Notice How Even The Discussion Of Porn, Gets More Responses Than Say...

[WillyT]

The dismantling and possible destruction of the Constitution of The United States of America.

Why is that... progressives?

:shrug:

[proud patriot]

1. I dunno

:shrug:

[derby378]

2. Well, I'M here, aren't I?

Looks like it's you and me against the world...

[WillyT]

5. You, Me, And Proud... I'll Take That Team, Any Day of The Week !!!

:bounce::patriot::bounce:

[proud patriot]

18. Kick ass team

:bounce:

[Jed Dilligan]

3. My only interest in porn

has to do with the dismantling of the Constitution, as in the First Amendment.

It makes sense that the issues we DUers disagree on would generate the most discussion. Just about everyone is against Bush's varioius unconstitutional actions, but some of us are willing to throw out other parts of the Constitution in hopes of achieving social goals.

[tkmorris]

49. What a load of bollox

Every single one of those porn debates went sailing over your head like a poorly thrown piece of china. They were NEVER about limiting free speech, they were about examining exploitation, coercion, and the effects thereof.

[kdmorris]

50. And some of us ASSUME that others are

trying to "dismantle the constitution" without reading the actual thread said poster posted, and then keep up the meme that people want to censor stuff for days when it's just not true.

[Jed Dilligan]

67. Then what the fuck DO you want,

you still haven't answered me.

All I see is a lot of anti-porn hysteria in the context of a big government crackdown. What am I supposed to think? If this was 1983 and you were talking about the horrors of crack cocaine, I would assume you are drumming up support for the War on Drugs. It doesn't matter what you say you want. I'm speaking in terms of whose hands you're playing into.

[Madspirit]

94. Not Fair At All Jed

It seems the opposite to me. I didn't hear even the most hard-core of us feminists say anything at all about making porn illegal. Let me say it now, for you, straight-up, I DO NOT THINK PORN SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. A culture cannot regain its innocence. There. Good enough?

...but it does seem that the Very Pro-Porn folks wanted to stifle any and all debate about whether it is exploitive, degrading or misogynist. WE were the ones shouted down, dismissed and made fun of. People even implied and one even said, to one of the feminists, that she had psychological problems with sex.

So GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. The only people who's free speech was shouted down, was those of us who do not like porn even though none of us said it should be illegal. There was no reasonable conversation on whether it's sexist. There was nothing except accusations of uptightness leveled at US.

...and no, because we would like a conversation about it's inherent sexism, it is not reasonable to suggest that we want it banned. THAT is stifling conversation on the matter. The is imposing on OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK. That is silencing OUR opinion.
Lee

[Phillycat]

95. Two things.

1. The poster to whom you're referring, started out the discussion by denigrating the opinions of other feminists by saying that "sex positive feminism" was a joke and they weren't really feminists. That sort of beginning doesn't usually foment rational and thoughtful discussion. It's the sort of women vs women viciousness that I honestly thought feminism was trying to REMOVE.

2. I've been asking, politely and repeatedly, on this thread for some evidence or proof, non-anecdotal, that porn is emotionally harmful to the participants. If I was provided with any evidence of such, rather than restating of vague comments like "It's a fact that women are opressed in the porn industry", I would be significantly more likely to rethink my position.

[Madspirit]

98. I Wasn't Talking About YOU

...and I wasn't talking about whether porn is harmful to those in the industry. I was talking about whether it is inherently sexist and objectifying. ...and that's not the topic HERE either. I was merely pointing out to Jed...a FRIEND AND ALLY....that it seemed to me, only the anti-porn feminists were shouted down. It seemed to me, OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK was derided and derailed.

...and I'm not getting into this conversation with you because that isn't the point of THIS thread. I was merely pointing something out to my friend.

...but hey, thanks for the input.

Lee

[Phillycat]

100. Whoops, I replied to a post on a public message board.

Silly of me. :D

[Madspirit]

101. I Didn't Say You Couldn't Reply

I merely said your reply was irrelevant to me and it is.
Lee

[Phillycat]

102. Heh.

Sweet! :hi:

[Madspirit]

126. janesez, I apologize to you

I had no right to say your opinion is irrelevant. It is not. Your opinion IS relevant. I was just semi-irked at Jed, at the moment and took it out on you. I apologize.

Lee

[Jed Dilligan]

150. I'll take this opportunity to apologize to you, Lee.

I didn't mean to make you angry. Your opinion is relevant to me. We even agree on most things. We just disagree on the direction to take on this particular thing. It's more a matter of bad timing than anything else.

I've sparred with the morrises on other civil liberties issues, so some of the rancor is oozing from that history. Sorry to have dragged you in, if that's what happened.

[tkmorris]

152. You have huh?

I kinda doubt that. What topic have we discussed prior to this exactly?

[Phillycat]

161. No problem.

I understand getting caught up in the heat of the moment, especially on an issue you feel passionate about. Apology accepted! :)

[Terran]

105. There was a lot of shouting on both sides, but...

I really don't see how anyone got "shouted down." Everyone got their say, and a lot of opinions (and few, if any, facts) were stated.

I have to say, I did see a lot of posts by the anti-porn side that were very much in the vein of, "If you don't agree with me then you're a misogynist porn-addicted idiot who advocates predatory practices in the porn industry."

As I said several times in those threads, it's not a black and white issue, despite what many would like to think. And one's personal distaste for pornography and 'unusual' sexual practices simply has no place in the discussion. One anti-porn person stated that anyone who likes S&M needs therapy. Such statements are opinion and nothing more.

[NeedleCast]

120. Lots of peopel here

don't understand there's a difference between someone opposing their argument and someone "shouting them down."

[iverglas]

138. hahahahahaha hah

One anti-porn person stated that anyone who likes S&M needs therapy. Such statements are opinion and nothing more.

Quite unlike all of the allegations leveled at people who oppose the objectification of women in media ... of being prudes, of having serious emotional/sexual problems, of being hateful ... oh yes, and of being in need of therapy. I won't go on and on, although I certainly could.

Those aren't tossed-off opinions about unknown and unnamed third parties. Those are statements made to and about members of Democratic Underground. And they aren't "opinion". They're attempts at intimidation and efforts to silence.

I will look forward to your expression of indignation.

[Terran]

164. One hates to disappoint you...

You merely prove my point about the "shouting" on both sides. You're right, I did see the kind of statements you refer to. But I must respectfully disagree that any of that is an attempt to silence or intimidate anyone. This is an impersonal interface we're using, and it's not physically possible to silence or intimidate anyone using it. One cannot logically say that a man telling a woman she's a prude is an attmept to silence and then say that the woman telling the man he needs therapy is not the same thing. Face-to-face that might be different, but not here.

As with many threads on sensitive issues at DU, these threads have filled up with emotion, stereotyping, and withering sarcasm as a substitute for thoughtfulness, leaving useful discussion begging.

[mondo joe]

99. Self delete

Self delete

[Jed Dilligan]

107. Have you considered the purpose and context, though?

Right now the Bush administration is clamping down on the adult industry to win back GOP votes from the Christian Right. The atmosphere is very much like the early 80s with drugs. Liberals (teachers, parents, etc.) had to be on board to make that fiasco happen. So in the forums that existed back then (obviously not the internet) you saw a lot of people with "liberal" credentials spreading largely anecdotal scare stories about crack cocaine (mainly). Eventually Congress had to jump on board and support the unconstitutional madness that we're still suffering today.

If you had started this conversation in the 90s, when restrictions on porn were slackening, I would not have been on board (it will never be my number one issue--until I see the scientifically-based evidence for all the damage it's supposedly doing) but it would not have bothered me, either. Government going one way, grass roots going the other. Fine. But when the government is going one way and the grass roots look like they're pointing the same way, I freak out.

Bringing up the implications of when/where/why you are starting a conversation is not stifling conversation. Have I deleted any anti-porn posts? Nope, not a moderator. I can't really affect your right to speak here. Though I have to say, I was spot on in undergroundpanther's thread--when I said censorship would suppress her post as well as porn--and then the post was deleted for explicit content.

So, forgive me if I am more concerned with free speech than sexism in porn. I hope you can see that it is a more universal concern. And I also hope you can see that this is the wrong time to be spreading anti-porn sentiments--you might just get what you're asking for.

[Madspirit]

108. Sorry...Free Speech is not MORE Important Than Sexism.

Sexism oppresses a little over half the entire population. Please do not trivialize it. Free speech isn't worth didley to those who are oppressed and can't use it anyway.

You should know me well enough to know that I am not anti-legalized porn. Go back to EVERY thread supporting legalized prostitution and it was probably started by me. I have many friends who are hookers, including an ex. Free speech includes the right to discuss the harm possibly caused by pornography. Every guy I know and many of the women I know, have a porn stash. I don't get it at all, personally and I am about as far from uptight as a person can be. I was a teen and early twenties in the late sixties and early seventies. If if moved, we fucked it. I have seen porn. I once had a girlfriend quite into it. It kind of nauseated me. ...and my sex life is great. I saw no need nor did I feel a need, to watch other people have sex. I can do it myself with my own girlfriend. That doesn't mean, as I said, that I don't have plenty of friends who watch porn because I do.

I still think that it is more than valid to discuss its sexist and/or misogynistic implications or any psychological harm it might cause. If there was such thing as a reasonable conversation here...which there is not...we could discuss every aspect of porn. Whether it's sexist by nature or if only some kinds are sexist. Whether it serves a purpose. Whether it increases crimes of violence against women or actually helps prevent them. Whether it can mess up sexual expectations of those who use is a lot or whether it can actually spice up a sex life. We could actually discuss it as interesting intelligent adults, if there were actually any here. More and more, about ANY controversial topic, I see that there aren't.

Lee

[Jed Dilligan]

114. I didn't say free speech is more important than gender equality

I said it's more important than the specific question of sexism in porn.

You yourself have now admitted there is no point to the "conversation" here, which has been my point from the get-go. The propaganda article that Brengle posted to start this war was a specific example of the kind of hysteria-mongering I've cited--the exact same kind of "liberal" shit that got spewed about drugs in the 80s. The only purpose of spreading that kind of shit is to drum up support for the crackdown that's happening, whether you think that's what you're doing or not. You could turn to other (more pressing?) aspects of the struggle for equality at this particular moment. But if you want to add fuel to the engines of the police state and the Christian right, you are free to do so.

[Madspirit]

117. Where then should we discuss these issues?

For me, the social issues are every bit as important as any other issues, including the war, etc. Where should we discuss these issues if we are trying to come to a common understanding? I know here is not the place. I don't think it fuels any right-wing shit. WE aren't powerful enough to fuel a battery light. I just don't think it gets anywhere at all and it takes up Skinner's bandwidth. I do, however, think these are important issues to discuss. So where? Just at Psychology conferences and porn conferences...once again, leaving out the "regular" folk? Where?
Lee

[Jed Dilligan]

121. I disagree with a couple of points here.

Drumming up anti-porn sentiment on the left right now is exactly what the Gonzales DOJ wants. We're building up the demon for the next bipartisan War On... And when the two parties of the rich are actually COOPERATING, you know we're all fucked...

The question is more when than where. In a few years or a few years ago DU would have been a fine place to talk about these issues... When issues aren't hot-button issues of the day, we actually can have intelligent discussions here. If you want to talk about these issues NOW, with the hope of actually changing something, talk to the young people in your life who are vulnerable to becoming porn performers or consumers. There you have the leverage of your actual identity to back up what you advocate.

[Madspirit]

119. In Fact, If You Read Your Own Posts

YOU are the only one trying to suppress speech by using hysteria about the right-wing. YOU are trying to do exactly what you are accusing others of doing. There should be almost no topic that humans cannot discuss...and that includes crack cocaine and pornography. YOU are one telling others to ...shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....so we won't rock the boat and cause a crack-down on free speech. So..."shut up so you can have free speech" is what you are basically telling us. Uh huh...that makes sense, in the Bizarro Universe.

Lee

[Jed Dilligan]

124. Why are you equating my criticism

with censorship? Do you really think I'm that powerful?

Keep doing what Gonzales wants you to do--I can't stop it. But I can comment. See, we both got free speech. That's the magic of free speech.

[Madspirit]

125. Except that you're telling me that even by speaking I am playing into the hands of the RW

That is emotionally manipulative and underhanded and unfair. "Just go ahead and use your free speech if YOU want to get speech taken away from us." If we can't speak, IT'S NOT FREE SPEECH.

Lee

[Jed Dilligan]

129. Your emotionally manipulative is my politically accurate

And choosing not to speak is as important a part of free speech as choosing to speak. Miranda rights?

Like I said, I have no interest in defending porn per se--I'm here as an honest broker, so to speak--and my opinion is that it's a bad idea to mount this campaign right now. I'm glad you put such weight on my opinions, but I don't think it's unfair of me to state them.

[iverglas]

141. it is a peculiarity of US political discourse

Re: Free Speech is not MORE Important Than Sexism.

This is something I noticed in my first days on the internet, in the previous century.

Whenever an issue arose that in some way involved one person's choice to engage in an expressive activity, no one else's concerns about that activity were to be given air time.

Free speech is the trump card in US political discourse. It means never having to say "okay, let's discuss this" ... paradoxical as that is. It simply has to be played, and the game is over.

Paradoxical indeed. That someone's attempt to discuss an issue should be squelched by someone else asserting freedom of speech as the only factor in the situation to be considered.

The equivalent up here in Canada tends to be equality rights, although devotion to equality has not reached quite the height that devotion to freedom of speech has in the US. Of course, we have both in our constitution:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
<interpreted as non-exhaustive, and therefore long since held to include sexual orientation, e.g.>

This means that discussion is still possible here. It is possible for people to understand that someone's exercise of freedom of speech can interfere with someone else's exercise of the right to equality, and vice versa, and that government may limit the exercise of one in the interest of individuals or members of groups in society being able to exercise the other.

The tests that apply in constitutional scrutiny of laws that limit Charter rights and freedoms are strict. But no one right or freedom will ever be held to be simply inviolate, or to automatically supercede any individual or group or public interest.

The fact is that the same is true in the US -- that freedom of speech is not inviolate, and that virtually no one would say it should be. (And for anyone getting ready to jump up and down, I am not saying that anyone who recognizes the legitimacy of one limit has to recognize the legitimacy of any other, as I have been misrepresented as saying; I am saying that recognizing the legitimacy of any limit means recognizing the legitimacy of limits themselves, and therefore having a duty, in civil discourse and in democracy, to discuss the legitimacy of a particular limit, rather than covering one's ears and going wah wah freedom of speech wah wah.)

But outside the consitutional courts, which plainly recognize the legitimacy of limits on speech, the principle itself is simply misrepresented as meaning absolute freedom of speech ... and used to shout down anyone who suggests not only that some particular limit might be legitimate, but even that some particular expressive activity might be simply reprehensible.

Not that anyone is proposing limits here, as you and I and many others have pointed out repeatedly.

But in order to avoid the discussion, the straw thing has to be built: we have to be portrayed as doing that ... or as being the dupes or co-conspirators of the people doing it.

But our very suggestion that certain expressive activities are reprehensible, and that refraining from certain expressive activities, voluntarily, is good, and advocating refraining from them is to be recommended, is itself portrayed as inimical to the holy freedom of speech.

If someone can think of anything that is truly more inimical to democracy than attempting to intimidate someone into shutting up, than refusing to engage in discussion of social issues ... well, I can't.

Democracy is what usually gets left out of discussions about freedom -- democracy in the sense of a society in which the interests of all members of the society are considered in making public policy. Liberal democracy; a society that values equality. Where is that value in these discussions?

One of our Canadian posters has a sig line that I like, much as its author hardly adhered to his own principle ... and of course I can't find it now to save my life, so I paraphrase Pierre Trudeau: the just society is the society that freedom will create.

Surely it's the just society we're after, and that goal should be in the mind of everyone concerned about freedom.

----------

I saw no need nor did I feel a need, to watch other people have sex.

I actually decided against saying that myself recently, just because it would serve only as an open invitation to more vicious commentary, sad and stupid and false as it is, on my own sexuality or lack thereof. It's not that I don't react with some interest to such (non-objectifying, and there is some) portrayals, if I happen to run across them, it's just that seeking them out just seems, well, dumb.

[kdmorris]

113. Right now?

I don't want anything except for YOU to stop saying that everyone is for censorship.

Before I posted on that thread, there were threads about how degrading sex (NOT just the making of porn movies degrading sex) was liberating to women. I never said anything about making it illegal. As far as I saw, neither did anyone else. What I wanted (NOT FROM YOU. YOU JUST JUMPED IN WITH A KNEEJERK REACTION TO WHAT I POSTED WITHOUT EVEN READING THE POST) was to say that I thought the responses to that thread to that point were pretty disheartening. THAT'S what I posted.

I said "It's NOT liberating to hurt women. It's NOT liberating for women to allow themselves to be hurt".

WHERE DID I EVER SAY IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL?

You know what I want? I want parents to teach their sons respect for women. I want parents to teach their daughters to be strong and resist this sort of stuff. Nothing more, nothing less. And a discussion on how that can best be achieved, if it can.

See, let's move over to something that is just a little less emotional than this topic for a minute. Let's say Childhood Obesity. Now, there's a social issue. What has America done with that? Well, we've started talking about it, trying to figure out why it happens and if anything can be done about it. We've brought back PE (or advocated for bringing back PE) in schools. We've lobbied for more nutritional lunches and discussed with parents the health issues that come from allowing our children to be morbidly obese. And so on.

WE CANNOT EVEN HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS (And no, I'm not saying nothing can be done about it while pouting until everyone says it's bad. That was REAL mature, by the way, and not at all belittling). I'm saying IT'S FUCKING SAD THAT WE, AS ADULTS, CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU KNEE JERK TO "SHUT UP AND STAY OUT OF MY BEDROOM". I never wanted to be in your bedroom. I wanted to discuss what, if any, effect this sort of attitude has on the equality of women. But, in effect, YOU censored ME.

I would gladly discuss, at the same time, the effect that advertisements have on children and how we can try to find better role models for our children than movie stars. NOT BAN ALL COMMERCIALS THAT AREN'T wholesome.

THAT'S what I wanted. Now, I don't want anything except for YOU to stop saying that everyone is for censoring porn. It's really immature and shows poor reading comprehension.

[Jed Dilligan]

115. Once again, taking everything personally.

Can you possibly see that I am not ascribing evil intentions to you--simply pointing out that you are adding fuel to the anti-porn (and in the stupid mind of the public, pro-censorship) fire that the Bush administration has lit?

I'm not a parent or a porn consumer, so none of what you want applies to me. What got me going was a propaganda article (the original Katherine Brengle post) that reminded me of the hysteria pieces on crack cocaine in the early 80s. We can all see where that shit got us. When liberals like your husband can be made to say "Gosh darn it, we need to draw a line SOMEWHERE!" the police state smiles and the prison builders put in a handsome earnings forecast.

[kdmorris]

116. Thanks for the explanation, but...

you responded to me. While I understand what you are saying, why not post it to the original poster, if that was your main issue? Why my post? Why post to me and then add things like "pouting until everyone says it's bad"? Is that NOT personal? And my husband can fight his own battles, but he never said that. He is one of the toughest critics of censorship of all kinds.

I realize that everyone got a little heated. Hell, even I lost my temper and said things that I wouldn't otherwise. But it doesn't help to keep saying that we are all for censorship. We all have to calm down sometime, you know, and repeating that is disingenuous. If you want to say that the article was all for censorship, you are entitled to your opinion. But every time you say it about the rest of us, you are just throwing gas in the fire.

See, now if you had posted that first sentence in the first place, we might have had a discussion rather than a fight. Because the VERY first interaction I've ever had with you on DU was not very nice.

[Jed Dilligan]

122. "Invisible line" is a quote from one of his posts

I'm not responding to him anymore.

Sorry, but I'm sticking to my guns. Drumming up anti-porn sentiment on the left is what Alberto Gonzales wants you to do right now, no matter what you think you're doing. It's not personal, I could give a rat's ass what you think about me and I would hope that feeling is mutual. My point is that right now, at this moment, recruiting liberals to the anti-porn cause is EXTREMELY suspicious in my book.

[kdmorris]

135. I give up

There's no point talking to you anymore. It just makes my head hurt in frustration.

[kdmorris]

147. Just one more thing

Yes, "Invisible line" is from one of his posts. Let me print the whole thing for everyone now:

"Can we really not discuss this reasonably? Can we not examine at what point porn crosses that invisible line into degradation?"

A FAR cry from ""Gosh darn it, we need to draw a line SOMEWHERE!"

But thanks for trying.

[iverglas]

157. ah, so I guess

that when Jed Dilligan said:

When liberals like your husband can be made to say "Gosh darn it, we need to draw a line SOMEWHERE!" the police state smiles and the prison builders put in a handsome earnings forecast.

he was quoting something he'd heard in the alternate universe he apparently visits when he needs to know what people who disagree with him would have said if they'd said what he wanted them to say instead of what they really said.

Thanks for clearing that up!

I mean, like anyone who'd been here in the last few days wouldn't have bet on that being what had happened even without reading your post ...

[iverglas]

133. are you able to distinguish between Ron Paul and Ted Kennedy?

They both appear to oppose the occupation of Iraq. (I'm picking Kennedy more or less out of a hat, as a general non-supporter of the occupation of Iraq and general supporter of progressive social policy.)

Would your answer to Ted Kennedy's objections to the occupation be that he is making himself into a dupe of the extreme right wing isolationist faction represented by Ron Paul when he speaks against the occupation? Would it not be obvious that such a characterization of Kennedy would be far less than accurate, and insulting in the extreme?

Do you intend to insult people who view the objectification of women in various media as a major contributing factor to the victimization of women, and who speak out against it, by accusing them of playing into the hands of the right wing? Or is the insult just a by-product of your own inability/unwillingness to distinguish between a principled, progressive position on this particular issue and the wholly unprincipled, oppressive position on a really very different issue that the progressive position can be made to look like if it is wadded up and left to soak in vomit for a few weeks?

Is the way to make sure that the public doesn't fall for dishonest portrayals of real problems, or unprincipled policy proposals designed only to oppress but sometimes presented to them under cover of being ways to solve a real problem, to pretend that there is no real problem, and no principled, progressive approach to it?

Of course, my questions only make sense here if you believe that the victimization of women is a real problem ...

I can speak out against Ron Paul's position on the role of the US in global affairs, and the basis for his opposition to the occupation of Iraq, without advocating that the US seek hegemony over the world by any means necessary, and without supporting the occupation of Iraq. And without portraying Ted Kennedy as a right-wing isolationist.

I can also speak out against the objectification of women in media, and the reasons why that objectification occurs, without advocating that men be sent to concentration camps or that teenagers take vows of chastity. And also without portraying people who object to Pat Robertson as women-haters.

And I think you can speak out against the right wing's desire to suppress individuals' choices of sexual expression without portraying women who speak out against the objectification of women in media as man-haters, prudes or enemies of free speech.

I really do like to think that people hereabouts have the discernment to see these distinctions, and the good will to acknowledge them. It is, after all, a favourite bit of right-wing demagoguery to mischaracterize one's adversaries and their positions rather than engage them. Liberals want all children to be homosexuals, don't you know.

Why, when you know very well that millions of principled, progressive people in your society believe that the victimization of women is a real and serious problem, and believe very reasonably that a particular phenomenon is a major contributor to that problem, is your only response to accuse those people of either being so stupid they are dupes of the right wing or so evil they are complicit with the right wing?

Is it not obvious that it is YOU and people like you who are the real source of the conflation between the principled, progressive concern for the welfare of women and the unprincipled, oppressive desire to deny individuals the ability to make their own choices of sexual expression?

It certainly is to a lot of people reading what you and those like you write.

[kdmorris]

137. All I can say is

:toast:

Maybe if I had not let him make me angry, I could have written that. And maybe it's just wishful thinking.

Great post.

[iverglas]

142. well it's a team effort

I've read you and others saying the same thing, of course! I'm just feeling contemplative this evening ... so I suppose I really oughta go do some work before I start feeling offended at the disregard for truth that will undoubtedly emerge in all its tricky finery, and feel the need to ridicule the people who exhibit it so transparently ...

I really do take pleasure and satisfaction in reading what people who do respect truth and who do speak sincerely have to say, too.

[Jed Dilligan]

148. Wow, long post on a simple subject.

I'm not here to cast aspersions on anyone's character, except maybe the author of that article, which was crypto-rightwing pseudo-social-scientific propaganda of the first water.

A big anti-porn movement from the left is exactly what the right needs now--just like the boomers turning anti-drug in the 80s. I don't think anyone here is stupid for jumping on the bandwagon, but I also don't think they understand the realities of political discourse in this country.

P.S. I'm not a big fan of any politician--they're all just tools to me--so I'm not bothering with your Paul/Kennedy analogy. Their characters and intentions are a null set in my world view.

[iverglas]

149. wow, crap.

[Jed Dilligan]

151. That's all you got?

Seems like you blew your wad early (to use a porn-type reference).

I'm still waiting for anyone to respond to the question of why just now.

[iverglas]

155. if you wish to engage in discussion of something I said

you may feel entirely at liberty to do so.

If you imagine that I am interested in responding to a post that consists of a characterization of my own post as containing lots of words, followed by a reiteration of the assertion I was addressing without any acknowledgement of what I said or the slightest indication that what I said was considered, you're wrong.

I have no idea why you decided to post in reply to my initial post, since you addressed nothing said in it. Just like the look of your typing on the monitor, I guess.

Oh, and ...

I'm still waiting for anyone to respond to the question of why just now.

... if you have any questions you'd like to ask without loading them with a false premise first, you feel entirely free to do that too.

[Jed Dilligan]

156. Amazing

100% pure unadulterated semantics. Conversation doesn't get any less relevant than this...

Bye

[hedgehog]

4. Easy - we all have something different to say on the subject

of porn and a lot of us are ambivalent about it. No one here is in favor of dismantling and destroying the Constitution. What do you expect - a 2367 post thread with all the posts in agreement? That'd be pretty boring, IMO.

[WillyT]

9. You Are Right Of Course... It's Just That It Has A Hint Of...

Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Pretty sure porn will be here for like the next couple of hundred election cycles.

I think, we need to know if the politicians we intend to support soon, have a clue as to their duties!

Hell... I think we ought to demand our Democratic standard bearers, take the oath of office at every town-hall just to see if they remember it by word.

:shrug:

[musette_sf]

6. because so many "progressive" men,

when progressive females openly voice in GD their distasteful views of the porn industry, with human rights issues at their core, react like these views are a potential threat to their constitutional rights. :crazy:

the freeper men are into fighting imagined threats to their guns... the "progressive" men are into fighting imagined threats to their porn supply.

hope this helps!!

[Fierce]

7. Yes.

It's very, very true.

[WillyT]

12. The Opened Voice Is A Lovely Thing...

The fact that on THIS subject, it has more gravity than a Neutron Star on this board, speaks volumes.

It's the equivalent of Internet T & A !!!

I'll tell you about my sexual limits, if you tell me about yours.

:shrug:

[musette_sf]

19. yes, it does speak volumes

especially the overwhelming volume at which porn users shout to defend the industry and its predatory practices.

if you find the topic to be equivalent to "Internet T & A", then you are completely missing the point.

if progressive women speaking out on GD about their dislike of the porn industry, as a human rights issue, is titillating to you... well, you're revealing more about your sexual limits than i want to know.

[WillyT]

33. You Assume, SO MUCH !!!

BTW - Ya Didn't get back ta me on post #17 !!!

:shrug:

[musette_sf]

37. you didn't ask any question n/t

[WillyT]

39. Post #17... I Was Waiting For Your Permission

:shrug:

[musette_sf]

51. let's see... you didn't need any permission

to respond to my other posts to make your defenses of the porn industry, and to cast aspersions upon women who dislike it. but you then feel a need to ask my "permission" to ask me a question?

:crazy:

[Terran]

71. what a load of crap

Specifically, the overwhelming volume at which porn users shout to defend the industry and its predatory practices

Show me one person who defended predatory practices on any of those threads.

[Shakespeare]

22. And don't forget about us fellow feminists who enjoy porn...

...and will debate you to the last breath justifying (unfuckingbelievable that we have to do this) our own sexual predilections.

You can have my porn DVDs when you pry them from my cold, dead, feminist fingers. :hi:

[WillyT]

28. Do They Really Exist ??? - LOL !!!

:yourock:

[LostinVA]

72. Seconded

[musette_sf]

77. my dear Shakespeare,

let me say that your response, was the ONLY response to my posts from a feminist who also liked porn, that was NOT self-righteous, condescending, shaming and arrogant towards my viewpoint. :hi:

[helderheid]

89. ditto!

:hi:

[johnaries]

46. Human Rights issues?

You mean like the right of porn stars to make porn, and the right of others to buy it?
It's been my experience that the only ones who make a big to-do against porn are those no one would pay to see in porn.
Jealousy is at the center of the anti-porn movement.

[musette_sf]

57. translation:

"hey baby, wanna fvck?"

"buzz off, creep"

"ugly lesbian b!tch."

yeah, we're all just jellus of the porn stars. :puke:

and of course i am sure that you would be so proud if your mother, sister, or daughter were in the porn "industry". riiiiiiiight.

[johnaries]

64. Actually, yes I would be proud of them!

And I stand by my experience, no matter how you try to stereotype me.

[musette_sf]

66. what do you think the "stereotype" is

of a man who would be "proud" of his daughter for allowing herself to be publicly portrayed on film as a receptacle, a collection of orifices, and a pair of hands? i'm not trying to stereotype you at all. i don't know if there is a stereotype for a dad like that.

if you are married with a daughter, have you had this discussion with your wife when you consider what your daughter's future might be? have you told your wife that you would be "proud" of your daughter if she were in the porn industry?

[johnaries]

73. I would be proud of my daughter whatever she chose to do.

It would be her choice.

[musette_sf]

76. i see this discussion as completely hypothetical

at this point, thereby serving no purpose.

i maintain that if one of your buddies told you how turned on he was by your daughter's porno movies, and how he fantasizes about "doing her", you'd be hard-pressed to keep from knocking his lights out.

[johnaries]

91. I maintain that you don't know me or my friends very well.

None of my buddies would make a remark like that.

[Phillycat]

92. This is a strawman argument.

There is a huge distiction between being okay with and proud of your adult daughter's choices in life, and being TURNED ON by your own daughter. You are deliberately conflating the two for melodramatic effect.

[iverglas]

143. well look at that

It's been my experience that the only ones who make a big to-do against porn are those no one would pay to see in porn.

A claim that women (esp. those bad kinds o' feminists) who state opinions that a man doesn't like are ugly old hags, and that the sole reason they hold those opinions is that they are ugly old hags.

Now, who would have expected to see that? Not only does it not make a stitch of sense -- it's baseless, and it's vicious, and it's the best illustration of the soundness of the opinions whose holders the baseless and vicious and really really stupid statement is directed at that one could hope for.

But really ... who would have expected to see it ... at Democratic Underground?

They'll let just anybody in these days, it seems.


Jealousy is at the center of the anti-porn movement.

Contempt for women is at the centre of ... well, contempt for women, that being about all that's on display here.

[HardRocker05]

48. good one. i think the freepers secretly love porn too. nt

[Phillycat]

54. Respectfully, that is bull.

I am female and a feminist and there were as many women as men aligned on the other side against the anti-porn crusaders. Read the threads.

As far as WillyT's question, the answer is that discussions about porn evolve into discussions about women's rights, censorship, and feminism. Huge issues that progressives are automatically going to have strong opinions about. What's being discussed on those threads isn't prurient, it's political.

[musette_sf]

65. respectfully,

if i took the time to put together a metric of male porn industry defenders vs. female porn industry defenders on these threads, the number of men would far outweigh the number of women.

the fact of the matter is that the porn industry is staffed for the most part with women who, through unfortunate events in their lives, feel that porn is their only option to make money. the products of the porn industry are getting more and more mainstream to the point where young men think that porn sex is "normal".

i recently read an article in a women's mag while at the salon, which addressed women's reactions to pornified men's sexual expectations. one of the examples in the story, was about a guy calling Dr. Drew (a doc who does TV shows about sexuality) saying that he wanted to get his girlfriend to, shall we say, assent to fellatio immediately following anal sex. his reasoning was (1) he sees it all the time in porn movies; and (2) his buddy told him that his girlfriend did it to him. Dr. Drew kept trying to explain to this guy that (1) real sex with a real person is not like in the pornos and the act is extremely physically unhealthy and dangerous to boot; (2) his buddy is probably lying to him, but the guy persisted that all he needed was for Dr. Dean to tell him what to say to convince his girlfriend to do it.

do not accuse me of being an "anti-porn crusader". firstly, i find the term "crusader" to be offensive as i am not a fundie Xian, and secondly, i support anyone's right to view porn even if i do not like it. i am voicing my distaste with the modern porn industry, that attempts to pornify men's expectations of real sex between real people, and that portrays women as simply objects and receptacles. i also resent being called "prurient" for disliking the portrayal of women as objects and receptacles. if a desire for all women to experience dignity and healthy self-esteem in their intimate relationships is "prurient", then the entire feminist movement is prurient.

[LostinVA]

75. FWIW

There's a movement within the porn industry to stop making films with ass to mouth, and many actually use condoms these days.

Plus, more and more women are producing and directing porn now.

[Phillycat]

79. Really.

Here's a thread from the lounge filled with women, "self-proclaimed feminists", as you call them (is there any other kind?) who find your position on porn laughable:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=6858489&mesg_id=6858489

So I think that pretty much blows your "only men like and defend porn" theory out of the water. You're welcome to put together your metric; I think you'd be very surprised at the results. Post a poll, why don't you?

You keep saying things like "the fact of the matter is that the porn industry is staffed for the most part with women who, through unfortunate events in their lives, feel that porn is their only option to make money." What fact? Where? Where are these facts?

To me, a "crusader" is someone who insists on foisting their opinions on others while shaming them and presenting those opinions as empirical fact, when in fact it is their subjective opinion. You fit the bill. If you were simply "voicing distaste", as you claim, you wouldn't need to denigrate other women whose OPINIONS differ from your own by calling us things like "self-proclaimed feminists" and telling us we are lying to ourselves.

[iverglas]

146. Margaret Thatcher was a woman

Phyllis Schlafly is a woman.

What was your point?

Oh, it seems to have been that someone pretending that the disagreement is between people who want, and want everyone else, only to "<make> love really, really slowly and listening to Enya in the background" and, well, normal people, and all the people laughing along at the fake joke, have said something monumentally worthwhile.

I keep meaning to get around to arguing with somebody by pretending that s/he said something s/he never said, and never said what s/he did say, so I can experience the pleasure that a lot of people apparently get out of doing that. I just keep thinking that it actually looks really boring and unpleasant ...


If you were simply "voicing distaste", as you claim, you wouldn't need to denigrate other women whose OPINIONS differ from your own by calling us things like "self-proclaimed feminists" and telling us we are lying to ourselves.

Yeah. And I guess that if all those folks in the Lounge had something worthwhile to say, they wouldn't have started out by pretending that people who disagreed with them were airheads, and that if certain people in these threads in GD had something worthwhile to say, they wouldn't waste their time calling people who disagree with them ugly old man-hating sex-fearing emotionally disturbed mentally ill hags.

[iverglas]

144. Uh huh. Okay, so if it's "political"

What's being discussed on those threads isn't prurient, it's political.

-- which IT IS, and you'll get no argument from me on that -- then what are statements like this doing in it?

It's been my experience that the only ones who make a big to-do against porn are those no one would pay to see in porn.

And where are all the pornography-positive FEMINISTS when statements like that -- including all of the other allegations and insinuations that other women's opinions are based solely on man-hating and sex-fearing and envy and emotional/psychological illness -- are thrown in the faces of women who state opinions about this POLITICAL issue?

The status of women in a society is a POLITICAL issue. The experiences of women as victims of violence, exploitation and oppression are a POLITICAL issue. The actions of individuals and groups and corporations in a society that influence the status and experiences of the women in that society are a POLITICAL issue. And those are the POLITICAL ISSUES that other women here have voiced ideas and opinions about.

So why has NOT ONE SINGLE FUCKING ONE of you pornography-positive feminists had ONE SINGLE FUCKING WORD to say to or about any of the people in these threads using all of these shopworn, threadbare, ugly, dirty tactics to intimidate other women into shutting up?

Why do you choose to be complicit in the efforts of those people to exploit and exacerbate other women's socially-generated and -perpetuated insecurity about their attractiveness or ability to reason by portraying them as sexually unattractive and emotionally/intellecually unfit for participation in public discourse?

Why are YOU not both denouncing this contemptuous and contemptible treatment of other women right here at DU, and engaging in good faith discussion of the issues yourselves?

I have no clue.

[Phillycat]

162. Hmmm...

Complicity. Maybe you're right. I'll admit it, I read that comment, and had a small laugh to myself, choosing not to respond either way. It was a small-minded and mean laugh, because I've been reading for two days from the anti-choice- oops, I mean anti-porn crowd about how I am a "self-proclaimed feminist" who is "lying to myself" and "pretending that everything is okay" - completely dismissing the idea that I might be a thoughtful, rational mature woman who's actually deeply considered these issues before forming my opinion. And I start to get pissed off at people who continually tell me I'm lying to myself, because I work hard to be self-aware, especially when it comes to these sorts of womens rights issues. And so I laughed the laugh of the high school girl who watches someone be made fun of in an unfair way because that person has been rude to her. You're right, the anti-porn people didn't deserve that comment. But I don't deserve the comments that have been thrown at me either. Does that make it right? No. But I'm human.

[FARAFIELD]

8. MAn oh Man...

There is SOOOOO a joke in here somewhere, just not witty enough to articulate it. I had an operation and was out for a couple days am I to guess there was a 2600* response thread on porn?

[edbermac]

10. Give me Porn or give me Death!

:evilgrin:

[SaveAmerica]

11. It's the new 'Grassy knoll', Ok that's kind of funny considering your

your subject. It's just my opinion that, just like clock-work, posts of a certain subject matter come along to act as distractions. And it usually works, but fortunately DU's work still gets done and word still gets out about what the Bush administration is up to.

(Am I the only person that thinks a lot of the JFK conspiracy threads are attempts to take the attention off of what's going on in the present?)

[musette_sf]

13. oh okay, that's all settled now.

exploitation of women, including human rights offenses, are just "distractions". so glad you straightened that out for me. all we girls need to just shut up and stop complaining. after all, our equality and status in American society are just "distractions". :sarcasm:

the modern porn industry is a microcosm of many of the biggest issues facing America today.

on edit: interesting that you view this issue as "distractions". very interesting.

[WillyT]

17. musette, May I Ask You A Serious Question ???

:shrug:

[SaveAmerica]

27. I'm scrapping what I wrote because I just realized I stepped into the abyss

[The Vinyl Ripper]

43. Men get exploited all the time too...

Women aren't the only ones who get exploited in the USA.

Quite frankly there are jobs that are far worse than having sex in front of a camera.

Roofer, one of the most dangerous jobs in the world, not very good pay and awful working conditions, hotter than hell in the summertime and freezing cold in the winter. Climb up and down a rickety ladder all day with 90 lb bundles of shingles or roll roofing on your shoulder.

Septic tank pumper.. Do I really need to explain how nasty a job that is?

Welder, arc burn your eyes and breathe toxic fumes all day. Weld on anything galvanized and you get zinc poisoning, feels like a truly awful case of the flu. Weld overhead and the sparks drop onto you, burn holes in your clothing and then your skin.

I worked as a janitor a little while after high school. How people manage to literally spray shit all the way up the wall and onto the ceiling I have no idea, but I got to clean it up.

Wait staff, work for less than minimum wage, have the IRS take extra money from you because "all wait staff make at least fifteen percent in tips" and then have "Christian" ladies leave you religious tracts as a "tip".

Chrome plater, nearly boiling hot multi thousand gallon tanks of various cyanide solutions, breathe the cyanide fumes all day.

Polisher in a chrome shop, work on a fifteen horsepower polishing machine that will take a hand or arm off in a split second if you make the slightest mistake. The damn things sound like a DC3 taking off when you start them. The polishing wheels will throw polishing compound right through your apron, clothes and into your skin, staining it so it takes weeks to months after you leave the job before your skin turns back to its normal color.

I could go on almost forever, there are myriad nasty, demeaning, low paying jobs out there that illegals are now taking away from the American citizens that need those jobs to live.

One of the main reasons for hiring illegals, at least in the construction trades, is that you don't have to pay workmen's comp on them. WC is a major part of the operating costs for construction companies and if an illegal gets hurt on the job you just fire him. What's he gonna do, sue you?

Try walking around in nasty, grimy, sweaty construction worker clothing and see how people look at you. You are lower than dirt to most of them.

[musette_sf]

53. wah wah wah

poor poor men.

"Try walking around in nasty, grimy, sweaty construction worker clothing and see how people look at you. You are lower than dirt to most of them."

try walking around in a female body in front of nasty, grimy construction workers and see how they look, leer, hoot and holler at you. you are lower than dirt to all of them.

[gollygee]

59. Posted to wrong place

sorry

[EstimatedProphet]

96. This is a good example of why I stayed out of the porn threads

You claim to be concerned about exploitation, but then belittle cases where people are exploited, because they are men. The post you're responding to doesn't belittle the issue of exploitation, so why are you doing it?

I've seen the same thing here in cases of male rape. You can't claim this stuff is wrong, then belittle it when it happens to another group. That indicates you aren't really concerned with the issue after all.

[gollygee]

60. Women work in construction too . .

I know that *mostly* men work in construction. But maybe that gives you an idea of how "men get exploited too" sounds to us.

[noamnety]

132. according to some people here

Miners and others working in unsafe conditions aren't being exploited because they chose to take those jobs. And a few like those jobs, and some get paid well, therefore the industry is good and doesn't exploit people.

(I think that's the logic, anyway)

[Phillycat]

56. Pleas try to remember that you don't speak for me, or all women,

or even most or many women.

You only speak for yourself.

As a feminist who enjoys, among other things, sex and porn, I find the lines you're trying to draw - men vs women - both inaccurate and insulting. I am not on your side on this issue. I believe in choice.

[musette_sf]

69. do not equate sexual exploitation with "choice"

the vast majority of the porn industry is about sexual exploitation. yes, as another poster points out, there are the Nina Hartleys, the Annie Sprinkles, the Tera Patricks of the porn world. but they are the exceptions and they are very, very few in the legion of women involved in the porn industry.

sex and porn are not the same thing. enjoying sex does not go hand in hand with enjoying porn. i'm really getting tired of the self-proclaimed "feminist" defenders of the porn industry equating the two.

[mondo joe]

88. Who decides when it's choice and when it's exploitation? You?

Or the individual in question?

[pitohui]

14. because people tire of discussing things where their opinions have no impact

i've seen big changes in porn in my lifetime and in its acceptance as a legal profession, at one time people had to hide their naughty books and booksellers as recently as the 50s were prosecuted for selling stuff that was too risque

hell, there was even harassment in the meese era

i think people see changes and they believe those changes have come, in part, because consumers demanded a product be delivered safely, without harm to kids but without depriving adults of the right to earn a living or enjoy themselves

so they see a point to discussing this topic because in this area, THINGS CHANGE IF PEOPLE WANT IT

in the area of the constitution, we don't see any change in the direction we want, year after year since reagan brought in all the money laundering laws and the "war on drugs" and the rest of the crap, we've done nothing except lose right after right, no matter how much we discuss, no matter how much we try to educate

so we just get tired

i spent a LOT of time in the 90s trying to raise awareness of search and seizure/forfeiture problems in usa/violations of the fourth amendment and you know what? it only got worse and most people didn't care until it was their own cash seized or their own kid arrested for bullcrap

so people get tired

we would like to have a constitution and be free but it seems so impossible that you just don't know what to say to the outrage of the day

something like jose padilla would have been a cause celebre years ago, now it's just...well, what do you expect? of course the gov't tortures people, what can we do -- we're afraid and we feel hopeless

not trying to justify hopelessness, which is a bad thing, just trying to explain it a little

[BlooInBloo]

15. Constitution or no, we're still gonna wanna fuck.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. The Answer Is Actually Quite Simple:

The best topics are the ones in which you learn, and don't have much to add to the knowledge via response.

The junk topics get so many replies because they're easy to respond to and they weren't very intellectual to begin with; thereby not putting a poster overly on the spot to respond with something equal in intelligence to the thoughtful OP.

It's one reason why I think the view counter should be a 'unique poster' type view counter. Many times when you see a high counter it's the product of the same posters going roundabout in a flame war and isn't really indicative of the true 'view' count.

But why do the thoughtful and educational ones not get as many replies? Like I said above, it's hard to think of something valuable enough to add to a really well stated and valuable in learning type thread.

[rucky]

20. XXX RUSSIAN MIDGETS XXX

[Colobo]

25. I'd pay to see that!

[johnnie]

21. I'm gonna guess that it's because...

There are about 100 threads a week on "The dismantling and possible destruction of the Constitution of The United States of America." and porn comes up once every other month or so.

[Shakespeare]

23. Exactly, and most of us are in agreement that the constitution's in trouble.

So there's not much to debate so heatedly in that regard. But other liberals telling me I'm not supposed to enjoy porn or anal sex--that one just amazes me.

[WillyT]

26. LOL !!! - The "Rarity Of Porn On This Board Conundrum"

That is brilliant! And may just be true!

:yourock:

[johnnie]

29. Lol

Now I don't know if this is a dig or not.

[rucky]

30. noooo. It's because we're a bunch of porn-obsessed poseurs.

who act progressive just to get "chicks"

[WillyT]

31. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!! - Don't TELL Em !!!

:wtf::hide::wtf:

[JVS]

154. you said it "comes"

[Synnical]

24. And no one gets the irony of the Cow Bell Sticky!

DU needs more Cow Bell!

'Cause remember when we were ALL outraged back when:


Bush volunteers turn away protesters (2004)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=729996&mesg_id=729996

Revolt of the Press Corps (press sick of Ask the President) (2004)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=754901&mesg_id=754901

Behavior May Cost Protesters 'Privileges,' Bloomberg Says (2004)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=757971&mesg_id=757971




And then we learn that there was indeed a White House Manual intended to subvert the First Amendment?

White House Manual Details How to Deal With Protesters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2962316&mesg_id=2962316

MORE OUTRAGE!

MORE COWBELL!

I got a fever, and the only prescription, is more cowbell!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1638947&mesg_id=1638947

[jgraz]

32. Perhaps because the Constitution isn't being dismantled by a hot naked MILF with EE breasts

Just a guess...

[WillyT]

35. Um... Have You SEEN Some Of The Fox News Anchors ???

I beg to differ.

:evilgrin:

[EVDebs]

34. The People vs Larry Flynt ? Porn is one of the first things that will be shut down

in the new Savanarola's 'Bonfire of the Vanities' world. And reading D H Lawrence's 'Lady Chatterly's Lover' -- that was originally a First Amendment case I've heard; what will they go after next ? Coffee drinkers in the 17th century had to put up with having coffee shops labelled 'sanctuaries of sedition' since this is where people would congregate and bitch (in the best sense of the word) about the state of the world and their king or queen.

Maybe that's why Lady Liberty in those French Revolution Delacroix pics is depicted bare-breasted.

BTW, if you've taken the Pompeii tour you'll remember that they take the men only into this room at the house of the batchelors. The porn on the wall, a man with an erection with a balance scale being held by it (hey, is this on the internet yet ? I remember seeing the Brussells Belgium maniquin pis on the 'net). Porn is sometimes art. And art is often beautiful but sometimes not. To each his / her own.

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

BTW I was most proud when Flynt declared he was a Christian. What a guy ! Furthermore, the NSA must have some of the most 'seen it all ' bunch out there !!!

[mmonk]

36. Yeah. What's up with that anyway and how did it start?

Just another day in Wonderland I guess.

[WillyT]

38. Apparently I've Become Guilty Of It Here...

Thought just occured to me.

:banghead:

:crazy:

:hi:

[mmonk]

40. You're just pointing it out.

Guess I'm guilty too since I'm responding.;)

[kdmorris]

145. Well, at this point, I think we are all guilty

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:toast:

[Adsos Letter]

41. More people understand porn....

...would be my guess...

:D

[WillyT]

42. ROFLMAO !!!

THAT...Is Good!!!

:rofl::yourock::rofl:

[undergroundpanther]

44. Because some people are hurt by porn

And some want to deny them their voice and lie to themselves.

This in another way is why people deny what is happening in this country.Good Germans and knee jerk defenders of porn have a lot in common.
DENIAL ,hypocrisy,tolerance for dehumanization and abuse of power, a self absorbed narcissistic callousness, selfishness,and a severe case of self deceit for starters.

[Forkboy]

45. Because those threads offer everything.

Drama,pathos,comedy,and the number one all time favorite...sex.

[HardRocker05]

47. yeah, and porn is a 'women's issue,' which is by definition a triviality, right? nt

[musette_sf]

52. according to many "progressive" men here

yes, it's a triviality. millennia of male privilege and patriarchal societies is so ingrained in them, that it's easy for them to see women's issues as trivial.

[Phillycat]

58. Again, you are aligning the sexes against one another, and you are WRONG

I am female and I enjoy porn. More importantly, I believe in the right of every woman to do what she wants with her own body, including have sex on camera for money.

I don't believe this issue is trivial, either. I believe the future of feminism is contained in this discussion. If we don't support women to make their own choices, then the whole battle is lost. That includes choices that YOU may find distasteful!

[musette_sf]

62. i think junkies should have the right to be junkies

but it's obviously not a life choice that i would want to make, nor would i want anyone near and dear to me to make that choice.

anyone is free to be a junkie. anyone is free to be in the porn industry. neither is a positive life choice. both are dangerous, and both could haunt one for the rest of one's life.

i too believe the future of feminism is contained in this discussion. you seem to think there is some "freedom" issue about me, and many other women like me, finding the porn industry to be distasteful and harmful to women.

true freedom for women would include the freedom to be able to earn a living without compromising her principles and dignity. the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of women in the porn industry are in it because they believe they have no principled, dignified way to make desperately needed money. you can preach "freedom" and "choice" all you like but this is the nasty truth.

as long as women are willing to pretend that somehow "freedom" and "choice" are being exercised in the objectification and degradation of an industry that sees them as nothing more than orifices, then men are going to continue to shout loudly (as they have on all these threads) about their "freedom" and "right" to support the porn industry.

if you would be willing to say that if you had a daughter, that you would happily approve of and be proud of her working in the porn industry, then i would say it is certainly your right to do so, but it would speak volumes about what she had learned about life and career choices, and what she thought her options were.

[Phillycat]

63. Nina Hartley (the porn star who wrote the article that originated these threads)

is an RN. She clearly had other life choices, and she chose to be a porn star. There's a woman who posts in the Lounge who is a perfectly normal woman with a husband and child. She's a stripper, and she does it because she likes it, not because they have no other choices. I have a friend named Julia who works as an office manager during the day and is a dominatrix at night. She loves it and gets off on it.

These are anecdotal stories, of course, but I've yet to see any hard evidence from your side about how 75% or 85% or whatever of the women involved in the adult industry are there because they have no other choices, or whatever you're claiming. I'm sure there are some, but I'm also sure there are lots who do it because they want to and it's good money, and they enjoy themselves.

I have no problem if someone near and dear to me wants to get involved in porn or the adult industry. I don't think it's harmful. I don't think it's opressive. There are hundreds of female porn directors, writers, and producers now. In fact, that trend started in the 70's, well before you saw many female directors, writers, or producers in mainstream filmmaking.

I believe grown women can make their own choices. I grew up poor - food stamps poor, government cheese poor. I did not choose to get involved in porn, but it's not a choice I would denigrate. In fact, I would argue that having ownership and autonomy over one's own body in such a direct way could be self-esteem BUILDING, not the other way around.

I have a friend who is doing a project on Flickr called "365". Basically, you take a self-portrait of yourself every day for a year. This friend was shy a year ago when she started this. Until she started posting nude and semi-nude pictures of herself. She blossomed in self-confidence. She found that she accepted and loved her body much more after having posted the pictures.

I am asking you to see that YOUR definition of "harmful" is subjective. The definition of harmful as it pertains to a junkie is medical fact. But no one has ever proven that being in porn is harmful. That is your BELIEF. And telling fellow women and feminists that we're lying to ourselves and maintaining the patriarchy is totally useless. We believe different things. I'm asking you not to speak for me.

[musette_sf]

68. ah yes, the noble Nina Hartley,

Annie Sprinkle, Tera Patrick. the few, the proud, the happy pornettes, emphasis on "few".

i'm really enjoying the Chelsea Handler show of late. she's been doing interviews with porn workers. her attitude towards them of "whatever..." and making them seem real-world silly when they wax rhapsodic about how wonderful their sex jobs are, has been very heartening. it's a pleasure to see a strong, funny woman take on the porn industry and poke fun at those who would defend it, and in a manner that is most definitely NOT anti-sex.

and there is ample proof that being in porn IS harmful to the majority of participants.

[Phillycat]

70. I'm ready.

Show me the proof - not anecdotal, since you dismiss the anecdotal evidence from the other side. Empirical proof.

And, I might add, your attitude is condescending, shaming, and arrogant. I haven't spoken to you that way. Self-righteousness is ugly, and it oozes out of all your posts. So I'm a "self-proclaimed feminist" because I like porn, huh? Your biased judgment reflects poorly on you, not me. I'm trying to have a discussion, you're trying to shame me.

[musette_sf]

74. i would respond to that

by saying that only *ONE* response to my posts from a feminist who also liked porn was NOT self-righteous, condescending, shaming and arrogant towards my viewpoint. and that *ONE* response would not be any of yours.

get this: i am not going to be shamed or bullied into accepting the products of today's porn industry as "healthy", by any woman OR any man.

[Phillycat]

81. Again, I say really.

Show me anywhere on any post where I was anything but polite and thoughtful toward your viewpoint.

And I still have seen any of this "ample proof" you assure me is out there.

And I'm not asking you to change your opinion about porn. I'm asking you to stop denigrating other feminists whose opinions on the issue differ from your own. "Healthy", in an emotional sense, is a SUBJECTIVE term. Do you know anything about the BDSM community, for example? Total and COMPLETE objectification of the sexual partner, if it's being done right, heh. And yet, people who are into BDSM incorporate it as a natural, healthy part of their lives, and live as contributing members of society. Are there exceptions? Of course there are. There are plenty of people who have perfectly vanilla sex lives who aren't by any stretch of the imagination emotionally healthy, too. It depends on the person. It's SUBJECTIVE.

[LostinVA]

84. Uh oh -- you used the word "vanilla"

I made that mistake last night.

[mondo joe]

85. But someone else was a little fixated on "Chocolate".

:shrug:

[Phillycat]

86. Oh, crap. Is that wrong?

:scared:

[LostinVA]

87. I learned that it was "racist" and "sexist" "code"

Pretty powerful for a term derived from an ice cream flavor.

[Phillycat]

90. Really?

Wow. And to think I just thought it referred to good-old boring missionary style sex. Heh.

[Lurking Dem]

109. LOL!

I have studiously avoided it for days now. Along with plaid skirts and "tawse".

[LostinVA]

78. Guess what?

We've found the topic that I completely agree with you on.

Good posts.

[Phillycat]

82. LOL.

Thank goodness for DU. I've learned how to stay civil when the other person can't or won't, or when it's an issue about which I'm passionate. Took a long time. :D

EDIT: and thanks. :)

[HardRocker05]

130. a)there's nothting wrong w/ porn per se and b)of course it a woman's or man's right to watch/make it

no one is saying otherwise. i am simply criticizing the violent, rape/humiliation type of porn in which the degradation of the victim (usually but not always a woman) adds to the sexual pleasure. i am saying that this kind of stuff is messed up and people should not consume it, or if they do, realize that this stuff has consequences. also, it is not pitting one sex against the other; throughout the history of the women's rights movement there have always been pro-equality men and anti-equality women; it is a matter of people who wish to promote peaceful, respectful coexistance, vs. people who want to enforce rigid limitations on people's freedoms, to the point of using violence to do so. you are correct that the issue of porn encompasses a lot of other issues, and that is why the subject gets so many responses and is so 'sensitive.'

[Terran]

80. You know, we could have a totally just and equal society

where men and women are treated 100% equally on all levels...and there would still be pornography in one form or another. It's been around since at least the time of the ancient Romans, when it first became feasible in a technological sense, so apparently there's a human need for it. Or at least a male need. In a just society, lots of people will still not be able to make routine sexual contact with each other, and will use a subsitute if one is available. Maybe in the future we'll have sex robots and media-driven forms of porn will become obsolete, leaving no human woman exploited or demeaned. But I suspect there would still be complaints from certain parties.

[Lurking Dem]

110. On an historical note

that Latin word for "arch", fornix is the same root as fornicate because the prostitutes used to hang out under them.

Brothels were called fornices.

[Terran]

112. Fascinating.

Seriously. I love language. Not unlike the relationship between "testes" and "testimony".

[idgiehkt]

111. interesting post.

"Maybe in the future we'll have sex robots and media-driven forms of porn will become obsolete, leaving no human woman exploited or demeaned."

Is porn by it's very nature exploitative and demeaning? I guess that is the debate at hand. It's just naked people, or naked people having sex. In our culture nakedness can be a form of degrading someone, in a criminal sense of assault, but nakedness doesn't have to be, or it could be eroticized because someone's sexual response is geared toward degradation as well as eroticism. I think what bothers some people is the eroticization of degradation, but some people get off on that. My issues are where it may include coercion or civil rights violations. I'm not concerned so much about what goes on beyond the camera in the eyes of the viewer as long as it does not include minors, but I do want to be assured that there is no coercion going on; for instance women working in porn because they are addicted cocaine or meth or narcotics. They may be making choices to support those habits that they'd never make otherwise. That makes it kind of a gray issue for me with no black and white areas, really. I really don't want the energy of bringing something like that into my experience when the actor is in truth a desperate person making decisions they'd never make were they not held hostage to the trade for reasons other than just enjoying that line of work.

[Terran]

118. I think you make the most clear-headed case I've seen

in any of these threads for what the actual answer is to these issues, namely:

--it isn't possible to control/legislate sexual desire, so the banning of pornography is untenable (even if no one came out and called for that measure);

--the corollary of the above is, it cannot be helped if some people gain erotic pleasure from seeing or participating willingly in "degredation" (whatever that may be); many don't like the idea, but I think it's human nature and cannot be eradicated;

--What's important here is not what the viewer sees as "degredation" but what is actually happening to a person, and this is dependent on the consent of the person or people involved. Basically any sexual act committed against one person by another without mutual and uncoerced consent is a form of abuse, so I prefer that word to "degredation". Abuse of any person involved in the sex industry, as with any industry, is contrary to what our society espouses and should be illegal if it already isn't. Therefore, an intelligent approach to regulating sex workers and content-makers of ALL types would be the best solution from a criminal and public health standpoint. I'm talking annual tests for STV's, inspections of premises, unions, etc.

If we had such an approach in place, the only arguments left would be the largely theoretical ones regarding whether pornography is inherently sexist or not. In truth, I think it probably is, but "sexist" is a dangerously broad term. Porn is sexist because men, I feel, crave it in a deep biological way that women mostly don't; so there's an inherent gender-based imbalance there that simply won't go away. That's my opinion, but I think it's difficult to deny that.

[idgiehkt]

140. I know we hate female display in this culture

in the zoological sense, a female homo sapien displaying her body to attract sexual interest. We can't deal with it *unless* it is pre-packaged as porn, and for some reason then it is okay. If one goes into the lounge and reads the comments about Britney Spears or Paris Hilton and their presumed sexual behavior, when a revealing photo is posted, then there is such a pile-on of verbal shaming it's unreal. And so many of these folks are claiming to be pro-porn. It's a contradiction I really don't understand. Some may say 'it's because they (presumably) sleep around'...well a) isn't that what you are watching when you watch porn, and b) what business is it of yours who they do or don't sleep with. We still need that female jezebel figure, or whore of babylon figure, to loathe in this culture, even among the most liberal.

I really appreciate your post, my brain is so tired at this point it's almost over my head.
This sentence:
"Porn is sexist because men, I feel, crave it in a deep biological way that women mostly don't; so there's an inherent gender-based imbalance there that simply won't go away."

I'm not sure the imbalance comes from the desiring of porn...I mean, men seem to crave viewing sports more than women, statistically, but that doesn't necesarrily make it sexist. I really believe that culturally we have been so repressed for so long and women's sexuality has been defiled and women have been so terrorized, essentially, in an effort to keep their sexuality underground, that we don't even know what female sexuality is anymore...not really. I think this generation of women is in uncharted territory. We are still at the point where women are judged so harshly that having nude or revealing photos can put them at risk of black-mail or cause them economic harm in some way, like getting fired or removed from positions, etc. We still have supposedly liberal people who will refer to the above named pop culture figures as 'skanks' and make all kinds of cheap shots about them and their presumed sexual behavior, yet at the very next turn defend pornography as a holy rite. We still judge women by their sexual behavior and display in a way that men almost never encounter. And I think that has to do with the influence of religion, and I think it's been far more damaging to women as a class than the depictions of them naked, or film of them having sex. Those depictions existed in cultures where the societies were egaltarian, where female deities existed, where prostitutes performed sex as a holy rite. I think it is a patriarchal mindset that female sexuality is somehow innately bad or sinful that causes a lot of the harm.

[Terran]

163. I didn't mean to imply...

that there's a male biological need for porn, per se; porn is a symptom of a need, I think. Men are supposed to create diversity and species survival by getting off frequently. Porn just makes the fulfillment of that need more convenient. I'm not saying that's all there is to it, but that's a central aspect of male sexuality, I believe.

And I so agree with you on the idea of the need for a Jezebel figure. I think Western men want or need a female figure they can publicly scorn for her open sexuality while 'secretly' craving what she offers. It's a Christian thing, for sure; many ancient religions honored the female principal in it fullness--Maiden, Mother and Crone/sexuality, fertility and wisdom. I've always found it fascinating how these ideas persist just below the surface into modern times, though, in so many ways. I think they're coming back, too, into the mainstream, gradually.

Another thought I had about this: although I don't know this for sure, I believe that in cultures where male bisexuality is traditional, pornography is almost non-existent, at least in the ways it exists in the West. In the Middle East, this is still the case. In those cultures, women traditionally (if somewhat less now) lead sheltered domestic lives that are to a great extent separate from the lives of men. And men lead a significant part of their sexual lives with each other--enough, anyway, to circumvent the need for a pornography culture. Whatever we might think of this system in the West, I wonder if it hasn't at least had the effect of preventing the development of the woman-hating culture we obviously have here. Most Americans think of Islam as oppressive toward women, but it's my impression that a great many Islamic women see their culture as *respectful* of womanhood, and sheltering of women's culture. Islam in theory is not nearly as 'oppressive' toward women as it sometimes is in practice (much as with other religions).

[idgiehkt]

165. okay, I understand better now...

I agree with your first point but I also believe that women as well are hard-wired to pick diverse mates, it's a genetic drive and I think this is another aspect of female sexuality that our culture seems to loathe. Each season there may be a male that the female sees as stronger and more promising than the one that fathered her last child. Or she of course may not be conscious of that and may just "be horny" in the same sense that men are. I believe it is this female mating instinct that patriarchal cultures try to stamp out, that is where the words 'whore', 'slut', 'tramp', etc come from, and I think that is why there is so much of that labeling in and around porn just because those derogatory labels have come to represent the last remnants of true female sexual freedom in this culture.

This is an interesting paragraph:

Whatever we might think of this system in the West, I wonder if it hasn't at least had the effect of preventing the development of the woman-hating culture we obviously have here. Most Americans think of Islam as oppressive toward women, but it's my impression that a great many Islamic women see their culture as *respectful* of womanhood, and sheltering of women's culture. Islam in theory is not nearly as 'oppressive' toward women as it sometimes is in practice (much as with other religions).

With regard to the "development of the woman-hating culture we obviously have here" I think you are putting the cart before the horse, at least I hope you are. As far as I can tell, historically (excluding the far east because I know little about ancient eastern history although I know they have a goddess tradition at one point) we had both matrifocal and patrifocal cultures existing at the same time. To this day there are still matrifocal and matrilineal cultures but they are mostly isolated...I don't know if there are (or ever were) any true matriarchies but certainly there were and are many cultures more equal than what examples we have today. I don't see any evidence in anything I've read from paleolithic history forward to suggest that 'woman-hating culture' developed anywhere; it's depressing to think that intermingling of the sexes could cause one gender to hate the other and if that is true then maybe we'd be better off working on figuring that one out than developing atomic bombs, lol. What I see having happened is that over and over throughout history these more egaltarian or matrifocal cultures were overrun by more patriarchal ones, their deities, traditions, and rituals stamped out and destroyed and replaced with that of the culture that took over. I see this over and over again in history...so much that when I hear phrases like "the forward march of man" or "human progress" it cracks me up. Because it seems to me that almost always the peaceful and more civilized cultures are displaced and overrun by the more brutal, barbaric and violent. Over and over throughout history, might makes right, and might makes history, and what came before is forgotten as though it never existed, until unearthed centuries or millenia later by some archaeoloist and even then those concepts are so foreign to our culture that we can't even get our heads around the possibility that a culture that was healthier than ours existed BEFORE us, because we truly believe we are the apex of human development.

I don't put much stock in women who say islam in practice is more respectful of women, because it rings too close to what I was raised to believe about the fundie religion I grew up in as well. Step outside the lines of preproscribed behavior in any orthodox religion and you quickly find out how those folks really feel about women and female sexuality. That kind or ridigity isn't respect, that is control and coercion, i.e you'll be respected within these lines, but the problem is that a woman's basic human drives lay outside those lines when it comes to sexuality and in muslim countries that could cost her her life; in fact being accused whether guilty or not, could cost her her life.

[alarimer]

167. I am uncomfortable with it for the same reasons

I suspect that (but have never seen statistics on this) there is a lot more coercion involved that even in a standard Hollywood movie.

This is not really a First Amendment issue for me. I am not all that interested in banning it but I want to make sure that the people involved are not treated badly. And I want to make sure that they are truly involved because they WANT to be and not because someone forced them into it.

I find it degrading to watch. Not being all that comfortable in my OWN skin, if a boyfriend asked me to watch it with him, I would suspect that maybe he didn't find me all that attractive and preferred someone more like the ones in the films. And if I was with someone who liked the really violent stuff, well, I would run as far as I could from that person.

Also, not liking porn, does not make one a prude or less of a feminist than someone who likes it.

[HardRocker05]

127. again, there is nothing wrong with porn, per se, only the more violent, humiliating, forms of it, an

and even that, i think very few people are calling for an actual ban on it. i would just like people to take an honest look at it and say, 'yes, this stuff is messed up and i will not consume it.'

[Terran]

134. And yet...

if the "violent, humiliating forms of it" are still created consensually to the complete enjoyment of all the parties, then what's wrong with that? You are asking for people to change their inner selves, but where there's no concrete ethical issue, people will say, "why should I?"

I'm painfully aware that right now it's not possible to be assured that everything one might see in porn is created consensually, so there's a huge issue there. That's why I advocated above some fairly heavy-handed regulation of sex workers and sex content makers, to assure that no such abuse is happening. It would be easier to do that then stop people from getting off erotically on violent humiliating scenes.

Actually, I can see it now, a quality assurance label on every product: "Erotica made in the U.S.A.--guaranteed abuse-free!"

[idgiehkt]

166. I laughed at that last sentence but it's a good idea

even though the label could be falsely applied.

Then comes in the question, if it's a portrayal of abuse, even if it was made without abuse, does it still influence, impact the viewer in a significantly negative way, to the point of having an effect on their view of women and their behavior. Hmmm.

[Terran]

168. The Big Question

Then comes in the question, if it's a portrayal of abuse, even if it was made without abuse, does it still influence, impact the viewer in a significantly negative way, to the point of having an effect on their view of women and their behavior. Hmmm.

That's the question (or the assertion) that I think is really at the center of this controversy, and I'm not sure it's possible to prove or disprove. Does porn have an effect on the male user such that the user's attitude's toward those depicted become negative in some demonstrable way? I think that many of those posting who expressed a problem with porn have indicated they believe this is true, and not just in the case of porn that depicts abuse/degradation, but ALL porn. And yet what is this based on? It seems like little more than a feeling, or a search for justification for one's own personal feelings about pornography. I don't wish to fault that, as it's a human thing to do; but it doesn't amount to a factual assertion.

I also think there's an unspoken assumption here that if porn does have that negative effect, then female consumers of porn are somehow immune to it. This makes me think that the asserted affect is not, in general, real, because I don't think men and women are so different as to react in such different ways to that stimulus.

I do think that some men who lack ethics and the quality of introspection will have their attitudes made even more negative over time by viewing pornography. Impressionable people who lack critical analysis abilities are easily swayed by images. I also think that men who are socially well adjusted are immune to this effect. Just IMO.

[idgiehkt]

169. good points

I also think there's an unspoken assumption here that if porn does have that negative effect, then female consumers of porn are somehow immune to it. This makes me think that the asserted affect is not, in general, real, because I don't think men and women are so different as to react in such different ways to that stimulus.

I do think that some men who lack ethics and the quality of introspection will have their attitudes made even more negative over time by viewing pornography. Impressionable people who lack critical analysis abilities are easily swayed by images. I also think that men who are socially well adjusted are immune to this effect.

Yeah there is that unspoken assumption but I wouldn't say that women are immune, if indeed there is a demonstrable affect on female behavior. What that effect would be I don't know.

Even if it's proven that men are affected in negative ways by it I don't think there is a single thing that can be done about that that doesn't entail censorship. It's kind of a moot point. I personally know men who've gottne hooked on porn, by their own admission, like some people are hooked on drugs, and that it has a progression like any addiction. I've only learned that from men who have directly experienced it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

170. I just want to say

That this is possibly the one single subthread on this entire issue that has actually contained productive, meaningful dialogue.

Well done folks.

[Terran]

171. Thanks!

That's greatly appreciated, by me and I'm sure by the others.

[idgiehkt]

172. I've enjoyed it

It's so nice to find someone who really wants to dialog. The energy I've been getting off the other threads is heart-breaking.

[porphyrian]

55. We all pretty much agree that the Constitution is in crisis and that this is bad.

But the threads that get the most attention are the ones people have passionately differing views on, like porn. If you want more discussion about the Constitution, make a strong statement about what to do about the problem - that's where we disagree.

[mondo joe]

61. Because more disagree on porn, of course.

Why do you think?

[helderheid]

83. Maybe if we combined topics? VIDEO >>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxHsiA7Zawo

[bridgit]

93. imo it's cause people don't care to be caught with their liberal/progressive pants down...

round topics that might speak, from whatever distance, to: freedom, liberty & pursuits of happiness framed within a constitution that is being dismantled

[H2O Man]

97. It is interesting,

isn't it? Sometimes, it's downright amazing.

[BuyingThyme]

103. Cause we got penises and vaginae.

[Terran]

106. LOL! (BINGO!) n/t

[Vidar]

123. You come doubly equipped BT? Who knew?

[MoonRiver]

104. I haven't responded to one of the porn threads, but I find it disturbing

that they are getting so much attention.

[Madspirit]

128. How does it make you feel?

Why do you find it disturbing?

Lee

[MoonRiver]

159. Because I believe there are many more substantive issues we should be discussing.

I have nothing personal against the pornography industry. I just fail to understand why it is getting so much DU attention lately.
:shrug:

[Sapere aude]

131. If you don't know why sex is more popular than events of the day

there is no answer to suit you.

[smoogatz]

136. Nothing personal, but

this is the dumbest question I've heard all day. And I've spent most of it in departmental meetings.

[Fla_Democrat]

139. I didn't want to reply

but the title had the word "Porn" in it..... I can't help myself. :evilgrin:

[JVS]

153. Now we have a meta-porn thread!

[Canuckistanian]

158. Not by me. n/t

[Crabby Appleton]

160. yep, always best t stick to a subject that you're familiar with. nt

[Mushroom]

173. It's to be expected

It's perfectly normal for men to overcompensate and talk like an expert given the arena afforded them. They just need some elbow room and time. The best thing to do is be patient. My BIL divorced his wife and during softball season, he would drop to his knees at second base feigning getting slammed in the testicles by the ball. It was tedious, the excessive sex joking, but he eventually got over it by getting out more. He met a nice woman and they married. This was years ago, and I'm thankful he didn't have a puter.