU.

[ismnotwasm]

17. Well I'd support it

I think it's funny. "Favorite group. Pornography"

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. I would nickname it The Grotto, in a heartbeat.

A heartbeat, I say

[ismnotwasm]

21. "The Hidden Grotto"

Or perhaps "The forbidden Grotto" Or even "The Deep Grotto"

[Little Star]

10. Forgive me but I couldn't help but notice the obvious....

Since the first History of Porn video OP went up in the V&M forum on Fri Nov 29, 2013, 08:00 PM there have been 9 new hosts signed up including the OP poster. That's a good thing, right?

Sure makes the Forum & Group Hosts (Group) discussion of the subject entertaining as well as the comments in the reposted thread.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. yes, I noticed it, too. Interesting isn't it.

[ismnotwasm]

15. LOL

Seriously? I thought there was tumblers and blogs for that...

[intaglio]

16. I've not posted on the porn threads

The subject is hugely triggering to many people and the context of the industry is troubling to say the least. I'll not go beyond discussing imagery here, but remember that porn can include writings.

The difficulty admin has is that porn is very much in the eye of the beholder and virtually any image can be flagged as porn by an internet with many Mrs. Grundys on patrol. What I can say is that much porn depends on context and date. When "I were a lad" the magazine "Health and Efficiency" was porn and even the nipples were sometimes airbrushed out, but for a 12 year old these images were the epitome of erotica; I have also corresponded with people who used underwear catalogues when they were my age; these images, which today would hardly fall into the class of not "safe for work," were regarded as "pornographic" by the nabobs of moral righteousness at the time.

So firstly you have to decide what is pornographic and then be aware that certain conservative elements will always challenge your moral compass in one direction while the more libertine will snigger at your puritanism on the other extreme. Because of this I avoid the term pornographic entirely because it is so ill defined and prefer instead "exploitative".

If an image exploits the specific people in the image or the class of person in the image then it becomes unacceptable. Thus the Michaelangelo's statue of David is acceptable if homo-erotic where the homo-erotic photos of Mapplethorpe are not. The classification does not just depend upon date: other cases on the exploitation side would be the statue of the 3 Graces by Canova or the writhing male figures above in the Great Bedchamber of William III; contrast virtually all of Bacon's nudes are not remotely exploiting and neither, in my view, is Rodin's "The Kiss" (Francesca da Rimini) despite this last being, quite definitely, erotic.

Going back to my original examples, the publishers of "H&E" were well aware that their market ran well beyond the naturist community and exploited the images of women to maximise those sales; on the other hand the lingerie catalogues probably did not intend their images for grubby minded school boys but as real sales images.

I hope this post makes sense

[ismnotwasm]

19. You do make sense

Exploitation is the core issue not erotic imagery.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. and evidently some people do not mind being exploited or humilated by anyone or everyone.

I think some people Crave Attention no matter what form it takes.

I think they have convinced themselves that being a Star is paramount to their identity.

It doesn't matter how badly it was produced or the content or nature of the production.

They have convinced themselves that they are a Star and that is all that matters.

For them, all that glitters is gold ...

[ismnotwasm]

23. That has always bugged me

Not everyone who works in pornography is a porn "star". Some of them are just fodder

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. I truly understand this:

I know it when I see it

... and to me this implies that the Admin need to see it, know it when they see it and rule accordingly.

Almost think it needs to go to Admin for decision since it is their site.

[One_Life_To_Give]

25. While the Definition is somewhat debatable

It links to a BBC Documentary. That IMO makes it something other than porn as intended by the ToS. I would assume the BBC would naturally edit what they present to comply with their current definition of acceptable material for broadcast.

[ismnotwasm]

26. I think she means the explicit imagery in the documentary

Which is still in there. My first instinct would be to give it a pass, but it probably does violate TOS


I've seen it before, it's an ok series, but not particularly well done.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. I almost did give it a leave but, after reading the ToS

and re-looking at the OP I changed my mind.

Had he linked to only one video and posted a paragraph about content that would have been different, I think.