Degrading images of women

[shcrane71]

The documentary Miss Representation’s trailer has been going around on social media sites. A main premise in this documentary is that degrading/gender specific images of women limits women’s participation in the work place, at home, in school, and in politics. It’s implied that having such limiting media messages curtails the imagination and ambition of girls, and reinforces stereotypes of what a woman is capable of doing in her life.

I have had the numerous discussions with self-identified progressives and liberals where I’ve been told to literally “shut up” when stating that pornographic images of hog-tied women is harmful for the advancement of women. What *is* the difference between Miss Representation’s critique of harmful media images of women, and the above critique?

Should other progressive people simply ignore this topic amongst polite progressive company? Are conservatives the only ones who can be visibly upset by images of bound women being used for whatever sexual purposes? Is there room for pro-choice, un-prudish women who are also upset by images of degrading images of women in progressive / liberal circles?

[Liberal_in_LA]

1. Some 'progressives' don't like to hear women "whine" about that stuff.

They also don't like to hear people of color "whine" about racism. that's what I've discovered.

[shcrane71]

6. when did we become so unempathetic?

When did we give up on "justice for all"? I've had men tell me that they wouldn't want to be porn stars because they would find it to be degrading and exploitative, but they'll still consume pornography. Some of these men said they would be upset to find their sons consuming the same types of pornography that they consume. I just don't understand.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. And some women complain that they would be upset if their daughters went on a pro-censorship kick

I hear it all the time, like at the grocery store.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. define "porn". Define "problematic porn". Define "degrading image".

Are you suggesting, for instance, that all or even the majority of 'porn' involves hog-tied women?

[Darth_Kitten]

42. Well, women would have trouble with their daughters being upset about hog-tied women.

:sarcasm:

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Ah, yes, the children.

Women would have a problem with their daughter telling their aunt to attend a consciosness-raising group devoted to challenging the dominant patriarchal male gaze heteronormative gender stereotyping IF the aunt then used that information to encourage their cousin's lesbian life partner to promote an agenda antithetical to the 1st Amendment.

[Darth_Kitten]

47. What?

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Ah, yes, the Children.

Women would have a problem with their daughter telling their aunt to attend a consciosness-raising group devoted to challenging the dominant patriarchal male gaze heteronormative gender stereotyping IF the aunt then used that information to encourage their cousin's lesbian life partner to promote an agenda antithetical to the 1st Amendment.

[Generic Other]

115. "dominant patriarchal male gaze"

I think he's NOT staring at our boobs, but I may be wrong. BTW, are there any men in this family?

[okieinpain]

67. right there with you. what?

[hlthe2b]

80. WTF?

Someone clearly has issues.....

[Warren DeMontague]

96. still waitin' for those terms to be defined.

...

[SwampG8r]

274. i got it on the first pass

lot of overhead whooshin going on
just read it through its a very logical structure

[Warren DeMontague]

279. Edit. Delete.

Figured it out.

[uppityperson]

291. Yeah, hog tied women = equality. what?

[Warren DeMontague]

293. there's a poster downthread who is into consensual adult bondage-ie being tied up

why don't you clomp on over into her personal life & bedroom, and order her to cease and desist.

[uppityperson]

294. Because I'm trying to figure out what you are saying. Odd how I do that, want a poster to

clarify rather than going somewhere else to talk with someone about something.

[Warren DeMontague]

295. What needs clarification? It's simple: is everyone involved a CONSENTING ADULT?

Yes?

Then what they choose to do in their bedrooms, or in front of a camera, is their own damn business.

[uppityperson]

296. As I have said before, I agree. Since you post this in reply to hog tied women

I guess that then you agree that this is an ok thing to put out for the public, not just for themselves.

[Warren DeMontague]

297. The original post had something to do with women and their daughters and 'hog-tied women'

And THAT was in response (or non-response) to MY request for concrete definitions of terms, like 'porn' or 'degrading porn'.

I think respecting freedom, choice, and the 1st amendment are good VALUES to impart to the next generation. I don't buy the idea that we are all so psychically delicate that images are going to hypnotize, brainwash, reprogram, or 'damage' us. Obviously, some things aren't for kids, and some things aren't for billboards or bus ads.

If there REALLY is an epidemic (beyond the one Dolce & Gabbana ad we keep seeing referenced) of implied rape or even 'hog-tied women' in PUBLIC advertisements, start a petition for the major Madison Ave. ad agencies, and I'll sign it. Honest.

[uppityperson]

298. Most of the advertising images I see of woman I'd say are degrading.

That oh so thin, airbrushed waify preteen f* me look. Blech.

I believe images do brainwash and program people. Advertising works.

[Warren DeMontague]

299. Where do you see these ads? Who are they aimed at?

Maybe you need to be reading different magazines. I see a lot of positive female role models in Scientific American.

[uppityperson]

302. Tv, newspapers, magazines, billboards, etc etc etc.

you can hold your snide takes on me, thank you anyway. I look at lots of different things, including those that (gasp) preteen relatives do, to see what they are seeing as it impacts them. I think you are just snarking at me now.

[Warren DeMontague]

300. Also, if people are so programmable, does that mean being gay is a 'choice'?

I mean, in theory, you ought to be able to do all sorts of hacking into peoples' sexuality by showing them pictures.

But I'm betting you don't really believe that, at least not when it comes to LGBT sexuality.

[uppityperson]

301. No more than the color of your skin is a "choice".

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

306. So we agree.

Presumably, then, you would also agree that it's ludicrous to imagine that anyone's sexuality- gay, straight, whatever- is somehow susceptible to being programmed or otherwise re-wired by looking at, say, ads in a magazine.

[uppityperson]

307. Of course not. Not talking about degrading pictures changing anyone's sexual orientation as that is

stupid. I am talking about brainwashing and programming people to accept things like violence as being ok.

[Warren DeMontague]

308. Okay, so what mental parameters do you feel are easily programmed by looking at pictures?

Not orientation, but what?

[uppityperson]

311. "I am talking about brainwashing and programming people to accept things like violence as being ok"

[Warren DeMontague]

316. and you think ads for, say, skin cream program people to think violence is ok?

The history of the human race is absolutely lousy with horrific acts of violence. (In fact, compared to just a few thousand years ago, we might as well all be pacifist, fruit-munching Eloi.) How did all of that get normalized before modern advertising?

[uppityperson]

319. Ads showing violence program people to think violence is ok. Not sure why this is such a hard concep

concept to grasp. It doesn't matter what the product is, but yes, ads promoting violence help program people to think violence is ok.

As to the rest of your comment, there have always been violent people and always will be. How does normalizing violence help for the rest of us?

It isn't that difficult of a concept. Advertising is meant to sell a product. That product could be skin cream, but also sells the desire to look like the anorexic wafish model and, if she is shown being beaten on, that that is an ok thing.

I'm done with you here. bye.

[Warren DeMontague]

320. I just think you're seeing different ads than the rest of us.

Skinny women dressed provocatively, that's one thing.

"waifish models being beaten on" I hardly think is a real indicative descriptor for most ads.

Do people want to be thin? Do ads (usually aimed at women, in womens' magazines, mostly) often present thin women? Yeah. But thinness and violence aren't the same thing, and furthermore, the desire to be thin and the promotion of it via advertising isn't keeping a large portion of America from being unhealthily obese. Look around.

[redqueen]

362. With this in mind:

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2007/02/sexualization.aspx

Consider that in both Sweden and Denmark, there are laws which prevent advertisers from using women's bodies as props. Advertisers can still use sexualized images of men and women to advertise products which can be in some way logically connected to beuaty... e.g. face cream, body soap, etc.... however there isn't the carte blanche that exists all over the rest of the world, which results in women's (and increasingly men's as well) bodies being objectified in such a crass way (simply to move product and cash in on the lowest common denominator).

This doesn't mean that there are no more ads with "de sexy wimminz" (or menz) for simpletons to drool over, just fewer. That, IMO, considering the obvious negative consequences to such mindlessness, is a good thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

365. I just don't grok why you need to control what other people look at.

Don't like it? Don't look at it. And sure as hell don't buy the product.

And believe me, a lot of people -not just drooling simpletons- like to look at attractive members of the opposite (or same) sex. Having a tantrum about it isn't going to change anything.

[redqueen]

369. And I don't grok why using images of oversexualized women

to sell everything under the sun must be accepted as normal.

Everyone likes to look at attractive members of whatever sex they're attracted to. Claiming that that's what I'm talking about is incorrect. I'm talking about the ubiquitous use of those images all over the place. Why is there such resistance to the idea of dialing back on the T&A when it's used to market just about everything? I can see why many people hardly notice. It's like fish swimming in water - the last thing they'd notice is water.

Don't like my opinion? Oh well. IMO it's progressive, and I hope it is only going to spread.

[Warren DeMontague]

376. I guess my "resistance" is my opinion, too, and IMO it's the progressive one.

Guess we'll see where things go.

[raccoon]

321. Absolutely. If advertising didn't work, companies wouldn't spend millions on it. nt

[BrendaBrick]

323. Advertising by Bill Hicks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHCs3v_mFkM&feature=related

[Warren DeMontague]

325. Ah, yes. Bill Hicks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcefX9TPlkY

"...when did sex become a bad thing? Did I miss a meeting?"

[redqueen]

353. Ah yes, Bill Hicks. His Goat Boy character was so great, wasn't it?

The way he used to make disgusting noises in appreciation of "young girls'" bodies (vaginas like paper cuts, framed with wisps of cotton candy).

[Warren DeMontague]

355. I must have missed that bit.

Still, if he said something you object to, take it up with him.

Except, he's dead. But still.

[redqueen]

359. I was just joining in the Bill Hicks fun.

I liked a lot of his material, but nothing can make up for Goat Boy, IMO.

[MH1]

344. Ah. Rumor has it that in porn, it's not necessarily true that everyone is a consenting adult.

The 'consent' part especially can be dubious.

That said, the biggest issue is probably the non-consenting adult part, which is a different issue than the action itself. If it IS between two consenting adults, shouldn't be an issue. And assuming the third consenting adult (i.e. the porn viewer) had to actually go looking for the stuff, I think I don't really agree with the argument being made in the original post. But I might think about that a bit.

[Warren DeMontague]

348. you shouldn't believe rumors, first off.

Coercing someone to do something like have sex in front of a camera would be a CRIME, and I would strongly encourage anyone with evidence of such a crime to report it. Immediately.

However, for the sake of linear argument, let's assume that, in discussions pertaining to "consenting adults", we're talking about "consenting adults", as in adults who are consenting.

Sort of like how you can't have a discussion using Aristotelian logic if you can't get past A=A.

[Warpy]

Uh, it's always been like this where women have been concerned

One reason for the women's movement bursting forth in the early 70s was when we confronted the entrenched misogyny in both the civil rights and antiwar movements.

I'm glad to say a few things have gotten better. However, many things have gotten much worse, especially among advertisers who think degradation makes their product noticeable.

There's still a long way to go before half the human race is accepted as being human.

[okieinpain]

70. my problem is women (not all) promote the stuff. like the little girl

that's married to lost actor.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. And you accuse ME of not making sense?

:shrug:

[Warpy]

97. Excuse me?

Little girls don't generally have enough information to make wise decisions.

Letting advertisers off the hook because some little girl made a stupid decision seems proof of what I said above.

Jesus.

[REP]

I like a working toilet, but I don't want to pump septic tanks.

[EdMaven]

153. interesting comparison. porn = septic tank.

our unconscious is funny.

[REP]

167. Can't get away from either one. Both serve a purpose.

[itsallhappening]

2. Nothing wrong with looking at a hot chick.

I don't care for the hog-tying, so I'm with you on that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "gender specific images" of women being degrading, though. Do you mean people who appear to be the gender they really are? I think there's one news network that employs an individual who could be either male or female, but there aren't too many of those on TV.

[shcrane71]

33. agreed, nothing wrong with looking at a beautiful women

No, I mean women who feel compelled to dress in stereotypical/hyper feminine way due to professional and societal pressure (real or perceived).

[itsallhappening]

37. Your view is sexist.

Why don't you think women can decide for themselves, one by one, if they want to do this sort of thing?

[boston bean]

40. Of course they can whatever they want.

However don't forget the fact, that each is treated the same no matter what. The stereotypes ad detrimental to those who do and those who don't.

Women who don't, can't freakin escape it, and where is their CHOICE. it's not in their hands, is it?

[itsallhappening]

62. Plenty of women can "escape" it.

Trust me. Men don't see women all the same way.

[shcrane71]

88. How many women POTUS have we had? How many CEOs are women?

But since we're talking about women in the media, how many women directors, producers or media moguls are there? Do women control our airwaves? It's nice that men don't view women in the same way, but why does it seem like all men view women the same way? Why aren't the men who aren't valuing women for her solely on her looks speaking up? Why aren't these men mentoring these women (professionally)? Why aren't they promoting them?

[itsallhappening]

173. You missed the point.

Think about it.

[Gormy Cuss]

225. What do men's attitudes have to do with it

unless the basic premise in the OP is correct?

[shcrane71]

72. What are you talking about? Your assumption that I'm judging women who create sexualized images of

themselves is inaccurate. Reread my original post please.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. They should listen to Elanor Roosevelt, then.

"no one can make you feel inferior without your consent"

Especially If they "feel compelled" by "perceived societal pressure"

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polly7]

81. Bull.

Have you checked out all the young girls on facebook whose sole focus seems to be improving their appearances so as to be 'accepted'? I guarantee you many of them feel inferior. I'm not even talking about porn ..... the constant portrayal of women and girls as little more than eye candy is depressing. When body image is made so important to teens and young girls that they're killing themselves over being bullied because of it ....... how can you say they aren't being made to feel inferior?

[Warren DeMontague]

84. Wait. You're saying that some teenage girls are worried about how they look?

This has GOTTA be a brand-new development.

[polly7]

101. Funny.

No, I'm saying exactly what I posted. So much importance is being placed on womens' appearance in the media, and little else, that young girls are growing up with the impression that it's 'all' that matters and are beating themselves up for not living up to the images they're bombarded with daily. But, you knew that. I really wasn't joking by mentioning suicide. We had a 13 year old in the next town hang herself a few months ago because she was being bullied for being a 'dog'. Funny stuff!!!

[shcrane71]

109. That's horrible. I'm sorry.

[polly7]

116. Yes, it was. I know her aunt, who told me of some of the

names they called her. It was the popular, attractive group of girls in her class that started it. Bullying is nothing new, but I've never seen kids more obsessed over looks than they are now, and it's sad for those who feel they don't measure up.

[Warren DeMontague]

189. Fortunately, people take bullying a LOT more seriously than they used to.

But you should blame the bullies, not sexy ads, porn, or people like me who get crap and invective thrown at them in these threads for standing up for the right of consenting adults to make their own damn decisions.

[canetoad]

131. That's right

Pull yourself up by your sturdy, sensible bootstraps.

What a load of shit Warren.

[Warren DeMontague]

190. Elanor Roosevelt said it

not me.

[EdMaven]

199. Like so many aphorisms, that one is only half-true. People can indeed make you feel inferior

without your consent.

Because we don't "choose" our feelings like a dish soap. They're a product of social conditioning on multiple levels, and it starts from the cradle.

And there are many psychological experiments, in academia & real life both, that say so.

[MedicalAdmin]

244. Of course we don't choose our feelings.

We choose our reaction to them. And in that choice is where our power lies.

[shcrane71]

250. Thanks Ed. I don't think many children have developed the thick skin that Warren seems to think is

all that is needed. I can't recall where I read that children that are bullied suffer a sort of PTSD long after the situation is over, and even if they're removed from the bullies.

[Warren DeMontague]

257. I said upthread, I am glad bullying is taken way more seriously than it was when I was a kid

there was a lot of "suck it up" mentality back when I was growing up. Things have improved greatly.

But I think it's important to blame the BULLIES in bullying situations, not porn/advertising/sex in the media or whatever.

[shcrane71]

260. That's great Warren, but do you think we exist in a vacuum? We're social animals, and we learn

behavior from somewhere. There was a great PBS special I watched years ago about baboons (I think). All the alpha-males were killed off when they accidentally ate some tainted meat. Now, these males were horribly aggressive and mean. The next thing that happened surprised the scientist that was studying the troop. The females would run off new males that wanted to join the group if they started to not exhibit "nice" behavior (i.e. sharing). The troop ended up being much nicer.

The point being that we get our information about what are and aren't appropriate ways to treat each other from many different places. Mostly, it seems were spending most of our time consuming various media images and displays of human interaction. Hell, when I watch the Wire (greatest series eva') I start throwing around f-bombs for almost every adjective and noun til I stop myself to think "I *do* have a larger vocabulary than this." Maybe I'm just weak, but I suspect that others are like me.

[Warren DeMontague]

262. No, we don't exist in a vacuum. But consenting adults fucking in front of cameras

doesn't cause teen bullying and suicide.

I think VALUES are important: namely, values like compassion, kindness, understanding, and also TOLERANCE and FREEDOM.

I've had all sorts of crap and name-calling thrown at my head in this thread simply because I have consistently, repeatedly, stood up for a very simple and (to me) self-explanatory position: that consenting adults should be free to do what they want in their bedrooms and in front of cameras, and other consenting adults should be free to watch them- again, if everyone is a consenting adult.

For this, I get called every name in the book, I supposedly hate women and endorse rape, and I don't care if bullied teens commit suicide. Jesus.

Some people clearly disapprove of other people's consensual sex activities- you don't need to look too hard to see it, here. You have at least one poster in the thread who likes consensual adult bondage (ie being tied up) yet others believe that any depiction of that consensual adult activity somehow harms "all women" and exerts a mojo-like quantum influence on the ability of women to achieve pay parity.

I think if the problem is SPECIFIC ads, like the one Dolce and Gabbana ad from 6 or so years ago that is continually pulled out as "Advertising is promoting rape and bondage!!!" then yes, challenge that company and challenge that ad campaign. I've often said that the answer to bad speech is good speech, MORE speech. This is not a mere academic exercise for me; I come from a Jewish family in the Midwest and I remember when the Nazis marched in Skokie. I understand that the 1st Amendment is only as good as the right of the most offensive voices to be heard.

I also think there have been good campaigns aimed at promoting self-esteem in everyone from teen girls to GLBT youth, in recent years. I wholeheartedly support those campaigns.

[shcrane71]

266. What about the porn INDUSTRY? Not the sex tape that amateurs are making in their bedrooms,

and distributing however they see fit -- if in fact those adults are consenting. The average age a prostitute is introduced into the "profession" (pimped out) is 13. I'm not sure how "consenting" a 13 year old can be, but that's a whole nuther story.

I'm not sure if it was Terri Gross that did an interview in these past few years with either Marky Mark or the makers of Boogie Nights where they talked about how the porn industry has become more commercialized, more brass, less realistic in order to get fetishized, obligatory shots (i.e. cum shots to the face). How is watching the same shot over and over again going to help someone see a person as a whole human being? Our society goes ape shit over racist depictions and slurs -- as it should. What's the difference when the person is a woman? Don't tell me consent in making porn films. No ones dissing the 1st Amendment. Tell me if you really, truly think it won't have any play in how the consumer of porn interacts with others (primarily women). What if that consumer of porn is 12-13 years old?

[Warren DeMontague]

267. Several Points: 1) Adults are generally considered to be people over 18.

2) Some things are for adults and not, say, 13 year olds.

3) I do not believe that media is 'programming' our brains and sexuality, no. People watch Pirate Movies all the time, they don't turn into pirates.

4) You're really fixated on this cum shots to the face, thing, it seems.

[shcrane71]

271. Framing the argument to be trite and superficial seems to be your specialty. Keep complaining that

you're "misunderstood" when people think your a misogynist. No need to wonder why anyone would assume that. Everyone else is just stupid, and anyone that disagrees with you is just pro-censorship and hates the 1st Amendment.

Men are earning less of college degrees. I know many straight single women who can't find a employed, reasonably personable guy to date. Hopefully the younger/more accomplished women won't be settling for misogynists. When women earn more and stop consuming crap that is catered to stunted 13-year-old, male egos, then maybe we'll have a more equal society. Until then, it's a mans world. You win.

[Warren DeMontague]

272. you're

not "your".

You've still got time to fix it, by the way.

I'm not sure what the rest of your post is trying to say. I'm also not sure what you're looking for- you seem to get incredibly angry when anyone asks for a concrete definition of the problem, such as you see it, or the solution, such as you see it. Basicially, as near as I can tell, the solution is for people to go to Sundance and watch the documentary you're plugging. Fine.

[uppityperson]

292. "gender specific images"= hogtied split beaver, not

"people who appear to be the gender they really are". Or even without the split beaver, yeah, hog tied women are "people who appear to be the gender they really are".

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I don't know. I have never seen pictures of hog-tied women. I would agree with

"Miss Representation's" assertion that degrading images limit women's participation.

[MineralMan]

4. Welcome to DU. You're going to find out that there is a wide

range of opinions expressed here. Personally, I deplore all degrading images of women or anyone else on the basis of some shared characteristic. I find them personally offensive and harmful to society. There are some here, on the other hand, who would disagree with you about what is pornography and what is not. There are some who even have a cave-man attitude toward women, while professing progressive ideas on other topics.

The bottom line is that you will get agreement and disagreement on almost any topic you raise. Just state your opinion and give your reasons and join in the discussion. DU is not a single thing, nor are its members always in agreement about many subjects. It can be infuriating, sometimes. Just wade in and speak your mind, within the rules of the forum and you'll find allies and opponents on almost every issue.

[Silent3]

5. My main question would be: What do you want done about these images?

Do you want them made illegal, punishable by fines and or jail time, or do you simply wish to foster the same kind of disapproval you feel among others?

[shcrane71]

9. a respectable discussion about the images would be nice

You know... like where both parties listen to one another without name-calling.

1. Is there any validity to the argument that degrading images of women perpetuates sexism and misogyny?

[Warren DeMontague]

20. You need to do a better job of defining your terms

but no, I don't think people brains are that easily programmed by pictures. Some of the most misogynist, sexist cultures on Earth are ones where pictures of, say, a naked boob are expressly forbidden.

[Silent3]

28. I'm not unwilling to have a discussion like that, but...

...I'm still more interested in where the discussion is supposed to lead, what the goal is. I support free expression very broadly, and I'm strongly against government censorship.

I'm also for people using their own free expression to criticize what other people do with their free expression. A frequent phenomenon on the internet is people stupidly complaining that they are being "censored", that other people won't "let them" have their opinions, simply because their opinions are met with criticism.

As for the particular question you just asked, I have no idea if there's any solid evidence either way. Whatever effect these so-called "degrading images" have, I suspect there are far more fruitful avenues for improving the lives of women than fostering disapproval of those images.

[Chan790]

188. Possibly.

But the argument can also be made that as both sexism and misogyny are intrinsic to the viewer, not the image, that they're not perpetuating anything, merely revealing these things already present.

Sexists and misogynists are going to be sexists and misogynists whether they look at images of hog-tied women or not. It's possible even that doing so serves as an outlet and thus reduces the net societal quantities of these traits. (I don't actually think this last part, it's just an interesting Devil's advocate.)

It's a slippery slope: If degrading images of women perpetuate sexism and misogyny, do images of women degrading men in identical ways perpetuate female empowerment? I ask not because I think they do but because my understanding of those images is that their intent is to perpetuate female empowerment. I've heard that argument made peripherally by Midori, a famous shibari/kinbaku instructor from San Francisco. If you intend to argue that those images also degrade women, that's a harder hurdle to field.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. We shape society's mores and values by what we accept.

I'm all for permissiveness and some women want to work in this field. But many find the sexual exploitation of women for the sake of mere entertainment as damaging. Some men, please note I said some, see those images and think that is how women should act.

The same way high-fiving in the locker room can encourage bad behavior we can do much to discourage bad behavior by simply saying, "Dude, that's not cool."

No legislation required.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. "high fiving in the locker room" And you think WOMEN are subjected to goofy stereotyping???

I think the last time I "high-fived in a locker room" was 1986. If ever.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. So you're old and haven't been to gym class in a long time. So?

That doesn't change the substance of my statement that degrading images of women can be dis-esteemed enough to make them socially unacceptable. If it's socially unacceptable the demand goes down. If the demand goes down less will be produced.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. You think demand for porn is going to go down?

Yeah, good luck with that.

It's odd, though, no one seems to want to come up with a concrete definition of what constitutes a "degrading image". Is a picture of a naked woman degrading? A picture of a naked man? A picture of them having sex? A picture of 2 women having sex? A picture of 2 men having sex?

Please. If we're going to 'dis-esteem' 'degrading images of women', don't we need to DEFINE them, first? :shrug:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. Stay on topic. The OP is referring to women being bound and gagged

in images meant to convey sexual exploitation.

I have GFs from college that danced to pay their bills and I danced for my husband at his bachelor party, so the "prude" label your suggestion won't stick here.

It's hard to tell society "my body, my choice" while the audience is salivating over images of women being depicted as bound, gagged and forced to have sex. Rape is not entertainment.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. Where are these 'audiences salivating over images of women being depicted as bound, gagged'?

I remember the Jim Rose circus sideshow and puppetry of the penis back in the 90s, but maybe you're familiar with a different theater circuit than I am.

Got a link? You know, to the audience that is "salivating over the women being depicted as bound, gagged and forced to have sex". Really, I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. So you think depictions of rape are to be OK

we got it

You are proof that porn obsessions make people insensitive to the concerns of women

[Warren DeMontague]

103. You didn't answer the question.

Maybe you didn't understand it, because instead, you're trying to put words in my mouth. Kinky!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

110. If you're so spun up over the characterization of the term "salivating" you

are obviously choosing to deliberately ignore the fact that my complaint is about women being depicted as being bound, gagged and forced to have sex. Don't yammer about dodging questions because you're the one dodging substanitive complaints over semantics. You want me to leave off the word salivating?

Fine.

You have an obsession and a callous disregard for women.

You obviously have an obsession over this as witnessed by your evident mania in this thread. You have no regard for women. They are vehicles for your porn obsession and if a woman says, "Dude, that's not cool. Rape is not entertainment" you show nothing but desensitized disregard.

And for what?

To protect depictions of rape. Not sex. Not consenting adults. RAPE

[Warren DeMontague]

183. You seem awfully hung up on what I can only imagine is a very specific example

that you keep insisting I'm defending.

So let me ask you- what "depiction of rape" do you think it is I'm defending? The only thing I've "defended" in this thread is the right of CONSENTING ADULTS to make up their own damn minds about what to do with their own bodies or to display to other CONSENTING ADULTS. That is a very broad philosophical point, and if I'm "obsessed" with it, it's because I think it's pretty fucking fundamental and self-explanatory.

So I ask again: WHAT depictions of rape are you talking about? Like interminable debates here where some religious people invariably complain about alleged "religion-bashing", the people most excised and angry seem to be the people who are TOTALLY UNWILLING TO DEFINE, IN CONCRETE TERMS, WHAT THE HELL THEY'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT.

To wit, what exactly are you talking about? Porn? Advertising? Shows on the major networks? Can you offer a concrete definition of what you consider "porn"? Are you asserting that somehow most "porn"- however you define it- consists of "depictions of rape"? What is the basis, statistical or otherwise, for making that assertion?

You have someone upthread who gives a much more cogent explanation of why she, and other CONSENTING ADULTS, enjoy bondage porn involving, again, CONSENTING ADULTS. If those are the alleged "depictions of rape" you're talking about, I would refer you to that subthread.

Beyond that, I think ADULT women, just like men, should be free to make their own damn decisions about what to do with their bodies both in front of and not in front of a camera. I also think consenting adults- men and women- should be free to watch other consenting adults as per above. How believing women should be free to make their own damn choices in sex and entertainment translates to "having no regard" for them, simply escapes me.

[proverbialwisdom]

235. +1

Truly brilliant analysis. Thanks for your posts on this thread.

[shcrane71]

126. I laughed, but was sad about the truth in your insight.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

150. Thanks. What's really sad is I was being completely serious. n/t

[shcrane71]

177. I know.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

184. I'll take your word for it, thanks. I have to imagine most of that stuff is illegal.

I'm not saying there's NOTHING out there that's degrading, to anyone. What I am saying is I don't think it's the majority of what people consider "porn" (even if they're not willing to offer a definition of what that word means) and I don't think that, say, websites with people fucking chickens or whatever are somehow indicative of large-scale trends in culture or media.

[thucythucy]

206. Well, you asked for examples,

and so I gave you some. You seemed in your posts to be denying and mocking the whole notion that there are "degrading" images of women in porn, and so I responded. So I'm glad you at least acknowledge that this stuff exists, and evidently are at least somewhat queasy about how women in these specific porn genres are depicted.

And no, most of this stuff isn't illegal, at least not in the US, though there generally seems to be an effort (however feeble) on the part of those who own the websites to limit access to minors. (Basically, they ask you to click a button that says, "I'm over 18" and that's it). There is also usually a disclaimer that all the people participating are consenting adults, and all the violence is "acted" or "role playing." Obviously, depictions of actual, legally actionable behavior is illegal--and it seems you agree that it should be so.

As for your assertion that "I don't think it's the majority of what people consider 'porn'" can you provide a link or a study or any objective information/data/polls that back up your assertion? I'm not saying you're not right, it's just that I think you should hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold those of us who are critics of the worst elements of the genre. Give us a definition of "non-degrading" porn, and some examples, if you will. Besides which, reading through this thread, I don't see too many people arguing that ALL or even most porn is degrading--just the sorts of images I described above. This all began with a discussion of images of women "hog-tied"--that's the context in which all these comments have been made.

Part of my frustration with this whole topic (and my usual reluctance to engage in these discussions) is how little truly objective information there seems to be out there. I've heard people argue (as you seem to be asserting) that the vast majority of porn is non-violent in content and is sex-positive and thus innocuous in its impact. I'd like to believe that, but where are the data supporting that assertion? Is violent, extreme, degrading porn increasing as a percentage of porn over all, or not? What is the general ratio of "degrading images" (and I'm talking about the explicitly violent/degrading stuff I mentioned above) to more or less innocuous material that is simply consenting adults engaged in sex, "kinky" or otherwise? Just how large is the porn industry anyway? (I've read that the various porn trade groups generally grossly inflate the extent of their "billion dollar industry" but who can say for sure?) What are the trends in terms of degrading vs. non-degrading images? Critics say that both the ratio and content of "extreme" porn has increased dramatically over the past ten years, but again, where are the data?

Aside from all this, my general point is you shouldn't simply dismiss all the critics of porn--as you seem in your posts to do--as either completely uninformed, or as prudes who don't like sex. It would also be helpful to avoid straw man arguments -- that all or even most feminist critics of porn want necessarily to censor it, use state power to regulate people's sex lives, or limit women's choice in whether or not to participate in porn. Just as I might be a critic of media images of people of color, or people who are GLBTs, or people with disabilities (and I've seen some excellent work on all these topics),and think that progressives should take some interest in how these images impact the society around us, and how they make the struggle for social justice more difficult, I think genuine progressives should also show an interest in how degrading images of women in porn might impact the struggle for gender equity.

Does this really seem so outlandish to you?

[Warren DeMontague]

208. Okay. Give a definition of non-degrading porn: Two people having sex.

in front of a camera.

That's as simple as I can put it, and believe it or not, I think that MOST "porn" (I put it in quotes, again, because a solid definition of what is 'porn' seems elusive in the first place) is 2 people having sex in various ways. I think "sex positive" is sort of a nonsense term, it is sex that is designed (in most cases) to be arousing to someone, so it is -at least in some cases- intended to be sex enhancing. It's hard for me to imagine how porn could be 'sex negative' because it would kind of defeat the purpose of it being 'porn'.

Part of MY objection to these discussions is the monolithic, almost 2 dimensional way they treat wide-scale, amorphous phenomena, as well as even more nebulous, ill-defined concepts such as "the general conception of women". Even if it could be argued that ONE particular porno had an effect on one particular viewer's idea or ideas about one woman or several women or even women-as-the-entire-category-of-women-who-have-ever-existed, you're still arguing, essentially, about ill-defined categories and terms enclosed in (trying to be friendly, here) at best nebulosity and spurious semi-assertion.

Now as far as what is NOT 'degrading' -- another problem is that what YOU consider degrading might not be what someone else considers degrading. Is 2 people having sex degrading? You may say, 'of course not', but let's cut to the total, honest chase here.. when we've had these threads in the past, once the Dworkin (there's that name, again!) quotes start flying, it becomes perfectly apparent that some people DO consider heterosexual, penetrative sex, at least in front of a camera if not everywhere, to be INHERENTLY 'degrading to women'. Others consider ANY picture of a naked woman that might appear to be presented in such a way that a heterosexual male might find it arousing, again, is INHERENTLY 'degrading to women'. I'm not saying that's your POV, but it is certainly one that has been argued enough times to warrant a rebuttal, or at least a question as to whether that is the default position re: what is considered 'degrading to women' in regards to, again, 'porn'.

I do NOT think 2 people having consensual, hetero, penetrative sex is inherently 'degrading to women' (I also question the whole concept, as I alluded to above, and will expand on below) nor do I think that the vast majority of sex acts that 2 people would have in most porn would be degrading to either person. I would ask, is oral sex degrading? When performed by either partner? Is anal sex degrading? I mean, there are a long list of combinations and acts and positions that could or could not be 'degrading', I'm wondering where the line is, if it's specific to what people do or something else...

Now, I spent a good amount of time working for an indie, non-corporate chain of video stores, back in the day. I was pretty familiar with the smut that was around back then. I would categorize SOME percentage of porn as, yes, misogynist, to be distinguished from 'degrading to (all) women'. I absolutely think there's a place for SPECIFIC criticism of certain SPECIFIC pieces of art or entertainment, but if you notice the hullaballoo around this thread, what you see is not an indictment of, say, the one particular Dolce & Gabbana ad that is being used, over & over again, as THE EXAMPLE of PROMOTION OF RAPE IN ADVERTISING. Rather than criticizing this one fucked up ad, it becomes ALL ads and "the ad industry" and "the media" which is manipulating and brainwashing "the culture".

What was my, personal, criteria for finding SOME -maybe 3-5% of the total- porn misogynist? (which, again, should be distinguished from 'degrading to (all) women' which is a power I don't think any specific movie or image has) It wasn't any specific act, more like the attitude. I never felt it should be censored, but I and other people working in the stores told management not to order more of it.

That said, there IS porn out there where men are insulted, spat upon, tied up, etc. by women. And some men really like that stuff. Human sexuality is complex, and yes those disclaimers about how things are role play are important. People who like to be tied up and people who like to tie those people up are engaging in consensual behavior, and that's their business and it's really not the place of others to judge it.

I think it's a vast oversimplification; both of the vast menu of entertainment options available to people as WELL as how our brains work- to suggest that one set of images is somehow programming people and beyond that capable of somehow 'interfering with the struggle for gender equality.' In the 1950s, you couldn't see married couples sleeping in the same bed on tv, and gender equality was a fucking disaster. In the decades hence, we've progressed quite a ways, and we've somehow managed to do that at the same time as we've come to a place where consenting adults can CHOOSE to see other consenting adults having sex on their tvs or the internet. I don't think the increased sexual freedom and choice have negatively impacted the struggle for gender equality; I think greater freedom and greater choice- even if it means some people are making choices you or I wouldn't make- have HELPED the struggle for all of us to be more free and have more options.

[EdMaven]

203. ...

[Warren DeMontague]

89. Never mind. I found it.

Just LOOK at all that saliva!

Anyway, isn't that Bettie Page in your avatar? You win the irony award for today.

[thucythucy]

160. How about the whole

"ATM" genre of porn? ATM, for those who crave explicit definitions, means "Ass to Mouth" where a woman is anally penetrated (usually with an element of coertion--that's a part of the fantasy-so it's often in a gang bang) and then forced to go down on the man or men who have just penetrated her. You could reasonably say that the whole point of that genre of porn is to depict women literally eating shit.

So Warren, would ATM porn meet your definition of "degrading", or not?

[Warren DeMontague]

185. I hadn't really thought about it. What about "Bend Over Boyfriend" porn? Is that degrading to men?

I mean, a woman strapping one on.. you get the idea. I'm sure if one looks, you could find something like that with a concurrent, ah, ATM feature. With a guy.

Is that degrading?

What about oral sex that travels a little farther, ah, south... I'm told it's been known to happen.

Is that inherently degrading?

Men in gay porn do all sorts of things to each other, some of it involving ass. And some of it involving mouths. I mean, look, it's not my thing, but it's also not my place to tell them not to do it, is it?

What about if that is what the person is into?

I'm not going to judge.

See, I have a very simple criteria: IS EVERYONE INVOLVED A CONSENTING ADULT?

People do all sorts of things I or you might not do. I don't have some kind of degrade-o-meter to gauge what they ought to do or ought not to do. If they're adults, it should be up to them.

[thucythucy]

210. Your simple criterion

doesn't cut it for me. Let me be clear: I'm not advocating for censorship or for in any way criminalizing behavior that is consensual and takes place between adults. That's not what Im saying.

Let you give you an analogy that you might find helpful in understanding my point of view.

"Birth of a Nation" is a film that depicts black men as either childlike simpletons who are lost without a white master to guide them, or as evil sex crazed monsters who are a threat to white women. It depicts the Ku Klux Klan as a civic organization of Christian do-gooders organized to protect white women. It was in fact based on the novel "The Klansman" and the hero is a member of the KKK.

Would your sole criterion for judging whether or not such a film was degrading to African Americans, and harmful to the struggle for racial equity, be whether or not the actors in the film were consenting adults? If Mel Gibson announced tomorrow that he was doing a remake of the film--with the same basic themes--would it bother you if I objected to the racist content--even though all the actors, black and white, were consenting adults? I mean, why should progressives care if a film depicts the KKK as being a bunch of really swell guys looking out for their womenfolk?

It puzzles me how some progressives can deconstruct media for its racist, homophobic, and even some of its sexist content and impact, but think all such analysis should end as soon as porn enters the picture.

[Warren DeMontague]

211. Birth of a Nation was an extremely important film for lots of reasons.

Watched it in Film School; it was a milestone in narrative cinema and it was a racist pile of crap at the same time.

What would be the point of 'objecting to the racist content' in BOAN now, though? Hell, half the reason people watch it is because it is what it is. Not because it turns them into Klan members, but because it's important, historically, from how fucked up it is.

Also, BOAN didn't create racism, it reflected it. Whether BOAN programmed millions of people to be racist is debatable.

But Birth of a Nation is ONE film. Not ALL films. Are you deconstructing Birth of a Nation or ALL cinema? All cinema from the Early 20th Century? All black and white cinema? Or just that ONE MOVIE?

I don't see much critiquing, in these threads, of ONE particular porno or even ONE advertisement or ONE website. I see a generalized complaint about anything pertaining to visual depictions of sex. Not the same thing.


You also didn't answer my question: Is the "Bend Over Boyfriend" series degrading?

[thucythucy]

221. I picked BOAN

precisely because it is a specific and particularly egregious example of racism in American movies. And from my reading in history it did indeed provoke racism as well as reflect it. Klan membership had been declining through the era 1890-19teens, after the release of "Birth of a Nation" it skyrocketed, giving rise to what I've seen described as "the great Klan renaissance" or words to that effect. It was in fact used as a recruiting tool by the Klan, probably still is, for all I know.

I also picked it in part because of its artistic merit. The fact that it was such a groundbreaking film made it more, not less, of a problem. It also highlighted the divide between white and black progressives. If memory serves me well, the film was picketed by the NAACP, while many white progressives hailed it in just the terms you used--a great breakthrough, "history written in lightning" or words to that effect. (Woodrow Wilson, supposedly a progressive president though I'd argue with that,even held a screening at the White House). That any critique of any form of media has to be nuanced is for me a given. Certainly, I think it is possible to hail the same work as genius, AND reactionary, at least in some aspects. To cite another example, I think "Moby Dick" is in fact THE great American novel, have read it repeatedly, believe Melville to be an absolute genius ("Bartleby the Scrivener" is one of my all-time favorite short stories). But as a person with a disability I cringe at its depiction of Ahab as one reflecting a general social bias that sees people with disabilities as embittered, angry, grotesque, mutilated in soul because of their physical disabilities, and sees attributing a character with a disability as a shorthand way of signalling "this person is weird." (re: "Dr. Strangelove" "Nightmare on Elm Street," "The Hills Have Eyes," etc. etc. etc.). (For a critique on Moby Dick in its film incarnations and of American films in general from a disability rights perpective, you might check out--if you haven't already read it--Martin Norden's "The Cinema of Isolation: A History of Physical Disability in the Movies." It's somewhat dated, but still very good, and I think since you're into films you might enjoy it).

Two takeaways I get from your posts in response to mine: 1) I think substituting 'misogynist" for "degrading" is a much better way to frame this discussion. I've been using the terms more or less interchangeably, when it comes to porn, but I think your use of the term is much more apt in this context. And 2) I also agree that deconstructing specific instances/images works far better than general condemnations. I think it's always better to build arguments from the specific to the general, rather than the other way around. One reason why I generally don't enter into these discussions (on-line) is because I rarely if ever see that type of detailed critique, either for or against. I think there are lots of reasons for this--but whatever the reasons these discussions always tend to devolve into general name-calling and straw-man arguments.

I didn't answer your "Bend Over Boyfriend" question because I'm not very familiar with the genre, and I try not to comment on stuff I know little about. But if you incorporate your use of "misogynist" as opposed to "degrading" it seems to render the question moot. It's difficult for me to see how male-only depictions could be misogynist in this context--but I'll leave that discussion for a time when I can cite specific examples, as opposed to some general, uninformed opinion.

Getting back to BOAN. You ask, what would be the point of objecting to the racism now? (You didn't seem to get my question: what if Mel Gibson made an update, every bit as racist? Wouldn't that be objectionable to you?) And you state that people now watch it recognizing it's a racist piece of crap (as well as a breakthrough film). It may be that a hundred years from now people will watch contemporary media--including porn--with a similar understanding of its misogynist element (assuming it's there--which of course is the basis of our disagreement--stipulating as well that I don't mean all media, all films, all porn). But that will only happen if people--progressives--engage in the necessary discussion and analysis to tease out what is or is not misogynist about specific images and depictions, together with the impact these images and depictions do or do not have on the society around us. One example of such a discussion (again somewhat dated) is the series of films made by Sut Jhally at the University of Massachusetts film dept. You can probably find them on U2B. See, for instance, "Dreamworlds" which is an exploration of how misogynist imagery was used in the early days of MTV to sell music, and how such imagery both reflects and reinforces social stereotypes about women and sexual violence. I find it a good jumping off point for discussions such as this.

Anyway, it's been an interesting back and forth. I'll check back to see your response, but it may be a few days before I can get back with my own (weekend and all that--).

Best wishes.

[proverbialwisdom]

237. Bookmarked for future reference.

Thank you for your highly informative posts on this thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

254. "Bend Over Boyfriend" series involves women anally penetrating men with, ah, strap-on items.

And, as per your definition downthread, it is an act that MOST men probably (although statistics would be hard to ascertain, just as with your "most women don't like men coming on their faces") would NOT want to perform that act in their own bedroom.

Yet the men involved in these films are pretty unquestionably consenting, and enthusiastic about it. And I AM SURE that you could find SOME of these films with an, as you put it, ATM "component" added in.

So I ask again: is that degrading to men? All men? Men-as-a-category? Does the existence of "bend over boyfriend" type porn somehow distort the perception of all men or impact, say, how much all men are paid at their jobs?

It's a straightforward question.

[thucythucy]

312. I thought I did answer your question

though I notice you answered few if any of mine. I said I generally didn't comment on material I hadn't seen (a reluctance I notice you don't seem to share). Oh well, now that you've given me a more explicit description of "Bend Over Boyfriend" porn, I can give you a more explicit answer.

No, the images wouldn't seem to me to be degrading to all men. First, you say "the men involved in these films are pretty unquestionably consenting, and enthusiastic about it." Well, many "ATM" films give at least the illusion that the women involved aren't "enthusiastic" at all about their participation. The taglines for the vids say things like, "See this bitch taste what she don't like" etc. Even when the women involved say things like, "tastes good," (which is almost a cliche of the genre), the look of disgust on their faces seems intended to convey the opposite meaning.

The tagline issue brings out a whole other aspect to this. How these vids are advertised is, I think, a good indication of the message, the narrative, they're meant to convey. I suppose you'd say that the examples I cite are "fringe" or "gonzo porn." (But shouldn't we be critiquing that as well? Isn't "gonzo porn" also a part of this discussion?) Yet even a relatively "mainstream" porn site like "frogsex.com" commonly uses words like "bitch," "slut," "whore," to describe the women featured in the vids. Why is that, do you think?

Second, I think differing images have differing impact, depending on who it is--that is which group--is being depicted, and who is doing what to whom. To depict an American WASP in 2011 clutching a young WASP woman with one arm and a bag of money in the other would probably provoke little reaction, and have few if any social consequences. But to depict a Jewish man in Germany in 1934 in exactly the same way (and this was an image widely produced by Nazi publications such as Der Sturmer) is very different, playing as it does on the racist stereotypes that Jewish men are wont to 'corrupt" Aryan women and hoard money. And so an image of a man, for instance, seeming to enjoy rape I think has a different social impact than an image of a woman doing the same. There isn't the weight of several millenia (at least) of social conditioning telling us that all men enjoy being sexually abused, whereas there is that burden for women. Surely you can grasp what I'm saying here.

You should notice again that I'm not calling for censorship. I'm simply asking, along with shcrane71, shouldn't progressives be willing to critique and analyse this material in the same way we critique and analyse racist imagery in the media? I think it's safe to say that most progressives would acknowledge that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, and right wing media in general all have an impact--and a harmful one--on political discourse in our society. Similarly, the multi-billion dollar ad industry--which is used to market everything from pharmaceuticals to tobacco to gas guzzling SUVs, not to mention right wing politicians--comes in for much criticism and analysis here on DU and elsewhere. The mere presence of the "n word" on a rock in Texas has had a profound effect on the Republican presidential campaign--and rightly so. Those offering such analysis and critiques aren't instantly met with the censorship straw man, nor do we see sidebar discussions on whether or not the person who painted the n-word on the rock consented to do so. We certainly don't hear a whole lot of defense of racist imagery as "art" or "entertainment"--though in fact that's precisely how it was viewed, fifty and a hundred years ago, "Birth of a Nation" again being a prime case in point.

Yet somehow, as soon as it comes to porn, many progressives don't want to discuss it at all, and as shcrane puts it, would prefer we feminists simply shut up. No analysis, no critique, no discussion, no questioning of what if any impact these images might have on the culture through which women and girls have to navigate (let alone the messages it might convey to men and boys seeking to understand their own sexuality). Nope. Now allowed. Verboten. Met with jokes, snide remarks, attacks on the sexuality even of the people voicing these concerns.

Again I ask, why is that, do you think?

Best wishes.

Like shcrane, I have to wonder why that is.

[thucythucy]

313. I just wanted to add

to my post above--yes, I consider videos that depict men enjoying rape to be degrading to men, and socially toxic. I didn't want to let that go by, lest people think I'm totally comfortable with such a depiction. And as you describe "Bend Over Boyfriend" porn, rape isn't an issue, since as you say consent is assumed and enthusiastic.

I think the rest of what I wrote still stands.

Best wishes

[Warren DeMontague]

322. I think there's a difference between, say, 'critiquing' individual books and books-in-general

You want to analyze the content of specific porn or specific types of porn, knock yourself out. Same with ads- specific ads, like the D&G ad, I think are certainly open to analysis and (well deserved) criticism, although interestingly enough, due to the outrage that ad has had a much longer shelf life than it would have had otherwise.

Same with movies; there's a difference between critiquing "Birth of a Nation"'s very obvious racist overtones (and yes, I realize it did facilitate the creation of the 20th century Klan...) and pretending that there is a monolithic film industry conspiracy, or that somehow ALL films are racist because that one is.

These 'critiques' are almost invariably fusillades aimed at "porn" or "the porn industry", which, aside from being ill-defined, are broad categories that are simply not monolithic. Your example of "frogsex.com", which I had never heard of until now... Upon what criteria are you basing your claim that it's a "mainstream" porn site? Where is the statistical data as to what constitutes the mainstream of porn sites? I don't know if you've noticed, but there is a LOT of porn out there on the internet; pulling one website and using it as an example of everything, everywhere, is like... well, pulling one website and using it as an example of everything, everywhere.

But I am glad you want to be specific and targeted in your criticism or critique. I note in these threads that despite a great deal of protesting around "no one supports censorship", I never see an explicit declaration that, yes, two consenting adults having sex in front of a camera is NOT inherently exploitative or degrading, pictures of naked women (or men) are NOT inherently degrading, and neither do I see a repudiation of the Dworkin-MacKinnon position that, somehow, hetero sex itself -not to mention pictures of it- is inherently degrading or 'damaging' to women.

Beyond that, who isn't 'allowing' you to discuss whatever you want? Just as you haven't called (as you claim) for censorship of porn, I haven't called for censorship of 'feminist critiques' of porn. Are we not allowed to critique the critique? :shrug:

[thucythucy]

327. As I said earlier on

one problem I have with all these discussions is how little objective information there seems to be about porn and the porn industry, especially relating to it's on-line incarnation. So I for one have little way of knowing whether any particular site or image or set of images or genre of porn is more or less popular or prevalent or mainstream than any other. I can only infer by the sophistication of the site, the amount of ads, Google references, production values of product, etc. By these measures, "frogsex.com" seems pretty mainstream and a major outlet. Admittedly this is not a very scientific way of approaching all this, so if you have more objective information--for instance, a link to a statistical analysis of on-line porn content--please feel free to share it. I tend to think that we are both--if you'll pardon the expression here--groping in the dark, so it would seem as unwarranted for you to claim that particular narratives of violence or misogyny are NOT prevalent as for me to say they are. But if you can steer me in the direction of more info on this, please do. I'm also interested in similar work on misogynist imagery in slasher movies, which if anything have an even greater social impact--especially on young adults--than porn. The whole weird sex=death narrative you find in movies like "Nightmare on Elm Street," for instance, seem to be of a kind with the racism of "Birth of a Nation." But that's a whole other thread.

I bring up the examples I do because you keep asking for them. Indeed, this whole back and forth between us began because I decided to reply to your request above. Perhaps you meant it as a snarky, rhetorical question, as opposed to an actual request for information? Because whenever I cite a specific instance, image, website, genre, etc. in direct response to your queries, you seem to be saying either: 1. you haven't heard of it/don't know it and don't care to check it out so therefore it can be of no real significance or 2. it's not right to "pull one website" and use it "as an example of everything, everywhere." Have I done that? Really? I don't think I have, but if I have it isn't my intent. I'm simply trying to answer your requests for examples of what I mean by misogyny in porn. If you don't want these examples, don't ask for them.

For the record, yes, I do believe "two consenting adults having sex in front of a camera is NOT inherently exploitative or degrading." I'd be curious to see if you can cite an instance of anyone on this thread making a blanket assertion directly to the contrary. Like the charge of censorship, this seems to me to be another straw man. As is your characterizing my comments on BOAN or anything else to mean I believe in some sort of "monolithic film industry conspiracy." And have I ever once mentioned Dworkin or McKinnon? Has anyone on this thread, aside from yourself or others attacking Shcrane71?

I would, however, put the emphasis in your phrase on a different word. "Two consenting adults having sex in front of a camera is not INHERENTLY exploitative or degrading." But that doesn't mean it can NEVER exploitative or degrading or "misogynist" -- which is the term I prefer. Or does it? Are you telling me you believe that two consenting adults having sex in front of a camera can NEVER be misogynist--again the term I prefer--as long as there's consent from the female actors?

I'm glad you've come around to conceding that "Birth of a Nation" had a pernicious effect on American culture. Earlier on you seemed to imply (or maybe even stated it outright) that it simply reflected the racism in the culture at the time, but did nothing to amplify or empower it. So you do believe then that images matter, that media matters, that narratives that reinforce social hierarchies matter, and that critiquing images and media and trying to analyze how these might or might not effect the way we live our lives is a worthwhile endeavor. Good for you. For a while there, given your comments, I couldn't be sure.

Best wishes.

[Warren DeMontague]

329. I fully support the right of people to like or not like whatever they do, or don't.

But like I said, BOAN was ONE movie. Not "the media". You're treating something as monolithic that isn't.

Let me put it this way, speaking of statistics; something like 95% of men look at porn on occasion. I know that figure will cause all sorts of "but but butbutbutbutbut not MY man!" protestations, but it's really the truth. (large numbers of women look at it, too) So when you talk about "porn" or doing some sort of statistical or otherwise analysis of 'porn on the internet', you're actually talking about something that constitutes a big chunk of the internet, itself.

And that's big.

[thucythucy]

330. Of course Birth of a Nation was only one film.

But are you seriously going to argue with me that racism and racist images weren't widespread in American films, particularly prior to 1960? Really? I thought you were a film student--had taken at least one course in film history. I can point out myriad instances of racism in American films up into the 1970s (if not beyond). Look at the depiction of slavery in "Gone with the Wind." It's the Leslie Howard character, isn't it, who wonders out loud whether he'll "ever hear the songs of the happy darkies, singing in their cabins in the evening" or some such nonsense? Come to think of it, the Klan are heroes in that film too, as are white Confederates in general. "Casablanca" is one of my all time favorite films, but I cringe when Ingrid Bergman refers to a grown black man as "the boy at the piano." "The media" doesn't have to be "monolithic" (and I never said it was, again with the straw man) for me to be absolutely correct in calling out American films for their racism of many decades. And not only did the films reflect the racism of the times, but films like BOAN, "Gone with the Wind," the Tarzan flicks, etc. etc. all helped perpetuate that racism by making it seem normative, accepted, natural. Or are you now going to argue that "Gone with the Wind" and "Casablanca" weren't really "mainstream" and thus had no influence? If that's what you think, you should look up "Gone with the Wind" in Taylor Branch's biography of Martin Luther King Jr. American films made racism like the air we breathe: invisible to many, but all around us just the same.

And if 95% of men look at porn, isn't that all the more reason for progressives who care about social progress and justice to question what sorts of images and narratives are conveyed in at least some of this entertainment? Doesn't that in and of itself merit some of our attention?

Yes, porn is "big." Meaning it's important in influencing how men (and women) think about sex; just as American cinema was "big" and influenced millions in how they thought about race. I'm not talking mind control, or conspiracy theories, or any of the other straw man arguments you're bound to throw up in response to my post. I mean that as social animals we all live in a social milieu where what we think and feel is influenced by what we see and hear and experience--especially when it's linked, as is advertising, much of our entertainment, and porn--to such a primary reinforcer as sex. And so yes, as progressives we should pay attention to and question this medium, and how images about women and girls are conveyed more generally as well. Is this really so difficult a point for you to accept?

All the more reason why Shcrane71 should be commended for bringing this topic up on DU, and why posters on DU shouldn't be so quick in trying to shout and snark her down for questioning why it is so many progressives react so defensively whenever the topic of media images of women is raised.

Warren, I've tried answering your questions, but looking back at our exchange I see you've answered really very few of mine. Go back to my previous post, and see if there are any of my questions you feel up to answering. Otherwise I really don't know where this discussion can go from here.

Best wishes.

[seabeyond]

333. it is not 95%

Statistics on men’s pornography use
Analyzing General Social Survey data from 2000 to 2004, economists Kirk Doran and Joseph Price determined that on average 27 percent of American men reported having watched an X-rated movie in the past year and 17 percent reported having visited a pornographic website in the past month.13

A 2003 American Demographics survey found that 14 percent of American men confess that they regularly look at pornography or visit strip clubs and another 30 percent of men say they do so on occasion.14

A March 2000 Zogby poll commissioned by Focus on the Family found that: • 21% of people said they had ever visited a sexually oriented website
• 32% of men said they had done so
• 36% of men aged 18-29 had done so

The most recently released Nielsen Net Ratings15 data indicate that more than a quarter of Internet users in the United States visited a pornography site in January 2010, but the data did not break down the percentage of male and female users.16

According to other research, the numbers of men using online pornography in other countries are similar to those found in the United States. Using Nielsen Net Ratings data, The Independent on Sunday reported in 2006 that almost 40 percent of British men had used pornographic websites in the past year, and about 25 percent of men ages 25 to 49 had visited such a site in the past month.17

In 2007, Nielsen Net Ratings/Netview claimed that 35 percent of Australians who used the Internet in the first three months of that year had visited pornography or sexually oriented matchmaking sites. The research also indicated that one in five online pornography users was under age 18.18

While the numbers of men using pornography are alarming (globally in the tens of millions), the data indicate that a smaller percentage of men are using pornography or accessing it with any regularity than is commonly believed. This does not in any way minimize the harm of pornography to those who access it or to those in the family and community around them.

[thucythucy]

334. Thank you for this

information. I figured the "95%" figure was hyperbole.

Best wishes.

[Warren DeMontague]

347. "....no no no not MY man!!!" ...uh, bad news: yeah, him too.

the GOOD news is, it's harmless, relieves stress & tension, and helps prevent prostate cancer.

[thucythucy]

358. Warren, I see you still haven't answered

the questions in my post, even though you've obviously revisited this thread.

As for "links"--how about a link to your 95% figure? Then too, answering my questions in the post above would be the polite thing to do, since I've taken so much time to answer yours.

[Warren DeMontague]

368. This thread is approaching DU "epic" size. I don't know if you remember the "moon bombing" fracas

but we're reaching that point, here.

So a specific post with specific questions? I might not be ignoring them so much as missing them in the mix. Okay, I think I may have found some of them:

Are you telling me you believe that two consenting adults having sex in front of a camera can NEVER be misogynist--again the term I prefer--as long as there's consent from the female actors?

No, actually, I wouldn't have brought it up if I thought that was the case. Some things, some specific instances of the medium, carry more of a negative 'vibe' IMHO. It's not something I can quantify, it's just an impression. AND I don't think they should be banned, and I don't think I could give you a list of criteria that would cause something to get labeled that way by me.

But there are a lot of things I don't like; shitty music, etc.

have I ever once mentioned Dworkin or McKinnon?

No.

Has anyone on this thread, aside from yourself or others attacking Shcrane71?

Actually, someone else brought up Andrea Dworkin first, and it wasn't in the context of "attacking" (whatever that means) the OP. And there is a larger context of these discussions which seem to happen with a certain regularity around here, before DU moves on to circumcision or olive garden or smoking bans or something else.

Those are the only specific "questions" I could find.

[Warren DeMontague]

377. a BYU study had 87% of men looking at porn in the prior year.

Of course, that's only a conservative religious institution, so you could hardly expect people's responses, again, to questions from a conservative religious institution to be skewed towards to "no" side... :rofl:

http://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-relationships/mens-sex-secrets

[seabeyond]

379. a poll from a magazine with an agenda for an article?... wow. shocker. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

380. actually, the non-scientific conclusions in that article, I think are sort of dubious

although they grudgingly admit that looking at porn doesn't generally turn out to be a big deal in peoples' relationships unless the partner turns it into one.

Nevertheless, the magazine was womens' health, and the STUDY was from Brigham Young University. Which are NOT the same entity.

Now, how about you cop to where you cut and pasted your paragraph in post #333 from?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2118184&mesg_id=2143561


Shit, I missed the part about the poll being from "FOCUS ON THE FAMILY". That should have clued me in right there. :rofl:


Big James Dobson fan, are ya?

[seabeyond]

381. the studies are in the post and i saw nowhere

those studies represent anything religious.

copy and paste the study sited in the post.

on edit... i see zogby poll commissioned by FOF. even with that, neilson and other polls.

[seabeyond]

366. yes, if he says he isnt, he is lying. because of posters like you, men pm me to let me know, no

they dont do porn, without any encouragement from me. but because of posters like you they are not comfortable stating so on the board. do tell me what that says about your gender, that they are not even allowed to say, no, not interested in porn, because they do not want to be bothered with being called a liar or worse?

[Warren DeMontague]

375. Yes, we mercilessly pick on people who don't look at smut.

No, actually, I could care less what people watch or don't watch. It's the telling other people what they should be watching that is irritating.

[Warren DeMontague]

338. How about you give us a link telling us where you got that information from?

I'm betting it's a right-wing, "family values" organization.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the lack of sourcing was an oversight, and not you not wanting to own up as to who is writing your source material.

Anyway, the real number is closer to 95%. If that bugs you so much, maybe you should ask yourself why.

[alcibiades_mystery]

310. It's indisputable that Birth of a Nation produced an actual Klan resurgence

I think Warren picked the wrong example to plant the "film doesn't cause real social transformation" line on.

[annabanana]

144. You have the right tack, NU

(Some people argue to hear their heads rattle)

[The Doctor.]

152. If we had a choice between a restrictive theocracy

That forbade any sexual images of women and forbade women from deliberately being attractive, and one where women could choose to portray themselves as they wished and even make a living doing so, I know which society I'd choose.
Only one of those types deliberately repress women.

[Matariki]

7. Some of us are into BDSM and don't find that sort of porn objectionable.

Bondage photos aren't restricted to women tied up. What is your opinion of photos of men tied up? I think you are taking your own sexual preferences and trying to enforce them on everyone else.

Personally, I think women's fashion magazines are a whole lot more harmful. Or Barbie Dolls. Or Republican Lawmakers.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. For The Thread Win.

There you go.

[eridani]

32. If public imagery with men tied up were in reality as common as that same

--scene with women, fewer people would be objecting. Though people who just don't like bondage, period, probably still would.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. There is plenty of porn out there with men being tied up.

A lot of dudes like that kind of thing.

[Matariki]

45. Women too

:evilgrin:

[Warren DeMontague]

94. Human sexuality is a beautiful, many splendor'd rainbow.

As long as everyone's a consenting adult, I say go for it.

[eridani]

75. Yes, but does it appear with equal frequency in mass media advertising?

I think not.

[Unvanguard]

82. Are there an abundance of bondage pictures in mass media advertising? n/t

[EdMaven]

108. don't know what you mean by abundance, but there are some.

[eridani]

172. Check the Ms magazine "No Comment" section n/t

[Matariki]

44. You just aren't looking in the right places

I've seen plenty of both.

Anyway, that's not the point. It exists because there are people into BDSM (I'm one of them). It's not like these images are in the public sphere, on television and billboards, or something - if that were the case I'd join you in being upset about it. But it's sexual fantasy, found in the place where you find sex fantasies, i.e. pornography.

It's easy for people to get judgmental about other people's sex lives when it's out of their sphere of experience or interest, whether it's homosexual, bdsm, diaper fetishes or whatnot. I personally think that it's far healthier to be accepting and not perpetuate shame. Even, or especially, when it's something that's not personally appealing. As long as it's between consenting adults. Yes, even for David Vitter.

There are REAL issues that hold women back in the workplace and in society. Bondage porn isn't one of them.

[eridani]

171. Porn that people with specialized tastes that you have to look for isn't the problem

Because you usually don't see it UNLESS you look for it. The problem is the imagery in public spaces--check the MS magazine No Comment section for examples.

There is a big difference between private SM role playing which involves swastikas and other Nazi imagery and swastikas spraypainted on synagogue walls.

[Matariki]

180. I agree with that.

I have way more problems with stuff like child "beauty pageants" and a million other things our society does to commodity and belittle women than I do with porn.

[eridani]

181. Indeed. Kiddy pageants are far more in the face of the general public

--than specialized kink porn that you have to actively seek out.

[EdMaven]

202. There's a relationship between images and child beauty pageants.

Those million other things aren't separate things. It's a complex of things.

Those girls are mimicking female role models that are omnipresent in media. Whatever is omnipresent is assimilate as "important" "successful" "glamourous"

[Warren DeMontague]

191. The only magazines I read are Scientific American and Discover.

Maybe I'm not seeing the same ads you guys are.

[shcrane71]

46. Your assessment is inaccurate, and you didn't answer my original question

Seriously, watch the trailer:

http://www.missrepresentation.org/

I don't think it takes that long (it's been awhile since I watched it). Ok, you like watching bondage porn. Good for you. I guess humans aren't pack animals, and we all live in a vaccuum. Any images from the porn industry do and will not creep into women's fashion magazines, music videos etc. That must be what you're saying, and you have nothing else to say or think about it. Case closed for you.

[Matariki]

53. Your premise is nonsense and yes I dismiss it.

[Codeine]

385. THANK YOU!

My partner loves rough porn while I find it unarousing, so this hardly qualifies as a male issue across the board.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. if everyone involved is a CONSENTING ADULT, you don't have to like it, but it's not your place to

censor it.

[shcrane71]

11. So what do you think about the Miss Reprensentation trailer?

Is the whole documentary's premise based on rubbish? Are the women and men in the film simply whining feminist who should just shut up?

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Haven't seen it.

However, my position is pretty clear, and not going to change: If EVERYONE INVOLVED IS A CONSENTING ADULT, they have the right to do what they want in front of a camera, and other CONSENTING ADULTS have the right to look at it.

And you, as another CONSENTING ADULT, have the right to choose to look at other stuff.

[shcrane71]

29. So, you're not going to discuss what I started this thread to discuss then.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Okay, I watched it. Now how about YOU define your terms.

Define "porn". Define "degrading". Define "misogynist porn". Explain precisely how much "porn" constitues "women being hog-tied" (an estimated percentage will do).

[shcrane71]

55. Nice tactic Warren, but the question is/was...

Is there any validity in argument that pervasive sexual images of women creates a limiting environment for women? That is, it creates an environment where a woman's worth is solely based upon her looks and desirability on a sexual scale?

[Warren DeMontague]

63. I don't think you can have the discussion without defining your basic terms.

For one, what constitutes a "pervasive sexual image of women" and do you really think they're such a new development? :shrug:

[undeterred]

13. Yeah, everybody get in your place.

Especially you chicks. :sarcasm:

[Warren DeMontague]

16. So adult women aren't capable of consent? They need to be protected, of course.

Just like they need to be protected from making bad choices about their bodies-- sorry, being forced into bad choices by the nefarious "abortion industry".


Yes, the poor, helpless dears, they must be kept safe for their own good, since they obviously can't make their own decisions.

[thucythucy]

166. It isn't a question of what consenting adults

agree to do or not to do. If, for example, an African American actor wants to portray a character in "Birth of a Nation" or "Amos and Andy" or what have you, I'm not going to say he can't.

I AM going to say that certain depictions of African American men--as insatiable rapists lusting after white women, for example (which was how they were depicted in "Birth of a Nation" --either that or as simple-minded fools who needed a white master to take care of them)--are deliterious to the cause of racial justice in this society. And it would surprise me, if after making this critique some progressive were to come up to me and say, "Oh, but it's all just harmless entertainment."

Surely you see the distinction?

[seabeyond]

287. So adult women aren't capable of consent? do we not challenge women who choose to live patriachal

religious environments?

do we not call out the inherent misogyny in these environments regardless of women choosing to live that life?

we are not censoring. we are not demanding it be outloud. and we do speak out against it.

[Warren DeMontague]

290. and I'm not demanding that cultural hand-wringing & complaints re:smut be censored/banned, either

see how reasonable I am?

[itsallhappening]

14. Some people would like to take that choice away from women.

Strangely, those are some of the same people who claim to be the biggest champions of women's rights, especially on the issue of women making their own decisions about their lives.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Yep. Need a giant fucking asterisk after "Pro-Choice"*

*-as long as I personally agree with the choice.

[shcrane71]

26. are you going to watch the trailer? It doesn't seem like you want to discuss on this discussion

forum

[itsallhappening]

30. Looked like spam bait to me.

So I didn't go to the site.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. I watched the trailer. You get to see Condi Rice weigh in on 'doing the right thing'.

cough.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Okay, I watched the trailer.

And my position STILL is, if everyone involved is a consenting adult, what they choose to do in front of a camera for OTHER consenting adults to watch is THEIR business.

That said, I'm all in favor of more choices being available to people in terms of media. I've often said I think the answer to bad speech is good speech, the answer to bad music is good music, the answer to bad art is good art.

The answer is NOT censorship, that's all.

[shcrane71]

64. So, where are these empowering images of women??? How do we get more empowering images of women?

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Write a television pilot. If you're really rich, buy a network.

Or, get a video camera and start shooting stuff and putting it on youtube.

One thing that's nice about the world today, there are lots of outlets for creative people with enough energy.

[shcrane71]

120. Most young girls aren't writers, nor, have they been alive long enough to have the capital to buy

their own video recorder let alone television network. hmmm... there's gotta be another solution to getting diverse, empowering female images to these children. Oh but whatever could it be???!!??!?!?!

Wait! I'm sure you'll tell me. You have all the answers.

[Warren DeMontague]

197. "the capital to buy their own video recorder?" You DO realize that it's 2011, don't you?

I googled "cheap video camera" and the first result was something called a "Mini DV" which apparently is sort of crappy, but it runs about 12 bucks. It looks like for 30 bucks, you can get something that will actually do the job. $30 isn't chump change, but it's not completely insanely out of budget, I would think, for your average high school student who saves her allowance or gets a part-time job at the mall.




I mean, I'm not offering him up as an example of artistry or genius, but didn't Justin Bieber get started with a webcam and videos posted to youtube?

If you've really got something to say, and it's brilliant, funny, catchy or otherwise paradigm-changing enough, there has NEVER been a time when it's been easier to be heard by the whole human race.

[itsallhappening]

27. It's amazing that some people have that view. THAT's the real sexist view.

[EdMaven]

179. you're confused. the op isn't about what people do in private, or what pornography they consume,

it's about images in the regular media.

[Darth_Kitten]

51. Lots of consenting adults hate porn, and they are making their views heard.

Women are human beings, not things, deal with it!

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Why do you think a picture of people fucking somehow turns the people into "things"?

Have you stopped to wonder about that?

[Warren DeMontague]

263. You must REALLY hate the internet.

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

[Common Sense Party]

17. This thread is useless without pictures.

:hide:

[snooper2]

77. I agree

snuggle snuggle snuggle you cute little fucker :) :hugs:

[slackmaster]

22. I think that post was blogspam

Just my personal opinion.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Too late.

The Hive has been Whacked. :hide:

[Mimosa]

25. Thanks, SHCrane71 for your thoughtful topic

I worked for womens and gay rights back in the late 1960s (I was then a teenager) through the 1970's. It was a fascinating tumultuous time.

Porn degrades women. I feel the young women of today have advanced 2 steps forward because of the gains made by feminism and resultant policy changes in the US. I remember when rape and domestic abuse were't reported because of shame and the blame the victim mentality. I grew up hearing of deaths and injuries from illegal, sometimes DIY, abortions.

We've come a couple of steps forward but there are more than a few who would drag us back.

Most of us can discern between art and hard core pornography. The objectification and debasement of women in our culture has set back the clock, just a bit. It is coarsening to men. Pornography today is worse and more available now than it was before the computer revolution.

[shcrane71]

73. Have you read Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood?

More and more of her futuristic novel are coming true (hybrid animals/insects and just today, a private street shut down to all by corporate employees in NYC).

[The Doctor.]

159. I'm very upset at how badly porn degrades men.

It's really quite unfair.

Treating them like walking vending machines, mindless sex-addicts, and tools for women's amusement. It's just awful.

[hlthe2b]

31. Wow where to begin... Unfortunately, when many women are among the ones promoting...

the objectification--profiting from it, reinforcing the stereotypes and enabling those who make money from it, this is one damned deep societal problem that I can not begin to suggest an answer. While pornography is an issue, frankly I find the day to day objectification of women that is pervasive--the kind that makes the likes of Kim Kardashian into a national (global?) sensation for no other reason than her looks, that concerns me. Girls develop the sense that physical features are all that makes them worthwhile in this world. The problems that spring from that, do not make our society look quite so morally superior to the more repugnant nations of the world, that we would hope.... :shrug:

[Yavin4]

39. Who or What Will Decide Which Image(s) is/are Degrading to Women?

I think that the show, "Sex and the City" is degrading to women because it celebrates rampant consumerism.

[Unvanguard]

49. The difference is that pornography is a highly specific sort of medium.

It is one thing for a society's sexual media to portray women (and men, sometimes) in ways that appeal to people's sexual tastes. It is quite another for society's media in general--its news programs, its TV shows, its movies, its popular novels--to presume a view of women in which they are the accessories of men.

[Upton]

50. Channeling Andrea Dworkin?

Get upset about porn all you like, but no self respecting progressive believes in censorship. I hope that's not what you're suggesting.

[Darth_Kitten]

52. No self-respecting progressives treat women as objects to be demeaned either.

n/t

[Upton]

59. So, you believe all porn is demeaning to women?

If you do, then I've got a solution..don't watch it. Meanwhile, leave the rest of us alone to pursue our own interests..whatever they may be..

[Darth_Kitten]

149. Do you like to project onto others?

I guess your solution wouldn't work on me.

Oh, I will always speak out on people having to degrade women to get off. If you don't like it, tough.

[Major Nikon]

226. It's a free country, speak all you want

I'd never suggest you can't or shouldn't. Along those same lines, I also respect other people's desire to express themselves. Believe it or not, there are women and men who like this sort of thing, both on the giving and receiving end. It's called sadomasochism, and it's been around for probably just about as long as people have been having sex. There's all sorts of things that get people off that isn't my cup of tea. That doesn't mean I feel any sort of obligation to tell consenting adults what they can and can't do. Lot's of people think gay porn leads to homosexuality. I don't buy that argument anymore than I buy yours.

Just sayin'

[itsallhappening]

57. Her crusade was hilarious.

[shcrane71]

60. Didn't say a thing about censorship; so, don't blame me that your porn isn't aired during prime time

[Upton]

65. Glad to hear you don't believe in censorship..

now all you have to do is get the rest of the anti porn radical feminists on board.

[shcrane71]

78. So, are you working diligently to allow porn on broadcast networks?

I mean, it *is* censorship to not have this readily available is it not?

The point being is that society sets up parameters of what is and isn't acceptable. The US doesn't allow for public nudity or sexual acts, and that *is* censorship.

So, what do you think of the sexual images of women that are pervasive in commercials, videos, movies, games, magazines? Is that detrimental to the aspiration of half our society?

[EdMaven]

125. it's shown to young people though. witness these ads, supposedly to "get out the youth vote"

warning: torture pictures

http://justjared.buzznet.com/2008/09/10/jessica-alba-declare-yourself/

http://www.celebuzz.com/2008-10-02/the-silence-of-jessica-alba/

"Conservatives are predictably outraged over Jessica Alba's advertising for Declare Yourself, a voter drive aimed at 18-29 year olds. The campaign features the tagline "Only You Can Silence Yourself" and a tearful Alba in bondage photograpy by Mark Liddell."


yeah, only "conservatives" are outraged by such crap. "liberals" love it & totally "get" the association of torture, nudity, and voting.

[marions ghost]

156. grosssss

:puke: yuk yuk yuk (and I don't think this is about getting people to vote...)

thanx for a good illustration

[Unvanguard]

61. Though I am not really on board with Andrea Dworkin on this issue

it bothers me a lot that people think that simply invoking her name constitutes an argument against a position. Andrea Dworkin deserves to be read widely and taken seriously, something a great many of her critics have not done.

As for complaining about "censorship," one of my favorite Dworkin pieces addresses the untenable abolition of important distinctions that "free speech" absolutism leads to: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIVD.html">The ACLU: Bait and Switch

[Warren DeMontague]

66. Andrea Dworkin was a sad, mentally ill individual who could have benefitted from anti-psychotic meds

Lionizing her is a joke.

[Unvanguard]

69. It's always nice when someone makes my point for me. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

71. By the time she died, she was sure she was being chased by invisible penises.

Nuts.

[EdMaven]

129. dworkin was ugly, so she was derided most harshly. you don't hear that

kind of stuff about someone like naomi wolff, who has written similarly.

because she's pretty, therefore non-crazy.

[AngkorWot]

143. Was she? I've never seen a picture of her.

She was obviously a very ugly person on the inside. But I don't know what she looked like on the outside.

[Warren DeMontague]

192. Naomi Wolff has written that penetrative intercourse is oppressive and needs to be abolished?

I must have missed that book by her.

[Warren DeMontague]

273. You made your point when you put "free speech" in quotes like it was icky dog doo

that you didn't want to touch without a 2 foot grabber and a plastic bag.

[Unvanguard]

276. That was a different point.

One, incidentally, that your post responding to me didn't address at all. :shrug:

It's past time more people began thinking critically about free speech. It's an important political norm to have. But it gets out of hand when people begin treating it as a dogmatic tenet of our civil religion, to be invoked irrespective of reason or careful judgment. (The same would be true of any other norm.) But that still has nothing to do with whether it's appropriate to dismiss Andrea Dworkin's work out of hand, or (even worse) to attack other people's arguments on the grounds that their conclusions look something like hers.

[Warren DeMontague]

277. "It's past time..."? No, it isn't. Free Speech works just fine, and doesn't need to he "repaired".

So your position is (grudgingly, it would seem) that free speech is, sigh, okay I guess...:eyes:, as long as it contains what you consider to be "reason" and "careful judgment"? Sorry, bub, that's NOT FREE SPEECH. Saying "yes you may have free speech as long as I agree with everything I let you say" is the OPPOSITE of free speech.

Like I said upthread, I grew up in a Jewish family in the midwest, and I remember when the Nazis marched in Skokie. I come from a family that had relatives in the camps. "Free Speech" is not some academic exercise for me- I understand that free speech is ONLY as good as the right of the most noxious, offensive, or insane voice to be heard (see Dworkin) otherwise it's NOT free speech. And the ANSWER to speech that pisses you off, or that you think magically-oppresses-all-women-and-causes-them-to-be-paid-less because it contains a picture of a naked boob, or whatever, is MORE speech, which incidentally is what I would file the documentary referenced in the OP under.

As for Andrea Dworkin, when people's statements sound uncannily like things insane people have said, you have to expect that comparisons are going to be made; i.e. "wow, you realize that Ted Kazynski said the same thing", etc. Maybe it's not the winningest debate strategy, but you need to be prepared for it. And Dworkin WAS insane. Like I said, by the end of her life she was convinced she was being pursued by legions of invisible penises. She thought that she could personally do away with penetrative sex, somehow stopping a trend that started some time around the Cambrian explosion.

She was bug-fuck nuts. Sorry, she was.

[Unvanguard]

283. I'm pleased to see that you can recite the relevant parts of the catechism.

Instead, however, you might have paid more attention to what I was saying. I certainly don't think that people should only be allowed to say things that I consider to be "reason and careful judgment." Nor, obviously, do I think that people should only be allowed to say things I agree with. What I said, rather, is that how we interpret and apply the principle of free speech should be subject to reason and careful judgment, just like every other principle. We should not pretend that we are incapable of making any distinctions at all when it comes to speech; we should not ignore the experiences of every liberal democracy in the world, including the United States, and pretend that somehow any government restriction of any medium in any context is a gateway to totalitarianism. We should not take the mere fact that pornography is "expressive," in that it contains images, to be a bar on its meaningful regulation, if in fact a case can be made that it's socially harmful or exploitative. We do not need pornography to have a robust societal debate about ideas, or to organize important cooperative endeavors, or to protect anyone's freedom of conscience.

I have not heard (and do not believe) your claim about Andrea Dworkin's end-of-life beliefs, and in any case I don't think it's relevant to the major body of her life's work. You are simply wrong to suggest that Dworkin sought to get rid of penetrative sex, though it's true that she thought (probably correctly) that the way we understand penetrative sex, and the emphasis we place on it as the pinnacle, the "most real" form of sex, is tied to patriarchal gender relations. In any case, Andrea Dworkin also breathed, ate, and slept, and I don't notice you invoking her name against those practices.

[Warren DeMontague]

284. Speaking of catechism, you're right in there with the "free speech needs to have a purpose". Ah, no.

It doesn't. Just because speech doesn't contribute to what you consider to be a "robust societal debate about ideas", or organizes "important (according to whom?) cooperative endeavours" or "protects anyone's freedom of conscience" doesn't mean that it's NOT protected, free speech.

You've summed it up pretty nicely- You think free speech is fine, as long as it's what you consider useful, productive, and generally in agreement with what you already think. Which is NOT free speech.

A case can be made that LOTS of things are socially harmful (not to mention 'exploitative', and can we really, please, please, please have that discussion where you twist logic into crazy fucking pretzel shapes to explain how consenting adults in porn are 'exploiting' themselves?) and frankly there are a whole TON of shitty things I would like to get rid of, because, shit, I just don't like them. I can start with a whole TON of music that I just happen to think is shit. It's harming the CRAP out of society, as we speak.

So let's cut to the chase, now: Do you support banning or censoring images of consenting adults nude and/or fucking, or not?

Here are some quotes from our old friend, Andrea Dworkin:

Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women.

Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimized by it.

No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it.

Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free.

Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine.

You think intercourse is a private act; it's not, it's a social act.

Childbearing is glorified in part because women die from it.

For men I suspect that this transformation begins in the place they most dread -- that is, in a limp penis. I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love as women do together.

...

[Unvanguard]

285. Please don't put words in my mouth.

For one, I'm concerned with free speech rules, not individual instances of speech. I don't think we should evaluate individual works to determine whether or not they are worthy. I do think that the best justifications for free speech justify stringent protection for certain categories of speech (like political speech starting from a presumption of equal respect) and don't justify much of any protection for other categories of speech (like pornography or video games). None of this has the slightest thing to do with speech I do or don't agree with. There are plenty of political opinions I despise that should be protected; there are plenty of media I enjoy (including, as it happens, some pornography) that shouldn't be.

For another, I'm not actually anti-porn (at least not in a general way.) I do, however, take feminist arguments against pornography seriously. What began this discussion was my comment that the mere invocation of Andrea Dworkin's name is hardly any kind of argument--a comment that was qualified by my statement that I wasn't really in agreement with her on this issue.

As for your out-of-context Dworkin quotes, none of them (properly understood) contradict my characterization of her views or indicate insanity.

[Warren DeMontague]

288. Well, I'm something of a 1st Amendment Absolutist.

You can't make threats against people or yell fire in a crowded theater, but beyond that, I don't think the government should be in the speech-regulating business, even against such socially noxious (particularly to people who aren't actually familiar with them, except in the abstract) forms of entertainment such as porn and video games.

Andrea Dworkin, like I said, believed that somehow penetrative sex was something not just inherently oppressive, but that needs to be abolished. I'm sorry, but that's bug-fuck nuts. It is. You complain that "penetrative sex is held up as the ideal, or the only 'real' sex"- by who? What Sex Police came to your door and told you that you needed to hold up penetrative hetero sex as the (or any) 'ideal'?

I'll tell you- none did. In FACT, due to not just the internet but concomitant free expression (including all that socially malodorous speech that you have less problem getting rid of or restricting) people are WAY more aware of the full, beautiful spectrum of human sexuality and the myriad ways consenting adults of different or the same gender like to get it on. 30 years ago, if you were the only person in your town who was turned on by, say, clown shoes, you might be awfully lonely. Now, you can find imturnedonbyclownshoes.com and maybe connect with a whole community of people who are into the same thing you are. And needless to say, this works for GLBT youth, too, who traditionally have felt awfully lonely growing up, particularly in conservative communities.

So, if anything, free speech vis a vis porn and sex has BROADENED peoples' definitions of what 'ideal' or 'real' sex constitutes.

Also, are you aware that in many role playing video games now, it has become standard to make gay relationships just as much a part of the possible storyline as hetero ones? I realize that 'video games R destroying kidz brainz unhhh huhhhnnn' is standard cultural hand-wringing hyperbole, but the truth of the matter is, many positive messages are being conveyed through this medium. Believe it or not.

[Scout]

158. nevermind, waste of bandwidth, sorry Skinner n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

56. Times have been very degrading for women. Only recently has there been any empowerment

with voting rights, etc., and it is still terribly unequal. This is changing, it truly is, and that which accompanies low self-esteem in any woman (namely, being around assholes all the time, to paraphrase William Gibson) is lifting. I see a day in the not too distant future where women may more easily enjoy being who and what they are without taking knocks from anyone discomfited by such. So be it.

[snooper2]

74. You mean like this?

Come on girl, get some pants lol

[Warren DeMontague]

86. THAT is offensive.

I mean, some things just shouldn't be seen.

[The Doctor.]

90. Sure, pornographic images of hog-tied women can be harmful. So what about the same images

of men?

I agree that propagating 'female stereotypes' can limit young women if they aren't exposed to stronger role models.

So, what about the limiting stereotypes we always see of men?

Are those ok?

[leftstreet]

92. Link to images of nekkid hog-tied men?

I'm kidding

[Warren DeMontague]

93. They're out there.

Like I said, human sexuality is a beautiful, many splendor'd rainbow.

[Mimosa]

95. I guess you'd defend about anything.

I wonder if you've ever seen snuff porn. It's online. How about sexually explicit images of children? Are those OK with you?

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Inevitable. Can't make an argument about CONSENTING ADULTS w/o bringing in non-consent/non-adults?

Let me say those words again, since you must have missed them: CONSENTING ADULTS.

[Mimosa]

102. I missed them. Thanks. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

104. So no, in answer, I wouldn't defend anything, but I do think consenting adults

should be free to engage in consenting adult behavior. If men want to be tied up, I'm not going to judge 'em.

[shcrane71]

105. Listening to others is a beautiful, many splendor'd rainbow.

[EdMaven]

112. (content warning) i've not seen them used in advertising. i've seen this kind of stuff though:

quite a few times.


What's Socialism Got to Do With It?

In our capitalist economy, corporations must either create new markets or expand existing ones in order to out-compete their rivals. Companies are driven to artificially create a demand for products through deceptive advertising. This is the reason why advertising is such an essential part of capitalism.

Advertising sells products based on an image, an illusion, rather than the actual use it has. Nike shoes are not simply a shoe, but supposedly a gateway into another life. Modern capitalism has taken this commodity fetishism to an extreme. In a rational, socialist society, products would be evaluated by their actual utility rather than a mystifying image.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/womensrights/advertising.html


I'd continue that advertising in modern society has to keep pushing the boundaries to keep expanding sales.


and i believe these images are being deliberated marketed to the young. for example, this is supposedly an ad to encourage young people to vote:




yeah, right.

"only you can silence yourself" - she didn't, and couldn't, bind herself in black duct tape.

“Only You Can Silence Yourself,” features Jessica Alba (The Fantastic Four, Sin City) in a series of images by renowned photographer Marc Liddell. The striking photographs feature Alba quite literally silenced—with gags and masks stifling her voice as a citizen.

here's another from that supposedly "hip" ad campaign:

[Mimosa]

119. Imagery in above posts is degrading to women.

WE do not choose it. In this culture it is imposed upon us. It is not erotic but decadent as in a 'last days of Roman Empire' caricature.

I believe the dominance of such imagery is negative. It may thrill some males at the price of denigrating women. What can we do? Protest to the advertisers, I guess. And refuse to buy the advertised products and TELL THEM WHY!

[EdMaven]

121. of course it is. highly degrading. and children's sexuality *is* influenced

by such images.

but you're wrong to put it all on men. it's women promoting it too.

the combination of beauty, sexuality & torture is imo sick.

[Mimosa]

147. I don't put it all on men.

Women participate in shaping and making such messages. ;)

[Warren DeMontague]

195. My suggestion? Get a subscription to Scientific American.

Not only will you not see the unpleasant Dolce & Gabbana ads that you're apparently getting in People or Cosmo, you're also quite likely to find thought-provoking articles by successful FEMALE scientists doing cutting edge research that can offer positive role models for your daughters.

"No! I demand my crappy-ass gossip/fashion/celebrity rag whose readership is 95% female stop perpetuating the patriarchy with ads negatively portraying women!"

:eyes:

[MineralMan]

212. Or bass fishing magazines. You'll not see degrading photos

of women in them, either. Degrading photos of largemouth bass only. And guys holding them up for the camera. Sometimes there are some pornographic photos of obscenely expensive bass boats, though.

[Warren DeMontague]

256. Sicko!

[EdMaven]

246. You can see it on billboards, in music magazines like rolling stone.

you can see it in the nyt sunday section. you can see it in music videos. you can see it at clothing stores.

and since you say it's up to *me* to avert my eyes from what public displays of such images -- it's not really about what people do in their bedrooms, is it?

it's actually about your belief that such images *should* be on public display in whatever locations the purveyors of such images choose.

[Warren DeMontague]

251. They still have music videos?

No shit, really?

[shcrane71]

100. Seems that empowering women and supporting their achievements will help break these

limiting stereotypes. Maybe once women reach parity in pay with men, then men will feel more comfortable showing their nurturing side.

[The Doctor.]

118. Men also have trouble achieving parity in pay with other men.

It's not necessarily always a gender issue. Sometimes it's about simply being less reasonable. You could also say that since women have a higher tendency to compromise and collaborate, perhaps that has something to do with the disparity as well.

It's not always because 'women are treated as 'inferior''.

That said, I can see having a practices statute that has employers list the offered pay for a position so they can't go below it just because an applicant is black, gay, female, or whoever they might discriminate against.

[lunatica]

91. Most women on DU are against degrading women

We've had this discussion a thousand times and it's the reason that there's respect for women on this forum. Because we demand it here.

You won't get an argument from anyone here.

[catabryna]

106. The OP provided the fuel...

and somewhere along the line, someone lit the match!

Does anyone around here have a couple of good steaks? Or, marshmallows perhaps?

[Taverner]

107. What do you propose we do? Censor offending images?

There is this pesky little 1st amendment that gets in the way of that

[Nuclear Unicorn]

111. What's wrong with saying, "Dude, that's not cool. Rape isn't entertainment."

No law required.

[shcrane71]

114. That would be cool. :)

[Major Nikon]

214. It's not the same thing

Rape is a situation where you don't have all the parties consenting. It's clearly illegal and immoral. As far as imagery of actual rape, sure that has no place in civilized society and should be in the same category as child porn. But imagery of consenting adults doing what they want to do? That's clearly a different matter. Some are attracted to that type of thing. It's not my bag, but I'm not going to tell consenting adults what they can or can't do or what they can or can't watch. The argument that some might be somehow damaged by seeing it (although I'm not sure how), even if it were true does not provide sufficient justification to censor this material from those who want to see it. That's just too much of a slippery slope for me.

[shcrane71]

113. It isn't about censorhship, and if you don't think there's already censorship you're kidding urself

How many full frontal male nudity images are there even in R rated movies? The pro-porn "progressive" men that I've talked to would not want to be a porn star themselves because they would find it to be "demeaning" -- their words not mine.

Now other progressives tell me to just shut up about the images of women in the media. Now there's this documentary made my women who are prominent in the US media saying that this is affecting their feelings of self-worth and worrying about how it's affecting their daughters. Are these women wrong? Are they just power-hungry? Maybe they feel jilted because of their "perceived" glass ceiling? Is that what you're saying?

[Taverner]

122. Oh I agree with you. Except the male porn star thing.

I know lots of men who wanted to be, and were porn stars. Including a bunch of guys who aren't gay, who did gay porn. It's amazing what Viagra can do.

No - I'm just highlighting the danger of legislating taste.

[shcrane71]

124. I see... but no one is talking about legislating. But that *is* an idea...

Maybe giving tax breaks to people who want to produce films, television shows about empowered women? Hell... even Republicans like tax breaks. Instead of just having Oprah's network, maybe there could be a network that caters to young girls?

[Taverner]

127. Carrots work better than sticks

Of course I could see this running into some serious court battles too.

Best for Non Governmental Organizations funding shows and movies that empower women.

[Warren DeMontague]

196. I am all for a greater diversity of voices in the media, etc.

Canada does a better job of supporting the arts than we do, in many areas. That's why, for years (until the current animation renaissance) the best animated short films came out of Canada. No one else could afford to do them.

[Mimosa]

117. Mods, pls get rid of rabbit pic which wrecked the thread. n/t

[LWolf]

123. That's not a rabbit, lol.

It looks kind of like a wood rat, aka "pack rat" to me.

Where's an owl, hawk, or terrier when you need one? :evilgrin:

Or a chinchilla. Whatever. It's a rodent, and rabbits are rodents, too. We need a horde of owls, hawks, rats, cats, snakes, and other heroes to descend on them.

[Marengo]

213. Rabbits are no longer classified as rodents, they are Lagomorphs. N/T

[LWolf]

220. A classification I've never heard of.

I'll have to update myself.

Meanwhile, the packrats, cotton tails, and jacks are multiplying like...well, like rabbits all over my place. They steal the chicken feed, tear apart the insulation under the house, climb into the duct work, steal the eggs (the rats, not the rabbits,) burrow under the shop, leave droppings on the hay, sometimes drown in the water troughs, and generally make a total nuisance of themselves. The cat, the dog, the owls, the hawks...they can't keep up.

If there were such a thing as rodent birth control, I'd be scattering it in their runs.

[stevenleser]

128. My favorite part of these "Pornography is bad" or "Pornography is bad for women" threads is...

going to the GLBT forum afterwards and watching them laugh about how prudish many of us 'straights' are. They don't always discuss them, but many times they do and it's hilarious. They just cannot believe how fearful many of us are about sex.

People used to live in one room homes and apartments and have sex with their children right in the room. Somehow, all the children didnt end up as serial killers.

Sex is a positive thing. Human beings without clothes on are beautiful.

BDSM is not generally my thing, my sexual tastes are pretty conservative, but if everyone involved is a consenting adult, I am not going to lose a second of sleep over it.

[EdMaven]

130. there is a difference between an act and an image. we aren't talking about people

having sex or being naked. we're talking about pictures of sexualized torture as mass-marketing devices.

[AngkorWot]

132. "sexualized torture." Oh for fuck's sake, are you talking about S&M?

If you don't like S&M, don't participate in it.

Some people like it, some people don't. Don't be a dick about the things you don't like.

[EdMaven]

as i said, i'm talking about advertising images. not porn. not people's private lives.

and if you read magazines or go out in public you *will* see them.

[AngkorWot]

135. Then turn the page and look at something else?

[EdMaven]

137. i see. so if people don't like images of sexualized torture displayed in public, they

should just turn away.

so it's really not about what people do in private at all, is it?

it's about the "freedom" to bring images of sexualized torture into the public sphere and normalize it.

[AngkorWot]

139. "they should just turn away?"

Even little kids can ignore things they don't like, Ed.

Why can't you?

[EdMaven]

140. actually, they can't, angkor.

you & i have nothing more to discuss, i think.

[AngkorWot]

141. Shit, my kid can. Can't yours?

There might be a problem.

[EdMaven]

146. i'm sure your kid is very special. i'm also sure you don't know all there is to know

about your kid. because no parent ever does.

[AngkorWot]

148. Seems like a pretty normal kid to me.

But now you're saying you want to do other people's parenting for them?

Yeah, I kind of got that.

[shcrane71]

233. k, you're kid can turn away from disturbing images, but when all his friends keep describing the

the image on the play ground, I guess your kid can decide to go play all by himself right? Somehow, I doubt that's going to happen.

If images and imagery doesn't mean anything, then why do people recommend books, movies, painting to illustrate a point or a perspective? Hell, why do we even need liberal arts education? Why should anyone read literature? It's just a bunch of words that evoke imagery -- often times it's imagery that the poor undergrad finds dull and boring and I'm sure he or she isn't going to be a better person for reading it anyways. Why not just take the core business courses, and get rid of these general ed requirements and then people won't be in such student loan debt from those courses forcing perspectives and imagery down people's throats?

Or is it true that maybe some stories, narratives help to create a collective consciousness, give us a better understanding of history, and make us better citizens for it?

[Scout]

155. you got it, Ed. n/t

[proverbialwisdom]

239. +1

[The Straight Story]

282. Is that like "If you don't like smoking in a bar, don't go there?"

:evilgrin:

[AngkorWot]

304. Maybe if images of S&M caused cancer.

But maybe I shouldn't even suggest that, lest it becomes a new phony talking point.

[shcrane71]

136. It's still a media image.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gkIiV6konY

[AngkorWot]

138. and?

[EdMaven]

142. and media images are very powerful, so not sure what your point is.

actual nudity, intercourse, b&d, etc. is a lot less glamourous than the images.

downright laughable & unattractive in some cases.

[BrendaBrick]

305. EXACTLY!

[shcrane71]

134. I haven't heard anyone here say that sex is a bad thing. That's not what the discussion is about.

[EdMaven]

151. of course it's not. but painting anyone who doesn't want sex in their face

24/7, or who thinks images of sexualized torture are harmful, as victorian prudes, is the #1 tactic of people who *do* want those things.

and i'm not just talking about ordinary people, i'm talking about corporate marketeers & image-makers.

[dkf]

133. How does bringing up the imagery of hog tied women help?

Isn't that kind of self defeating because first you have to imagine it? Weird.

[Cats Against Frist]

145. Is it too late to break out the popcorn?

I love these threads -- where all progressivism goes out the window in the face of a "hot chick." I think it's a free country and people can do what they want, but there's no arguing that these images are bad for women.

I'm not worried, though -- with men taking a hit in employment and education, hopefully women will rule the world soon.

[The Doctor.]

154. Yep, they'll just find different ways to screw it up.

"Why did your navy board and commandeer our cruise ship?"

"Oh... I think you know why."

-But I jest.

Popcorn?

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[lumberjack_jeff]

157. Self empowerment and liberty means being able to do what you want.

If you want to eliminate porn, at least admit to being an authoritarian.

[Scout]

161. i just love how your request for a discussion of degrading images of women....

brings out all the hysterical posters stomping their feet and crying "censorship" "prude" "Andrea Dworkin" waaaaahhhhhhhhh you can't take our porn!!!!! waaaaaahhhhhhh what will we masturbate with??? waaaahhhhhhh!!!! how dare you, you stuck up frigid bitch!

your own sex life is questioned and attacked even though what people doing in the privacy of their bedrooms is not what the discussion is about. no one is trying to say consenting adults can't do what they want.

they rail about free choice, and say that there is no harm, women and men do this freely so who are you to dare to question?? well guess what, those participating are not the ones being harmed. those who refuse to participate are the ones attacked. look what simply asking for a discussion of the issue causes on DU every time it comes up (hah! comes up, get it huh huh huh)

typical little boy attitude. and as for the women who have the same attitude, see my sig line.

[shcrane71]

162. I hear ya. It's like banging your head (oh tee hee) against ideological talking points

Love the sig line btw!

[Warren DeMontague]

289. ideological talking points, you say?

like "porn degrades women"? Or "sexually explicit images are inherently oppressive and exploitative"?

that sort of talking point?

[musette_sf]

163. +1

Love ya Scout. Well-said.

:toast:

[stevenleser]

164. As I hinted at earlier, when this is viewed through an LGBT*.* perspective, it becomes much clearer

When you take the gender war aspect out of this it cuts through a lot of the garbage.

Some gay men like BDSM and images of it (of men engaging in it of course) and some don't. Same thing with women.

I guess since society hasn't improved of their orientation for so long, they stopped caring about what seems 'ok' with other people as far as their intimate practices are concerned.

I think that those men whose perception of women are harmed by viewing porn probably were not raised with the correct values as far as equality is concerned to begin with and that is the real issue.

[shcrane71]

168. sooo... some boys like to see boys tied up, and some girls like to see some girls tied up...

but I guess I don't understand. That's not my understanding of the issue. When the images of women in the media are overwhelming as sex play things... does that harm women? What do you think?

[stevenleser]

169. That by itself? No, it doesn't.

That plus some men (and some women too, unfortunately) who are unfamiliar/uncomfortable with the idea of women's equality and women in power anyway? That's a different story.

The thing that I think we are forgetting is, people are going to start imagining members of the group they consider attractive in various states of undress and doing various intimate things from a pretty early age. If we abolished Madison avenue and the porn industry tomorrow, we wouldn't stop that imagery from appearing in people's minds.

I guess in general I think most people's objections to the porn industry stem from an unhealthy view of sex.

[EdMaven]

170. Advertising isn't "the porn industry". It's advertising, used to sell commodities.

& i fail to see how the picture of a bound woman being used to sell clothing exemplifies female equality & power.

don't bother trying to explain it, because i'll never see it.

[stevenleser]

175. When you attempt to use wordplay and strawman arguments, its hard to come to a consensus nt

[EdMaven]

178. perhaps you'll be so good as to point out the wordplay & strawmen.

the film in the OP is not about pornography, it's about images of women in the regular MEDIA.

http://vimeo.com/28066212

[shcrane71]

176. Uncertain how objections to porn images means someone has an unhealthy view of sex?

But more so, this documentary, Miss Representation, isn't the first to say that the portrayal of women in the media is unhealthy for our society. What I'm wondering is if this type of critique can stand (i.e. people agree that the predominance of only 20-something women in media, and women in highly sexualized poses in mainstream media outlets hurts women obtaining equality in society) is that any different than saying that degrading images of women in pornography is harmful?

I'm just an average citizen who's also watched Boogie Nights, and I've been told that porn has become increasingly degrading towards women (i.e. cum shots to the face are the norm now). Aren't the two critiques the same -- negative images of women hurt women as a whole? Are all these women just whiners? Is that what you're saying?

[Warren DeMontague]

187. I think a crash course in Korzybyski's General Semantics might help.

It's unlikely that anyone with a thorough understanding of those ideas would put forth a proposition like this:


"degrading images in porn and advertising hurt women"

Although it sounds like it's saying something, almost every word in that sentence is at best semantically vague, at worst meaningless.

Here's how I would put it post-Korzybyski:


degrading1 images in porn2 and advertising3 hurt4 women5
1- Completely undefined
2- Completely undefined
3- undefined, but not as undefined as (2)
4- undefined, vague, also physically impossible by most definitions of the word
5- category undefined: What a "woman" is is pretty clear, however the idea that "all women" or "most women" or simply "women" are "hurt" by, again, whatever definition might be arrived at for 1+2, and whatever mechanism could be arrived at by which they are "hurt" (3) by either the images, people looking at the images, people masturbating to the images, people getting aroused by the images, people being brainwashed by the images, etc. only the broadest interpretation of quantum woo could conceive of a system of total and immediate harm to the category of capital-W "women" instantaneously via any image, anywhere, at any time.

"images" is a fairly clear word with an objective categorical meaning, but the rest is pretty much gibberish.

[shcrane71]

234. What's the Korzybyski semantics of "that was utterly meaningless and incomprehensible drivel"? n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

258. Obviously, you're not a fan of Korzybyski.

Try reading it again, maybe.

[Sparkly]

174. Thank you.

[Darth_Kitten]

219. +1000000000000000000

Bravo again! :)

LOVE your sig line. :)

[seabeyond]

286. the yell for freedom of speech as they demand, insist, insult for others to STFU. i hear ya. nt

[Chan790]

182. I'd counter-argue...

that nobody has any right to assert to have been harmed by the consensual sexual practices of anybody else unless they can prove actual material (ie. physical) harm to themselves as a non-involved non-consenting party. Full Stop.

The objections of those claiming that the images harm them fail to meet that standard. Their asserted harm is ideological and/or sociological, not material. Accepting the legitimacy of their argument makes it impossible to assert the illegitimacy of any other societal fraction's equivalent claim of ideological and/or sociological harm as a non-involved non-consenting party. If they're right, then so are homophobes claiming harm from the consensual sexual practices of gay people. So are people claiming sociological harm from D/s play or wide age-discrepancies between consenting partners or polyamory or sex on any terms outside of their notions of decency. We're not cafeteria moralists and Solomon-like logicians, we can't choose who is or is-not harmed sociologically by sexual acts that they are not involved in. (Try as you might to split those hairs, you're going to open the barn door further than you'd like. There is no defense possible of Miss Representation that does not legitimize homophobia as a requisite or assert subjective morality thus invalidating all objective moral assertions including that of the identified premise of Miss Representation)

Your right to claim harm by mine (or anybody else's) sexual proclivities ends at the bedroom door you're on the outside of. You possess the right to be offended and not want to be exposed to that which offends you...all assertions beyond that are invalid...or equally-valid.

[EdMaven]

186. The OP isn't about what goes on in private bedrooms.

And neither is Miss Representation.

[Chan790]

193. No, it's about photography of sexual acts...specifically of bondage.

I was aware of that when I wrote it, the point is the same. Your right to claim harm ends at any sex act you're not a party to unless you're being victimized by it in a material sense. Whether the act itself or the photo of the act is immaterial to this assertion. The "door" in question was metaphorical.

[EdMaven]

194. It's not about "photography". It's about the use of such images in public media.

And the propensity of you & other posters to avoid that fact & try to make it about someone putting their nose in someone else's bedroom is very telling.

[Chan790]

200. All media is public by-definition.

The assertion that hardcore bondage erotica is being used to sell anything is disingenuous, a falsity. If that is the assertion of the film then it serves the criticism it receives for no less reason than being predicated on a lie. If they're going to lower the bar by asserting something that nobody in-scene would consider bondage photography, let alone erotica, are the images in question...then it deserves the criticism for being histrionic and self-important.

Speaking of "telling"...having lost the argument from the outset, you're nibbling around edges to find some irrelevancy to assert as rebuttal. I know that trick too. :hi:

[EdMaven]

204. 1) All media is not public "by definition". 2) Bondage images *are* being

used to sell things.
3) It's only in your own imagination that I have lost any argument from the outset or am nibbling around edges to find irrelevancies to assert in rebuttal.
4) You haven't even addressed the topic of discussion except to simply *assert* that all media is public by definition & "hardcore" bondage images aren't used to sell things.

Your unnecessarily verbose "argument" paraphrased:

1) Only physical harm is real harm.

2) Images can't do physical harm.

3) People who claim images are harmful are talking about social harm.

4) If you accept the proposition that images can be socially harmful, you have to accept all other claims that something is socially harmful.

5) Therefore, if you accept the claim that images can be socially harmful, you have no defense against *any* claim that something is socially harmful -- for example, consensual gay sex.



Your "argument" is ridiculous. The only reason you imagined it was convincing was that you used so many pompous big words & so much circumlocution you lost track of what you were actually saying.

If I accept the argument that painting swastikas on synagogues is socially harmful, I do not therefore have to accept the argument that painting "kilroy was here" on sidewalks is socially harmful or that painting the mona lisa is socially harmful. One kind of painting doesn't = all painting, & all claims of social harm don't become legitimate just because one does.

Your "argument" fails even as a logical argument, but it also fails to address the topic in the OP, which is not about what people do consensually in their bedrooms, but about what is done in public (not private) spaces without overt consent by anyone except the corporations that produce the images.

What you, & the other posters like you, seem to believe at root is that there is not, or should not be any dividing line between public & private in the sexual realm. There is no society in history where that has been the case and imo it is a profoundly anti-social position.

But I can think of no other reason why every last one of you insists on equating an attempt to discuss public imagery with what you do in your own bedrooms, and become morally outraged at the attempt to intrude into *your* private (see?) business -- even though that supposed intrusion exists only in your own imagination.

[proverbialwisdom]

242. Sustained applause and standing ovation! Thank you for your powerful posts on this topic.

[Warren DeMontague]

281. ...is there an echo in here?

weird.

[redqueen]

364. Mind if I say... wow?

Cause that was awesome.

[Warren DeMontague]

198. Boy, was I wrong.

I had May down as Porn Month. Apparently October was supposed to be Hooters, but I suppose it's close enough.

[petronius]

232. Three PETA months? Can't we switch one of those for a pit bull month,

or at least have a 'food stamps for twinkies' bonus topic in November?

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

252. PETA is like the jackpot of flamebait topics.

It's the gift that keeps on givin'.

[truebrit71]

326. Absolute thread-win....

....Brilliant!! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Liquorice]

201. It is similar to the way black people were depicted in movies and TV

in the past. But patriarchal views are much more difficult to defeat than racist ones. Sexist men and women get many benefits from indulging in and encouraging sexist and even misogynistic thought in our society. It is somewhat similar to the way some white people gained from racism and keeping black people down, only in the case of sexism, it is even more widespread and accepted.

Change will come very slowly as it relates to sexism in our society. As you can see from reading this thread, many people who consider themselves progressives don't even realize they harbor sexist views, and even if they do realize it, they certainly have no intention of changing. They LIKE it this way and believe they benefit from it. It will be many generations in the future before we can expect the ubiquitous sexist, degrading views/images of women to be considered wrong and unacceptable in our society. I do think it will happen one day, but not in our lifetime.

[Major Nikon]

215. Similar in some ways, perhaps, but still considerably different

The people of color who were depicted in that way had little choice about it. There were few, if any other options for them. It's pretty hard to make the argument they had full consent.

There's all sorts of things I wouldn't want to do myself, but I have no business telling others they can't or shouldn't. I'm not going to be the one who tells fully consenting adults they can't do what they want to do in the privacy of their own homes. I think once you go down that road, it's pretty hard to figure out where you're going to stop. I prefer to just stay out of people's bedrooms.

[proverbialwisdom]

243. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[redqueen]

350. That is precisely the way I see it as well. (nt)

[seabeyond]

370. i don't think it will be many generations. i think this new experiment on our youth with inundation

of porn in all aspects of our life will prove out pretty quickly how harmful it is to both genders, family as a unit and future children and society as a whole.

[Lorien]

383. +1, though I don't know if our species will survive long enough

for us to ever see that day. :-(

[Unrepentant Fenian]

205. It's my opinion that...

people should keep their noses and judgments out of other people's bedrooms. If people want to be tied up, spanked or have sex in monkey costumes, it's none of my business. If they want to photograph it and post it on the internet, more power to them. I only look at pictures that I want to look at. It's a right to choose thing...

[EdMaven]

207. another one who didn't bother to read the op.

[Warren DeMontague]

209. If people don't want to read the op

and they're consenting adults, that's their right.

Anyway, let's be honest; the OP was basically a plug for a movie.

[shcrane71]

222. What's an OP?

[Major Nikon]

224. Original Poster or Original Post

[shcrane71]

229. Thanks. What is n/t? Sorry about all these dumb questions.

[Major Nikon]

230. No text

It means nothing else is contained in the message body after the subject line, so there's no value in clicking on the message.

[shcrane71]

231. The documentary *is* thought-provoking, and I do plug it to all my friends, BUT the OP is more about

the "what's the diff" question between the social commentary made in that film, and the social commentary that primarily women feminist (I wonder why the men don't see a problem with this?) have of the degrading images of women in porn?*

And a DEFINING TERM FOR WARREN... degrading images of women in porn are ones where the woman doesn't have control over her own body due to restraints of any type, or is being defecated and pissed on, or doing something EVERY TIME that most women do not wish to do in the bedroom EVERY TIME (i.e. cum shots to the face).

As an aside, I once tried to escalate a website to stop the processing of payments for a "gentlemen's club" in manhatten that "sponsored" young, provocatively-clad and posed female amputees (all had lost one leg above the knee) from old eastern European block countries. I was told that the payment processing company wouldn't be disassociating with that "club" as the guy in the acceptable use division couldn't see how this may be human trafficking. eh, silly me.

[proverbialwisdom]

253. Do subscription sites selling illegal content advertise as such? Of course not.

Human trafficking, bingo.

Recommended:

http://www.amazon.com/Whistleblower-Trafficking-Military-Contractors-Justice/dp/0230115225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318708472&sr=8-1
The Whistleblower: Sex Trafficking, Military Contractors, and One Woman's Fight for Justice
By Kathryn Bolkovac


The book is nonfiction. The film has been recently released.

Trailer: http://whistleblower-movie-trailer.blogspot.com/

[Warren DeMontague]

255. Okay, thanks for the definition.

At least, we've established that you DON'T believe sex between two people, penetrative heterosexual sex, or pictures of naked women are, in and of themselves, inherently "degrading".

Upthread a poster who is into consensual adult bondage does a fine job of explaining why that sort of consensual activity is NOT considered "degrading" by the willing participants, ie people being tied up.

pee, poop. Well, again, I would file that under "ick", but I think the real defining characteristic has to be the consent of the participants. If that's what they're into, their bizness.

I also think that you're making several spurious assumptions & generalizations about "cum shots to the face", ie that that's what's happening in "most porn" (an extremely broad category) while also talkin about what "most women" do not wish to do in the bedroom (again, a very broad category)

My bottom line is, again, consenting adults. Amputees, for instance, do not lose their ability to consent along with their leg.

[Major Nikon]

223. How do you figure that?

Seems to be the very same subject matter. Please explain how this is off topic.

[snagglepuss]

216. It is utterly absurd to wonder if any one on the Left is opposed to

degrading images of women. There is a contingent of progressives who see nothing wrong with degrading images of women but many progressives including myself take issue with porn. I highly recommend Chris Hedges' damning expose of the porn industry in his recent book called Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.

Hedges will disabuse you of the notion that progressives support the porn industry and his research will give you far greater insight into the industry. What many progressives who see nothing wrong with porn conveniently ignore is the gross exploitation of women in the porn industry.


You also need to disabuse yourself of the notion that conservative reaction is due to women being degraded. Conservatives, a hundred to one, are reacting to sexual permissiveness, they don't give a damn about human degradation.

[Darth_Kitten]

218. +1000000000000000000

Bravo! :)

[Gormy Cuss]

227. Not that long ago, it was socially acceptable for men to smack women to keep them in line.

After all, they were simply property. Same goes for kids, and even adult males who were called "boys."
Every time the issue is raised here, particularly once the "porn" word appears in the discussion, there are people who ignore the bigger topic which is whether there is wide scale, detrimental stereotyping of women in our culture and whether is should be addressed as a social issue.

While both genders face stereotypes, men aren't expected to conform to the same narrow set of body images as women. Men also aren't dealing with pervasive stereotypes of subservience.

Hog-tying was used as an example in the OP. When people are presented as hog-tied it represents a loss of power. If the image is generally of women, and far less frequently of men, is that more damaging to women's self-image? Are there differences in the context of the hog-tying? One can argue that hog-tying in porn serves a specific and clear purpose, but what about in advertising? How often are men portrayed that way vs. women? What is the message in relation to the product or service?

[Major Nikon]

236. It's pretty hard to imagine a hog-tying image outside the context of porn

Are you often seeing women hog tied outside the context of porn? I'm not saying those images don't exist, I'm just saying I personally haven't seen them. If you have and/or you think they are pervasive, then please explain as I'd be interested in hearing about it.

As far as body images go, I'm not sure it's safe to say women are the only ones who face unrealistic expectations. At one time, perhaps this was the case, but I don't think it is anymore as men often face the same unrealistic expectations going the other way along with the ridicule and everything else that goes along with it. I see this behavior promoted from both sexes regarding both sexes all the time. Just about every day, in fact. Do women face these issues more than men? Maybe. I'm not sure anymore. If they do the gap certainly is narrowing.

As far as stereotypes of subservience, this is well promoted by both sexes. What some people call traditional values, others call sexism. Which side is right? Or is the answer somewhere in the middle? Some people want to be subservient, both men and women. Is this wrong? And if it is, you have to answer the question of whether the images we see are driving this mindset, or is the mindset driving the images? The first question would be very hard to answer, and the second is next to impossible.

As far as the image of women portrayed in society, I don't think the answers are so easy. Even hog tying images are acceptable given the right context. I think you face a pretty tough challenge if you're going to try to label things as right or wrong on a broad basis. There's simply too many variables involved. Give me a specific example that's actually happening and in what context it's being used, and I can give you an answer as to whether I think it's right or wrong. It's pretty hard for me to give answers on a general sense.

[Gormy Cuss]

247. Hog-tying is only one example, but I saw that on TV this past week.

The show was "American Horror Story" and the hog-tying was in the context of a murder with sexual overtones. I'm sure there are researchers out there who catalog such things and would be better able to quantify it for you.

The OP brought up hog-tying, but the basis of the discussion was the MissRepresentation trailer, something that is readily available on youtube if you're interested in viewing it. It's a broader discussion of images of women in media. Jean Kilbourne's well known series "Killing Us Softly" explored advertising images of women in a similar framework. There are others who have raised the issue over the past few decades (Faludi and Naomi Wolf, to name two.) All will lead you to understand that women do face the body image issue much more so than men even though the gap has narrowed modestly.

As for subservience, the issue isn't voluntary behavior so much as expected behavior, and the latter is most certainly based on acceptable norms. Acceptable norms of behavior can be very rigid --ask men who stay home to watch their children while the wife works about the reactions they get when they tell people of the arrangement, for example.

[shcrane71]

228. the "contingent of progressives who see nothing wrong w/ degrading images of women" are more vocal

than the other progressives, in my experience.

Thanks for the heads up on Chris Hedges. I keep seeing his name around, but I was getting him mixed up with Christopher Hitchens for awhile. I'm not a fan of Hitchens due to his hawkish support during the Iraqi invasion under W.

[snagglepuss]

217. It is utterly absurd to wonder if any one on the Left is opposed to

degrading images of women. There is a contingent of progressives who see nothing wrong with degrading images of women but many progressives including myself take issue with porn. I highly recommend Chris Hedges' damning expose of the porn industry in his recent book called Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.

Hedges will disabuse you of the notion that progressives support the porn industry and his research will give you far greater insight into the industry. What many progressives who see nothing wrong with porn conveniently ignore is the gross exploitation of women in the porn industry.


You also need to disabuse yourself of the notion that conservative reaction is due to women being degraded. Conservatives, a hundred to one, are reacting to sexual permissiveness, they don't give a damn about human degradation.

[Hydra]

238. *LMAO*

I wasn't going to touch this piece of flame bait, but I'm going to, considering how the lack of content posts are getting the most cheers.

Miss Representation's premises is that the MSM is flawed.

...Um, where have they been for the last 30 years? The MSM is P R O P A G A N D A. That's it's whole point- to force feed us stuff that we would never accept in our right minds.

SHUT IT OFF. It only works when you buy into it.

Now, as to your flame bait about hogtied women and female empowerment and how people won't listen to you when you want to be a censor...the kindest thing I can say is that you're trying to spraypaint over something that scares you rather than looking for ways to advance the cause of women.

The ERA was killed by women who were listening to the MSM and told to be scared of the bra burners and unisex bathrooms. Progress is only achieved by more freedom and more information. If you want to stop that progress, then you aren't a progressive. You belong in the other camp, where they too believe that the line should stop where they are comfortable.

[shcrane71]

240. Assumptions hinders one's listening abilities.

P R O P A G A N D A is ubiquitous. Sorry, you're not progressive if you think that it's alright propagate tropes of feminism.

And since you're so anti-censorship, I hope you've campaigned to have all porn on regulated airwaves. I mean, all we need is MORE images of gagged and bound people getting screwed on TV right? I just need to be desensitized to it right? Maybe there should be more images of violence and nudity on the airwaves too as we don't want censorship right? Just the other day a friend was complaining about a "lower income" family yelling "Fuck You"s at each other in the library parking lot. "Those" people were doing that in front of the children -- oh the horror. So, that so-called liberal friend believes in censorship I suppose. Thanks for clearing that up. In fact, I'm sure you've become an activist about the anti-public nudity laws.

I have an idea. Most people can tell when others are being bullied, or demeaned. If we (oh, and I'm going to include myself in this category despite what you want to believe of me) PROGRESSIVES want to be on the forefront of the struggle for human rights, maybe we should recognize when people are being bullied or demeaned and say that it's not something we'll tolerate.

It's really that easy. Watch some of the videos created for Dan Savage's It Gets Better campaign. That's a start.

[Hydra]

241. Umm...what?

You know what? Never mind. Don't let me get in the way of you complaining about the world going to hell the way my church going relatives do. They think that censorship is the answer too, and not because they respect women. It's because they think naked human bodies and the things people do with them are "obscene."

[shcrane71]

248. Huh???

Oh never mind. Don't let me get in the way of your complaining about the ideology of your relatives, and their knee jerk responses. Your issues with the relations is obviously hindering your ability to even assess what this thread is about. Once you've processed through your family issues, come back and read this thread.

[TNLib]

245. Sometimes I feel that the degradation of women will be the last fight in civil rights.

Unfortunately too few people see it as a root cause of violence against women, and social inequality against women. The same men that often claim they support women's equality in the work place are the fist ones to call their female boss a stupid fucking bitch. I get tired of the hypocrisy.

[shcrane71]

249. Agreed.

[woo me with science]

259. Did you know that rape is one of the most common female sexual fantasies?

It's true, documented repeatedly in research on sexuality. That does not mean that the women who answered that way actually want to BE raped. Why is it a popular fantasy? Well, why do people become attracted to feet? Why do some enjoy wearing cat suits? Some of it is probably our attraction to taboo. I also suspect it is intoxicating to imagine oneself so irresistible that a man cannot help himself.

Let us not forget, too, that the fantasy can and does go both ways.

The human sexual imagination is rich, varied, highly emotional, and sometimes very dark. I suspect if you talk to people who are actually involved in the (huge) BDSM community in this country, you will hear a great deal about respect for one another, and respect for personal boundaries and limits.

Let's not confuse fantasy between consenting adults with crimes against women, and let's not go into the business of judging people for their fantasies and consensual sexual behavior.

[EdMaven]

261. and to you, this factoid = images of rape should be displayed in public?

not sure what your point is, since you still keep talking about the irrelevant "fantasies & consensual behavior".

[Warren DeMontague]

264. Do you have anything beyond that one Dolce & Gabbana ad from 6 years ago?

Where are all these 'images of rape' that are being plastered all over bus sides and billboards?

[proverbialwisdom]

278. Kidding, right? Never seen ads implying sexual violence and its aftermath?

Like the D&G ad series mixing hunting, sharp steel and high fashion (knives at throats and dead-looking gorgeous young models, both sexes)? Or that futuristic D&G ad series with plane interiors, restraints and cameras? How about the shoe ads involving a model play-acting dead in a car trunk in the middle of the desert with a guy holding a shovel? Different seasons, different famous ad campaigns over several years. Look them up.

Vanity Fair, Interview, W magazine, New York magazine, Rolling Stone have all published these 'edgy' ads many regard as offensive because they MERGE intimations of extreme violence (nonconsensual) and sexuality. From there it's a hop and skip to the online world for more explicit related content.

Check out academic Gail Dines' book, PORNLAND. Only the author would be expected to agree with every word, naturally, but SELECTED FACTUAL parts are highly informative.

RECOMMENDED: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=pornland+gail+dines&pbx=1&oq=pornland+gail+dines&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1421l4577l0l5087l19l16l0l0l0l0l543l3918l0.1.8.1.2.1l14l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=4bc23f8df9681a44&biw=1311&bih=526

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gail-dines/adventures-in-pornland_b_636381.html

...Using interviews with hundreds of college-age students, Pornland takes a close look at what it means for young women and men to grow up in such a culture and how it shapes their identities, sexualities, and ideas about intimacy, relationships, and connection.

One problem I knew I had to deal with as I was writing the book was the inevitable accusation that, because I am anti-porn, I must be an anti-sex prude who is out to police people's sex lives. To criticize porn today is to be seen as criticizing sex, because--thanks to the porn PR machine--porn has now become synonymous with sex.

The way I address this in the book is to ask the reader what would happen if this book were a critique of McDonald's for its exploitive labor practices, its destruction of the environment, and its impact on our diet and health. Would I be accused of being anti-eating or anti-food? I suspect that most readers would understand that the critique was focused on the large-scale impact of the fast-food industry and not the human need, experience, and joy of eating. So I say in the preface that this book should be read as a critique of the industrialization and commodification of sex by corporate predators, and not as an attack on sex itself.

It is this industrial setting that often gets ignored in the heated debates over porn...

Back to MSM advertising and billboards, there is an observable continuum.

http://www.fabsugar.com/Fab-Ad-DG-Dolce-Gabbana-SpringSummer-08-917855

January 15, 2008 1:42 pm

...The dominatrix is out, and the lux hippie is in. Fab! I have been loathing Dolce & Gabbana's ads for a couple seasons now; they've just been too harsh and in your face. Remember last January when an ad was pulled because consumer groups didn't appreciate the knife play in it? Yeah, exactly my point. The Italian bad boys went good with both their D&G and namesake Spring collections and it was a much needed breath of fresh air for the house...



http://www.fabsugar.com/gallery/208455/?page=0,0,5

WARNING: EXPLICIT

Deconstruct that. Perfectly innocent, just models posing in an artist's studio, except for the painting voyeur-is-me and the model on a plate. To catch that you'd have to have seen the same online 'art' photos (with explicit captions) simulating the unspeakable that I once did. Flashback inducing, seen once and be forever changed.

What's this (from 11th October 2011)? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2047568/Mischa-Barton-topless-eating-raw-meat-steak-new-Tyler-Shields-photos.html

It's all about context except when it's blatantly not. Two examples from film here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jill-soloway/remove-the-rating-for-cap_b_44404.html?

Remove The Rating From Captivity
by Jill Soloway
Posted: March 27, 2007 09:00 PM

A couple of weeks ago I was driving my son to school when I took a left onto LaBrea, and, as usual, sat in traffic for a couple of minutes. As we waited for the construction bottleneck to ease up, we sang along with the new Shins CD. And then, at the same moment, we fell silent.

We were both noticing the same thing.

It was a billboard for a movie...

<...>

From: Joss Whedon
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:17 PM
To: Advertising
Subject: CAPTIVITY BILLBOARDS/REMOVE THE RATING

To the MPAA,
There's a message I'm supposed to cut and paste but I imagine you've read it. So just let me say that the ad campaign for "Captivity" is not only a literal sign of the collapse of humanity, it's an assault. I've watched plenty of horror - in fact I've made my share. But the advent of torture-porn and the total dehumanizing not just of women (though they always come first) but of all human beings has made horror a largely unpalatable genre. This ad campaign is part of something dangerous and repulsive, and that act of aggression has to be answered.

As a believer not only in the First Amendment but of the necessity of horror stories, I've always been against acts of censorship. I distrust anyone who wants to ban something 'for the good of the public'. But this ad is part of a cycle of violence and misogyny that takes something away from the people who have to see it. It's like being mugged (and I have been). These people flouted the basic rules of human decency. God knows the culture led them there, but we have to find our way back and we have to make them know that people will not stand for this. And the only language they speak is money. (A devastating piece in the New Yorker - not gonna do it.) So talk money. Remove the rating, and let them see how far over the edge they really are.

Thanks for reading this, if anyone did.

Sincerely, Joss Whedon.
Creator, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/05/entertainment/et-goldstein5

Those `Hostel' ads test the squirm factor
THE BIG PICTURE | PATRICK GOLDSTEIN
June 05, 2007

<...>

What fascinates me about the film is its marketing campaign, which brazenly uses disturbing images of torture, nudity and depravity to attract attention for the film... But while I admire the art of these posters, there's a fine line between an image that deftly captures the spirit of a gory film and an image that glamorizes the degradation of women.

Palen wanted to start the campaign with an image that would stand out amid the clutter of endless movie posters. So he went to a butcher's shop, bought five different cuts of meat and photographed them in his kitchen...

"It's for the boys in the backpacks at these comic conventions, waiting in line for hours to get the posters signed," says Palen.

Palen insists his images are considerably different from the ones that appeared on billboards for "Captivity," whose graphic portrayal of the kidnapping and torture of a woman caused such a furor that they were quickly taken down earlier this year. (The movie, made by After Dark Films, is distributed by Lionsgate, but the company claims it never saw or approved the advertising materials.) Palen says those images were "vulgar" because of the way they were designed and photographed...

Obviously indefensible, all.

[Warren DeMontague]

280. I buy most of my clothes from Costco. I wouldn't know who Dolce & Gabbana IS if it wasn't for the

outrage-spasms generated by their ads.

It is what it is, I guess. Perhaps the thing to do is cancel the Vanity Fair subscription, although it's too bad since they do run some good articles. :shrug:

Still, the idea that there are these singular, monolithic forces at work- AKA the "porn industry"... there isn't a "book industry" in the sense of all printed words promoting a nefarious singular agenda; there are books, some are good, some are shit.

Same with porn. And tv shows. And movies. And ads.

[woo me with science]

265. In discussion forums, it is rarely a good idea

to begin your comments with, "And to you..."

That is called attempting to put words in the other person's mouth, usually for the purposes of creating a strawman. Yes, I am in favor of videotaping actual rapes and showing them on the subways in NYC! (See how annoying that was?)

It is a weak debate strategy at best and a dishonest one at worst.

If you bothered to read through the thread, you would see that the discussion is wide-ranging here and touches many aspects of the production and use of such images. I am sorry that you had difficulty seeing the relevance of my post to this discussion.

:evilgrin:

[Warren DeMontague]

268. That putting words in peoples' mouths thing is awfully kinky.

It's not my bag, but apparently a whole lot of people are really into it. :shrug:

[woo me with science]

269. ...

:spray:

[EdMaven]

270. phrased in the form of a question, art. "not sure what your point is," etc.

[Matariki]

275. Way to *not* get that documentary and turn it into your pet issue.

It's not about porn.

[BrendaBrick]

303. Canadian Documentary: "Oral Sex Is The New Goodnight Kiss"

This is NOT about adults but about TEENS and YOUNGER (middle school!)

Oral Sex is the New Goodnight Kiss
by Sharlene Azam

This book and documentary film by Sharlene Azam, are about the recent emergence of teenage prostitution rings in affluent suburbs. Attractive, white, high school girls - 13, 14 and 15 years old - are having sex with up to 7 men a night, several times a week, so they can go shopping. Other girls are selling their virginity for $1000. These are not street prostitutes. "They are the prettiest girls from the most successful families," explains one expert. "Your daughter's best friend is recruiting her right out of your house, right under your nose," says Detective Randy Wickins of the Edmonton Vice Unit. Oral Sex Is The New Goodnight Kiss is a wake up call for parents, showing them girls who have been recruited, their mothers, their "friends" who recruited them (the new pimps), and the vice cops and experts who are trying to make sense of this new middle-class phenomenon.

SOURCE: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6719164-oral-sex-is-the-new-goodnight-kiss

http://www.thenewgoodnightkiss.com/videos.html

Google search: "oral sex middle school:"

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=oral+sex+middle+school&pbx=1&oq=oral+sex+middle+school&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2731l10816l0l13765l22l21l0l0l0l0l253l3304l1.11.7l21l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=bd638b897581bb57&biw=1360&bih=598

Google search: "oral sex elementary school":

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=oral+sex+elementary+school&pbx=1&oq=oral+sex+elementary+school&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=1493l7310l0l9686l26l25l0l0l0l0l269l3304l3.15.4l25l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=bd638b897581bb57&biw=1360&bih=598


on edit: (From Party City - current costume being sold):

http://www.partycity.com/product/girls+midnight+mischief+costume.do?sortby=ourPicks&pp=60&size=all&navSet=110795

[JVS]

309. Are we really supposed to believe a vice cop on the prevalence of casual prostitution among girls?

Those dudes told some fucking whoppers about pot, after all.

[Warren DeMontague]

317. Unfortunately, alliances between authoritarian members of the 'left' and far right wingers

are not unheard of, in fact can be pretty commonplace.

My advice here is, don't bother. Moral Panic over "THESE KIDS TODAY ARE HAVING SEX LIKE TEH NEVER DID BEFORE O NO!!!!" is as perennial as the rainy season in Bhangladesh, and it's not going away any time soon. I remember when I was in high school, we were all supposed to be listening to Nancy Reagan and "just saying no", plus we were supposedly so scared of AIDS no one was doing it.

Er, not quite.


And it's also not worth bothering noting how many of these 'statistics' are misrepresentations or just flat-out lies, like the one that purports to say a huge number of women will be raped in their lifetime, sure, because they're defining any woman who has sex after imbibing an alcoholic beverage as having been "raped".

I've seen Mother Jones kiss up to ex-Bush Administration Justice Officials (you know, they of warrantless spying and torture memos) because Obama's DOJ is 'insufficiently enthusiastic' about censoring images of consenting adults fucking. I've seen self-proclaimed "feminists" gush over pinheads like CWA and James Dobson's outfit, because "at least they take porn seriously" :eyes:

The fact of the matter is, these missions (from God?) to play morals police seem to inevitably create strange, ah, bedfellows.

[BrendaBrick]

318. Like most things

I think it is a culmination of a variety of factors which play into it, not the least of which is the objectification of both girls AND boys:

Video: http://www.wset.com/story/15697935/are-childrens-halloween-costumes-too-risque

My post #305 illustrates the difference in cartoon characters as one example - then and now. Like it or not, these type of images/messages DO permeate our society and send the wrong message to young malleable minds and I for one find it a disturbing trend.

On another related note, Ken Burns' new documentary on "Prohibition" cited that at one time, the age of consent was 10 years old. 10!!!! The efforts of the WCTM (Women's Christian Temperance Movement) fought to successfully change that to 16:

USA

In the USA in the 1890s most states had an age of consent of 10-12 with Delaware setting its age of consent at 7. In 1895 it was still 7 according to a New York Times article <17>. However, feminists and children's rights activists began advocating raising the age of consent to 16 wanting to ultimately raise it to 18 and by 1920 almost all states had raised their age of consent to 16 or 18.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform

But this is not a question of morality, in fact, according to this article by NPR: "The Teen Brain: It's Just Not Grown Up Yet":

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468

[thucythucy]

314. Thanks for this post

Shcrane. I tried explaining, elaborating on what I think you might have meant. Check out my posts here, if you're interested, and please let me know what you think.

Best wishes, and thanks again.

Thucy

[seabeyond]

315. i would say

welcome to du, but looks like you have been here a while.

i appreciate your posts. all the effort you put into them. and the time.

it isnt often there is actually discussion about this topic. if the critique is on porn, the replier generally reduces it to name calling attacking a womans sexuality (prude, pearl clutcher, puritan, asexual, doesnt like sex, swooner, ugly, jealous...) in order to degrade her to shutting up.

[thucythucy]

328. You're welcome.

And even though I have been here a while, I don't often post, so I appreciate your extending the "welcome" and noticing the thought I put into what I do say.

Best wishes.

[Honeycombe8]

324. I'd have to see the pics. It depends on what you call "degrading images of women." nt

[Yavin4]

331. Who or What Is Going to Define What Image(s) Is/Are Degrading to Women?

Still waiting for an answer.

[thucythucy]

332. Who or what is going to define what is

a racist image? If you can't or won't answer that question, does that mean no one can talk about racism in the media anymore?

Really, you could start a major conflagration with all the straw men that pop up as soon as anyone starts questioning the messages implicit or explicit in some of their precious entertainment.

[Yavin4]

335. The Answer Is No One Does

Racist and/or degrading images to African Americans are abundant. From rap videos to BET to Tyler Perry movies to internet sites, there are plenty of racist and/or degrading images of African Americans.

The price we all pay for freedom of expression is that some expressions will exist that some may find demeaning.

Now, can you answer my question?

[thucythucy]

337. Yes, I can answer your question.

We all define for ourselves what we find demeaning. Is that simple enough? We all of us interpret for ourselves the messages with which we are bombarded, day in and day out, by the culture around us.

But so what? The discussion, as I see it, is how we as progressives respond to what we see as demeaning or racist or misogynist imagery in the media. For some, the answer appears to be: do nothing, question nothing, discuss nothing. Turn the page, change the channel, accept what you see as inevitable, harmless, irrelevant. Shout down or ridicule anyone who voices any concern about the impact of such images on the struggle for social justice. Let "the free market" work its magic, as it has in so many other aspects of our lives.

For me, by contrast, the answer to how we respond to such imagery is by analyzing its impact, and exploring the ways to change what we perceive as a media environment hostile to equal rights for women, people of color, GLBTs, people with disabilities, and other people historically marginalized and disempowered by mass culture. Up thread I offered Martin Nolan's "The Cinema of Isolation: A History of Physical Disability in the Movies" as one model for how to go about doing this, as are the films by Sut Jhally, for instance "Dreamworlds"--his study of sexist imagery in popular culture--to which I would add "Class Dismissed"--his look at how television routinely denigrates and marginalizes working class people. What I and others advancing the need for such work get in return are various cries of "censorship!" "Andrea Dworkin!" "you must hate sex!" etc. etc.

As Shcrane71 points out, some progressives seem to react with incredible defensiveness as soon as the question of media images of women and girls is concerned. Many of the comments on this thread certainly seem to support her assertion.

Mainstream media is rarely if ever content neutral. The messages it sends, subtle and not so subtle, have real world consquences for real live people. Teaching and encouraging media literacy--how to see behind the surface sheen of what the media convey, whether that be through advertising, pornography and erotica, popular entertainment, Fox News or Rush Limbaugh--is one of our most effective tools as progressives trying to effect social change.

Why is this so difficult for some progressives to understand?

[seabeyond]

339. i don't know why it is so difficult for some. i was teaching kids at 3 about false advertisement

of course they say the flavor of the cereal is the BEST. the very BEST ever. and we buy it and it is crappy. false advertisement. dont buy into what you see on tv. so many of the cartoons, conditioning for societal behavior that is not healthy. my kids learned young.

pretty simple, clear and easy for our household, but then, i have hopes for my boys progressive bent on society.

[thucythucy]

342. Weird though, isn't it

how as soon as we start talking about media images of women, especially in (gasp!) pornography, you get this immediate, intense, snarky set of reactions?

Best of luck to you and your boys.

[Yavin4]

356. All I Ask Is Who or What Defines Demeaning?

Also, who or what defines porn? Your definition of porn and/or demeaning images are different from mine and others.

[redqueen]

341. Brilliant post.

It's nice to know that in some countries, there is progress. Places like Sweden and Denmark don't allow advertisers to simply use women's bodies as props for whatever kind of crap they're selling. Sweden has the most progressive prostitution laws in the world.

There is progress, but it is ever so painfully slow. I've given up on seeing any significant change in my lifetime.

[Yavin4]

351. "We all define for ourselves what we find demeaning. "

So, what's demeaning to you may not be what's demeaning to me.

The discussion, as I see it, is how we as progressives respond to what we see as demeaning or racist or misogynist imagery in the media. For some, the answer appears to be: do nothing, question nothing, discuss nothing.

So progressives are all supposed to have the exact same idea of what is and what is not demeaning?

For example, I find the typical mainstream romantic comedy out of Hollywood more demeaning and destructive to women than porn, which is not mainstream.

As Shcrane71 points out, some progressives seem to react with incredible defensiveness as soon as the question of media images of women and girls is concerned. Many of the comments on this thread certainly seem to support her assertion.

As a progressive, I know that freedom of expression means living with expressions that I find abhorrent.

[redqueen]

360. Instead of debating "demeaning", how about focusing on demonstratably harmful?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2118184&mesg_id=2148036

[Name removed]

371. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yavin4]

336. Case in point

See Youtube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN-T_WRs7eo

[thucythucy]

340. Yup, that looks pretty racist to me.

So what's your point? That we should all of us just shut up and accept what we see without question? Don't make noise, don't make trouble? Let's not get too uppity! Is that your new progressive credo?

BTW, I can steer you to far more toxic racist material than an old Bugs Bunny cartoon. Ever hear of "Pickaninny dolls"? Google "'Gater Bait" some time and see what you find.

The NAACP picketed "Birth of a Nation" when it was released. I suppose you would have lectured W.E.B. Du Bois that he should have kept his mouth shut, that its depiction of the KKK as great American heroes was "the price we pay" for freedom?

It seems to me I get to exercise my freedom of speech as much as anybody else. And if you don't like what I'm saying, about Bugs Bunny, mainstream media, pornography or whatever else, that's simply the price YOU have to pay, isn't it?

[Yavin4]

352. Here's What I Am Saying

I am saying that Youtube is a critical medium for communication, and as an African American, I can live with racist cartoons or racist videos on it as long as other free speech is allowed.

BTW, a nude woman is not allowed on Youtube, but this cartoon is.

[redqueen]

357. Completely naked, no. Sexualized?

Nudity isn't the issue. Overly sexualized is.

When women are presented as caricatures of what is currently idealized as feminine sexuality, that is the issue. Not nudity. Nude statues are beautiful.

[Yavin4]

378. Ashcroft Ordered That Nude Statues Be Covered Up

To him statues are vulgar.

So, to you and me a nude statue is beautiful. To others, it's vulgar.

This is what I mean when I asked the question, who or what will decide what is/is not demeaning.

[thucythucy]

372. Well obviously we all have to live

in the society in which we live. So I'm glad you CAN live with racist material on U2B, though it's unfortunate on a variety of levels that you have to. If you couldn't live with it, well...but what choice do you have?

What I've been trying to say --among other things-- is that you don't necessarily HAVE to live with it silently, just as Shcrane71 shouldn't have to live with her outrage of what she sees as "degrading" images of women silently. That you and she both have a right to question, critique, analyse any material you please. You can even denounce it. And that I would hope that Democratic Underground, of all places, would be open to hearing your voice and responding in a way that doesn't resort to caricature and snark. Not that I want to censor anybody's inner snark. (But I then reserve the right to question, as I have: where the hell is all this snark coming from?)

Raising these concerns and questions isn't just a privilege we enjoy, as progressives I see it as a vital necessity to the work we hope to do.

That's my two cents, anyway.

Best wishes.

[LanternWaste]

343. Vulgarity sells effectively and efficient.

Vulgarity sells effectively and efficient. I imagine therefore, that there will always be a righteously-indignant demographic defending it, and maintaining that vulgarity is in fact and without condition, liberating to people of any color or sex.

[Yavin4]

354. A Good Number of People Would Define "Mad Men" As Vulgar

Or "Queer as Folk" as vulgar. Or a Mapplethorpe artwork as vulgar.

[redqueen]

345. Objecitfying images are the issue, as I see it.

Girls are bombarded constantly from the time they first become aware of their surroundings that what matters most about them is their looks. The way they look is paramount, everything else is secondary.

There are a few sources of other, saner messages, but they are no match for all the cartoons, comics, commercials, movies, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.

If parents don't counter this message, and many don't, then the child will internalize society's dominant message, and the cycle continues.

[BrendaBrick]

346. American Psychological Association: "Sexualization of Girls Linked to...

February 19, 2007
Sexualization of Girls is Linked to Common Mental Health Problems in Girls and Women--Eating Disorders, Low Self-Esteem, and Depression; An APA Task Force Reports

Psychologists call for replacing sexualized images of girls in media and advertising with positive ones

WASHINGTON--A report of the American Psychological Association (APA) released today found evidence that the proliferation of sexualized images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising, and media is harmful to girls' self-image and healthy development.

To complete the report, the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls studied published research on the content and effects of virtually every form of media, including television, music videos, music lyrics, magazines, movies, video games and the Internet. They also examined recent advertising campaigns and merchandising of products aimed toward girls.

Sexualization was defined by the task force as occurring when a person's value comes only from her/his sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics, and when a person is sexually objectified, e.g., made into a thing for another's sexual use.

Examples of the sexualization of girls in all forms of media including visual media and other forms of media such as music lyrics abound. And, according to the report, have likely increased in number as "new media" have been created and access to media has become omnipresent. The influence and attitudes of parents, siblings, and friends can also add to the pressures of sexualization.

"The consequences of the sexualization of girls in media today are very real and are likely to be a negative influence on girls' healthy development," says Eileen L. Zurbriggen, PhD, chair of the APA Task Force and associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "We have ample evidence to conclude that sexualization has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, and healthy sexual development."

Research evidence shows that the sexualization of girls negatively affects girls and young women across a variety of health domains:

Cognitive and Emotional Consequences: Sexualization and objectification undermine a person's confidence in and comfort with her own body, leading to emotional and self-image problems, such as shame and anxiety.

Mental and Physical Health: Research links sexualization with three of the most common mental health problems diagnosed in girls and women--eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression or depressed mood.

Sexual Development: Research suggests that the sexualization of girls has negative consequences on girls' ability to develop a healthy sexual self-image.

Rest Here: http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2007/02/sexualization.aspx

[redqueen]

349. Thank you ... I don't know why we need a study to tell us this.

To me, it's intuitively obvious that the ubiquitous portrayal of woman as sex objects is harmful.

I hope that more research is done about these issues, and that as a result we stop accepting this kind of treatment as in any way normal.

[BrendaBrick]

361. You're welcome redqueen

It's sad that the article is dated 2007 and there doesn't seem to be much change that I can tell. The site does however point out what can be done:

Sexualization of Girls
What Parents Can Do

Girls get this message repeatedly: What matters is how “hot” they look. It plays on TV and across the Internet. You hear it in song lyrics and music videos. You see it in movies, electronic games, and clothing stores. It’s a powerful message.

As parents, you are powerful too. You can teach girls to value themselves for who they are, rather than how they look. You can teach boys to value girls as friends, sisters, and girlfriends, rather than as sexual objects. And you can advocate for change with manufacturers and media producers.
Tune In and Talk

Watch TV and movies with your daughters and sons. Read their magazines. Surf their Web sites. Ask questions. "Why is there so much pressure on girls to look a certain way?” "What do you like most about the girls you want to spend time with?" "Do these qualities matter more than how they look?" Really listen to what your kids tell you.
Question Choices

Girls who are overly concerned about their appearance often have difficulty focusing on other things. Clothes can be part of the distraction. If your daughter wants to wear something you consider too sexy, ask what she likes about the outfit. Ask if there’s anything she doesn’t like about it. Explain how clothes that require lots of checking and adjusting might keep her from focusing on school work, friends, and other activities.
Speak Up

If you don't like a TV show, CD, video, pair of jeans or doll, say why. A conversation with her will be more effective than simply saying, "No, you can’t buy it or watch it." Support campaigns, companies, and products that promote positive images of girls. Complain to manufacturers, advertisers, television and movie producers and retail stores when products sexualize girls.

The rest here: http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report.aspx

In addition, there is an organization: CCFC "Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood"

Children today are inundated with media and marketing that use sex to sell products. Embedded in these sexualized images are harmful messages that equate personal value with sexual appeal and turn sex into a commodity. Movies, music, TV programs, video games, and even toys marketed to children are rife with degrading images that objectify and sexualize girls and woman. Boys are also affected when sex is commodified, presented in the context of harmful stereotypes, and intertwined with power and violence.

Sexualized media and marketing can actively interfere with adolescents’ healthy sexual development and promote risky behavior. Today, even young children are internalizing sexualized images and appropriating sexualized behavior—long before they are able to understand what it means to be a sexual being.

Did you know?
More than half of teens report getting some or most of their information about sex from television.

On average, music videos contain 93 sexual situations per hour, including eleven “hard core” scenes depicting behaviors such as intercourse and oral sex.

The best-selling Bratz dolls—a hipper, sexier version of Barbie—are now a media empire, selling over 4 million DVDs and reaching number 1 on the Billboard Children’s Chart.

More Facts about The Sexualization of Childhood http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/issues/sexualization.html

[Yavin4]

363. This Study Seems Very Flawed

First, there's this:

Sexualization was defined by the task force as occurring when a person's value comes only from her/his sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics, and when a person is sexually objectified, e.g., made into a thing for another's sexual use.

Using sex appeal to sell products has been going on since the beginning of time, and it's used to sell to both girls and boys. Ever hear of a teen idol?

Then there's this:

Sexual Development: Research suggests that the sexualization of girls has negative consequences on girls' ability to develop a healthy sexual self-image.

That's to me is a deeply flawed conclusion. First, it says, "Research suggests..." which means nothing. Second, how can they tel that a young girl's "sexual self-image" is based on media images or some other more pertinent factor such as parental control.

[BrendaBrick]

367. Gee, I dunno...

Ya think the APA Task Force may have got it wrong?

Members of the APA Task Force:
Eileen Zurbriggen, PhD (Chair)
Associate Professor of Psychology, Psychology Department, University of California, Santa Cruz
Expertise: Associations between power and sexuality, including rape, childhood sexual abuse, and mental connections between power and sex (such as eroticizing dominance and submission). She is currently conducting a study to investigate the ways in which college students link power and sex, and the messages concerning these linkages that they receive from parents, peers, and the media.
Available for interviews

Sharon Lamb, EdD
Clinical Psychologist, Professor of Psychology,
Saint Michael's College
Co-Author: Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters
from Marketers' Schemes
Expertise: Licensed psychologist, Professor of Psychology at Saint Michael's College, and co-author with Lyn Mikel Brown of the book "Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters from Marketers' Schemes" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). She has also written on "normal" sexual development in girls and on how therapists can treat sexual issues as they arise in the therapeutic encounter with children and teens. Her research on girls' development, teenagers and sex, and abuse and victimization is widely cited. As a clinical psychologist, she also works with girls in her private practice.
Available for interviews

Tomi-Ann Roberts, PhD
Psychology Department, ColoradoCollege
Expertise: Psychology of gender and emotions. She studies girls' and women's attitudes and emotions toward their own bodies and body functions in a sexually objectifying culture.
Available for interviews

Deborah Tolman, EdD
Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, San Francisco State University
Expertise: Adolescent sexuality, specifically the sexuality of girls, focused on their experiences of their own sexuality; gender and its development in adolescence, specifically in tandem with sexuality; how boys' sexuality development and girls' sexuality development co-occur through adolescence; mental health as it relates to gender and sexuality; sexual content on television; sexualization of adolescent girls; and both mental health and healthy sexuality.
Available for interviews

Monique Ward, PhD
Psychology Department, University of Michigan
Expertise: In general, her research examines contributions of parents, peers, and the media to sexual socialization. She has focused on the role of the media in this process, examining how media portrayals shape adolescents' attitudes, expectations, and behaviors related to gender roles, sexual roles, and sexual relationships. She also explores intersections between gender ideologies, body image, and sexuality.
Available for interviews

Rebecca Collins, PhD
RAND Corporation
Expertise: The causes and consequences of health risk behavior, including sex and substance use, in adolescents and adults (in particular, the role of the media in these behaviors).
Unavailable for interviews.

Jeanne Blake, Public Member
Words Can Work
Jeanne Blake is a medical journalist and president of Blake Works, Inc. which produces research and evidence-based multimedia (DVDs, the Words Can Work® series of booklets, wordscanwork.com, and abouthealth.com) about the challenges young people face growing up. She is an affiliated faculty member with the Division on Addictions at Harvard Medical School.
Not a researcher, not recommended for interviews

The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 145,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting health, education and human welfare.

[Warren DeMontague]

382. So basically, you have a standard gaggle of culture war anti-sex crusaders from both left & right

I think the "APA task force" is hardly an objective, disinterested body.

And like I said, it's as inevitable as the sunrise, when so-called 'progressive' authoritarians start cozying up to their right wing counterparts, because
"at least THEY take these (so-called) problems seriously. :applause:"

:eyes:

[thucythucy]

373. Thank you for this.

I'll have to download the complete article.

Thanks again, and best wishes.

[BrendaBrick]

374. You're welcome & best wishes to you too thucythucy

and welcome to DU, by the way :-)

[Exultant Democracy]

384. Leaving Men Behind: Women Go to College in Ever-Greater Numbers

http://education-portal.com/articles/Leaving_Men_Behind:_Women_Go_to_College_in_Ever-Greater_Numbers.html

If women do have limited participation in school as the documentary suggest... then wouldn't the college graduation doctorate etc... indicate that men have even more limited participation in school?

In fact I agree with this documentary in many ways but I do think that women are done a disservice if we ignore their dominance in the field of higher education.

Further more I think that any rational person would understand that wages and higher education are both valid metrics for measuring gender disparity. However there is a very key difference between the two, wages are a lagging indicator while higher education is a leading indicator. Put simply wages show where we are coming from while higher education shows us where we will be soon.