Feminists For Pornography

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
February 2, 2005

Thus I Refute Chyng Sun
Feminists for Porn
By NINA HARTLEY

NINA HARTLEY is a Founding Member, Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force Member Emeritus, Board of Directors, Free Speech Coalition Member at Large, Board of Directors, Adult Industry Medical Foundation.

It was with a growing sense of outrage that I read Prof.Chyng Sun's report of her visit this past January to the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas. I couldn't help wondering it the author had done any prior research whatsoever into the active, twenty-year debate among women over the impact of pornography on their individual lives and their status as a gender. There's nothing new in her indignation, nothing fresh in her insights and nothing unfamiliar in her arguments. As a sex-worker and sex-worker advocate for over two decades, I've heard and read it all before.

The professor appears wholly unfamiliar with the work of accomplished, feminist women who reject her fundamental contentions about porn and sex-work. If she bothered to consider the writings of Nadine Strossen, Carol Queen, Pat Califia, Susie Bright, Wendy McElroy, Sallie Tisdale, Linda Williams, Annie Sprinkle, myself and others, her homework wasn't reflected in what she showed me. Clearly, testimony that failed to corroborate her pre-conceived notions of what porn is "really" about, or what it "really" means didn't register on her radar screen.

Perhaps, like a number of anti-porn feminists these days, she chooses not to solicit the opinions of women engaged in or supportive of sex- work, rather than risk encountering a contrary-to-theory example.

For many years, right -wing ideologues have co-opted the language of feminism in their on-going, nefarious attempts to erase all forms of sexual choice. Prof. Sun plays into the hands of these enemies of women. Does she not know that making common cause with those whose most treasured ambition is the reversal of Roe v. Wade will always be suicidal? How is Prof. Sun different from Phyllis Schlafly? From Anita Bryant? From Beverly LaHaye? From Judith Reisman? From Lou Sheldon or Jerry Falwell? They all want to eliminate my choice in the disposition my body. If I have the right to choose abortion, then I have the right to choose to have sex for the camera. Sexual freedom is the flip side of the coin of reproductive choice. Make no mistake, Professor. When they've got rid of me, they're coming for you next.

Likewise, none of the diversity of our vibrant, raucous and contentious creative culture seems to have attracted Professor Sun's notice. By focusing on one or two examples she finds particularly heinous, she obscures the broader truth, which is that the marketplace of sexual entertainment contains products for almost every taste and orientation, including material made by and for heterosexual women and couples, lesbians and gay men. It's not all Bang Bus, and by no means does all of it, or even most of it, conform to the author's notions of porn-as-_expression-of-misogyny. For her to project her own, obviously conflicted, feelings regarding men and sex onto all of the incredibly broad medium we call pornography is intellectually indefensible.

With what I've learned of Dr. Sun's views thus far, I can only await her film "documentary" with the usual weary apprehension. Knowing already what her conclusions will be, I'm only left to wonder who subsidizes her obviously well-funded labors and to what purpose. All I know at this point is that neither I nor anyone like me will be represented in her depiction of my world, or of any world anyone I know might recognize. To me, she's just one more exploiter, seeking to make her living from the attempt to deprive me of mine.




Visit her blog at: http://www.nina.com/

http://www.counterpunch.org/hartley02022005.html

[Itsthetruth]

1. She Deserves A Fair Hearing

Nina Hartley raises some important points in her article worth considering. She certainly is a supporter of women's rights and equality and deserves a fair hearing. I'm keeping an open mind.

[bloom]

32. The article being referenced...

...Although the pornographers were a bit nervous about a conservative administration, they knew they had little to worry about; their $10 billion industry has become ever more mainstream and normalized in the past couple of decades. And when any critique does surface, the pornography industry has made effective free-speech arguments (it's not accidental that pornographers created a lobbying group called the Free Speech Coalition).

<snip>

It is typical that liberal-minded people, when facing censorship, would rush to defend pornographers' right to produce whatever they want, even if the products objectify, humiliate and violate women. But shouldn't we ponder what we are defending and what kind of value system supports that defense?
<snip>

Pornography encourages people to disregard others' pain for one's own pleasure. Many people I interviewed acknowledged that, based on their own experience and knowledge of the human body, certain sex acts they've watched in films likely would have been painful for the female performers. However, they argued that since the performers were paid, it was not the viewers' concern, and they acknowledged that they get aroused watching it. That mentality helps create a world in which a producer can brag about having originated a popular video series that shows women gagging during forceful oral sex.

Although pornography is often rationalized as a celebration of women's sexuality and liberation, some gonzo pornographers were direct about their anger and contempt (or their imagined customers') for women. When asked why he used certain brutal sex acts in his films, one producer replied that when a man gets angry at his wife, he can imagine she is the one being violated.

Pornography has been primarily made by men and used by men. Men watch these videos for their own sexual stimulation. Men also told me that they tried acts they learned from pornography with or on their sexual partners. However, as pornography becomes increasingly mainstream, it is not surprising that women's use of pornography is rising. Pornographers are eager to explore the female market, with some claiming to make women-centered pornography. However, looking at the repetitive content, whether male-centered or female-centered, the essential message is the same: All women want sex all the time, in whatever fashion men want them. <more>

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0131-32.htm

[Turbineguy]

2. Well, it's certainly nice

to see people who take up a career in pornography for higher principles than just money.

Ms. Hartley is certainly entitled to her opinion but she's about as unlikely to sway RW'er as Ann Coulter is us.

[Itsthetruth]

3. She Made Some Valid Points

I don't think she's trying to sway right-wingers. Her remarks appear to be directed at progressives.

[Itsthetruth]

4. She Made Some Valid Points

I don't think she's trying to sway right-wingers. Her remarks appear to be directed at progressives.

[prodigal_green]

5. I've studied both arguments

and I've actually been to Annie Sprinkle's apartment once for a round-table on AIDS and the porn industry--she is a very intelligent and thoughtful person. I think the fundamental question is choice. Some women choose to perform in pornos, some women are coerced. The former need First Amendment protection, the latter law enforcement protection.

[Itsthetruth]

6. I Agree

Your comments made total sense to me.

[intheflow]

7. You are right on the money.

And said what I was going to say ever-more-succinctly!

[FreedomAngel82]

121. Exactly

A lot of them choose the profession because of the money is easy and very much. Now if it's to where it's abuse then that is where it crosses the line.

[Viking12]

140. Well stated. Thanks. n/t

[gorbal]

8. Women should make more porn

Otherwise its just men mentally haveing sex with other men and using women as props.

Not that there is anything wrong with that;) I just think men in general need more..imput from actual women.

[donsu]

9. Porn is not good for women

and sex should not be a spectator sport

and, no, I'm not religious

and, yes, I'm a feminist

[Itsthetruth]

10. Some Do

It depends upon whether or not a woman enjoys porn. Some do, and some do not. It's a personal choice that should not be dictated by the government.

[DistantWind88]

11. Sex should be

Whatever consenting adults want it to be...without any one else's mores, beliefs, or inhibitions infringing upon it.

[fob]

12. So should I be required to keep my eyes closed?

I mean the only difference between someone having sex with someone in front of a camera and me and my spouse is the quality of the CAMERA!

Disclaimer: Assuming all participants in either situation are consenting adults.

[musette_sf]

17. I'm with you 100%

Husband *loves* porn. I don't disagree that he should be able to look at it all he wants, but I still believe it degrades women and contributes to a culture where women remain objectified.

He refused to watch last night's Frontline about the porn business. I was not surprised at his reaction but I am disappointed, especially since I wanted to watch it.

[DistantWind88]

18. How does it degrade women?

[musette_sf]

22. It encourages men

to look at women as objects. Once a man is okay with treating women as objects sexually, then it's easier to treat women as objects, and not fully equal humans, in other areas as well.

[DistantWind88]

24. It doesn't encourage anything of the sort

It may reinforce the beliefs of men who already view women as sexual objects, but it doesn't "encourage" those of us who don't, to start.

[musette_sf]

25. you've made your opinion on this

abundantly clear in this thread. You like porn. I don't like it and I think it degrades women. But I will defend to the death your right to look at the wretched stuff.

[DistantWind88]

26. Actually, I don't like porn

But that's irrelevant.

[musette_sf]

27. so why

don't you like it? Is it the fugly guys? The plastic chicks? All the fakeness? The mind-numbing sameness of it all past a certain point?

[DistantWind88]

28. It's not nearly erotic enough for me

[musette_sf]

29. Then the X rated version of "Caligula"

is for you.

Actually a pretty good movie. And from the porn perspective, there is truly Something for Everybody.

And you've just blown your credibility on whether or not porn is degrading to women, since you have asserted that you are not a regular consumer of the product.

[Djinn]

45. How my credibilty

I'm female, I've watched tonnes, I own a bit and I don't see an overarching "degredation" issue either

[musette_sf]

126. I defend to my death

your right to watch anything you want to watch.

I see what I see. I see a strong potential for degradation and victimization. I see a genre that supports the objectification of women.

But because I think this doesn't mean that anyone has to agree.

[Touchdown]

37. How does gay porn objectify women?

There are no women in them.:shrug:

[musette_sf]

38. gay porn

is everything porn should be IMHO. Seems like everyone wants to be there and everyone is having a good time.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

39. Are you saying that there is no one in straight porn.......

......who wants to be there and they are all having a bad time?

[musette_sf]

40. I think (and it's just my opinion)

that the straight porn business is probably nowhere near as up front and fun as the gay porn business.

Any gay men around to weigh in on this?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

46. I'm not a gay man.......

....but anyway, you might want to check out a series on HBO that ran a short time back called "Pornocopia" which was a six part piece about the porn industry, including the gay and transvestite films. It was, in certain respects, a lot of fluff and didn't hit on all the hard issues it should have. But it was pretty difficult to sit there and not buy that most of the actors and actresses appeared to be having a good time and enjoy doing what they are doing. I'm sure some don't, and I'm sure others will regret it later, but I'm sure there are some men doing gay porn that will probably feel the same at some point as well. They even got into the issue of "straight" men doing gay porn, with the guy's wife standing right there on the set. I don't think there's any doubt that to get involved in the porn business, you have to have a certain mindset that may not be the healthiest in "normal" society.

And I'm also willing to bet that just as there are young women who do porn for a paycheck, and suffer severe humiliation while doing it, that there are young men who do the same for gay porn.

[SmileyBoy]

84. Oh OK, I get it. It's GOOD if only men are in the porn...

But it becomes REALLY BAD if any women appear in porn.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[iverglas]

85. if you need some reading comprehension lessons

Just ask. I'm sure there are many who would be happy to oblige.

If, on the other hand, you need lessons in the art of civil discourse, with a major in refraining from making disingenuous claims to have understood your interlocutor to have said something s/he did not say, well, I'm sure there are just as many who could help you out there.

[musette_sf]

123. no...

as I said earlier in the thread, I defend to my death your right to view whatever porn you want to view. However, I have rarely found anything appealing to look at in the genre.

I think MOST women who participate would gladly get out of porn, if they could make decent money doing something else.

There will always be people to do porn, willingly or unwillingly, happily or unhappily. I defend your freedom to watch anything you want. It would be nice if you would defend MY freedom to have my opinion about women and the pornography business.

[musette_sf]

125. hello.....

I said (1) I think porn objectifies women, and (2) in another post, that gay porn seems to have a lot less potential for victimizing its participants, than straight porn.

I may be all wrong on this, but I defend to my death your right to watch whatever you want to watch.

[Djinn]

44. how is that?

atleast how is that anymore than the men in porno's? personally the fact that women in porno's are depicted as being sexual is great, generally we're shown to only like bonking when it's with someone we want to breed with.

Women in porn are also allowed to be skinny, fat, hairy, bald, big boobed, flat chested, red heads, black, white, asian etc etc How much diversity do you see in mainstream film?

I don't see how wanting to have sex with someone instantly means you don't appreciate there other qualities

[wadestock]

83. I don't know about "degrade" but my wife says it "exploits" women...

and many of her friends agree.

Now depending on how you view "exploit"....well, perhaps that means they are used "cheaply".

Personally, I think most porn is extremely low quality.
I haven't got the time because I'm plotting a dozen new ways to get into my wife's pants. It's worth the effort because if you really put your mind to it....it works.

[AnnInLa]

34. ditto

n/t

[Djinn]

43. how anyone else has consenting sex

really isn't any of your business religious or feminsist or neither

[mongo]

75. "Porn is not good for women"

Thanks sooo much for shoving YOUR values down OUR throats. Is Spongebob gay too?

If you don't like porn, don't watch it.

[iverglas]

82. yeah

Proud purveyor of smut ...

Back when I was a lawyer and I and my progressive colleagues were often involved in efforts to obtain government policies more favourable to our potential clients, I knew how obvious it was that we were at least seen to be less than impartial, and of course we were. Policies more favourable to our clients would obviously result in more money in our pockets. Plainly we had our own interests, and not just our clients' interests, at heart.

Surely you realize that the appearance of bias dogs your steps as well.


If you don't like porn, don't watch it.

And if you don't like being trampled to death, don't go to movies in jurisdictions where it's perfectly legal to shout "Fire!" in crowded theatres.

But hey, given that you're also a

... defender of the first amendment,

maybe you think it should be legal to do that. After all, if somebody feels like doing it, who are the rest of us to say nay?

[mongo]

88. Sure I have a bias

But I wouldn't be in this business if I thought that porn was evil or harmfull. You try going to work knowing that you can be arrested for selling a movie. ANY movie in my inventory. By Ohio law, the recent movie "Kinsey" is also obscene and it got an R rating.

I HAVE to sell video to make this business work. If I were not here, couples would have to go 30 miles to buy any toy that they don't sell in Spencers, the dancers would have to travel 60 miles to buy shoes, I wouldn't be helping people out every day with their problems (for some reason they like to talk to me), and I wouldn't be able to provide them with products to enhance and spice up their sex lives.

I was merly pointing out your anti-sex bias, which is only slightly to the left of James Dobson. I'm sure both of you would tell me that you are not anti-sex - and in Dobson's case he's very pro-sex as long as it is in the missinary position between married hetro-sexual partners.

As far as the strawman argument - watching a video in the privacy of your own home is nothing like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater - and you know it.

[iverglas]

104. and from straw people, we move on ...

to self-serving statements.

I wouldn't be in this business if I thought that porn was evil or harmfull.

You can trust me, 'cause I never lie.

Forgive me if what you think (let alone what you say you think) just isn't what I base my own policy positions on, or what I like to see public policy based on. But yes, I'm absolutely certain that no one has ever sold pornography who hadn't first satisfied him/herself that it was not harmful. Just like McDonalds would never, ever sell food that was bad for people.

As far as the strawman argument - watching a video in the privacy of your own home is nothing like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater - and you know it.

Gosh, isn't it just amazing how I didn't say it was exactly alike?

Amazing how the fact that something is done "in the privacy of your own home" isn't always quite the distinguishing factor that you might want it to appear, though.

I HAVE to sell video to make this business work.

And this is persuasive of something ... how?

And you ascertain that all of the participants in the videos chose to participate in the process because of how much they enjoyed it and not because they were being coerced, or being exploited because they were vulnerable targets for abuse ... how?

When I buy a rug, I make sure that the retailer I am purchasing it from has adequate verification procedures in place to ensure that it was not made by children working in dangerous conditions, whether because they were coerced or because their vulnerability was being exploited. Are your customers equally punctilious?

I was merly pointing out your anti-sex bias, which is only slightly to the left of James Dobson.

Do these kinds of false ad personam attacks succeed in winning friends and arguments in your corner of the real world? What an icky little corner it must be indeed.

[mongo]

108. Why do you argue about things that you obviosly know

nothing about?

And you ascertain that all of the participants in the videos chose to participate in the process because of how much they enjoyed it and not because they were being coerced, or being exploited because they were vulnerable targets for abuse ... how?

When I buy a rug, I make sure that the retailer I am purchasing it from has adequate verification procedures in place to ensure that it was not made by children working in dangerous conditions, whether because they were coerced or because their vulnerability was being exploited. Are your customers equally punctilious?


How do you know they are being coerced/exploited? All performers are there because they auditioned for the part. They signed a release, had their ID's checked, etc. I know damn well that I have no movies in my inventory with any children in them.

[iverglas]

110. oh dear, were we offended? (edited)

How do you know they are being coerced/exploited?

Why do you ask me a question that assumes the truth of a premise THAT YOU HAVE NOT PROVED, and THAT IS FALSE?

Where did I say that I know that the performers in the films you sell are being coerced/exploited?

I ASKED YOU A QUESTION:

And you ascertain that all of the participants in the videos chose to participate in the process because of how much they enjoyed it and not because they were being coerced, or being exploited because they were vulnerable targets for abuse ... how?

You could have simply answered it (or not), but you decided to pretend that I had said something I did not say. Why would you ask someone how s/he knows something if s/he had not claimed to know it? Why would you say something that is premised on someone having said something WHEN S/HE NEVER SAID IT?

Perhaps not everyone here is familiar with the concept of the LOADED QUESTION.

A loaded question contains a FALSE PREMISE.

When I ask someone Have you stopped beating your dog? a person who has never beaten his/her dog CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. That person cannot say "yes", because it is not possible to stop doing something one has never done. That person cannot answer "no", because that would mean that s/he has not stopped doing something that s/he has never done, which is a nonsense.

But if I ask someone who has never beaten his/her dog whether s/he has stopped beating his/her dog, somebody listening in might just get the idea that the person I'm talking to beats his/her dog. And that might just be why I asked the question in the first place.

When you ask me HOW I KNOW something that I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO KNOW, someone reading might just get the idea that I have claimed to know something that I have never claimed to know. Extrapolate at will.

Why don't you try, someday, just responding to something that was actually said? Is pretending that something was said that was not said, and baselessly ascribing unsavoury characteristics to the person who did not say it, really that much more fun than the sincere and honest discussion of ideas?



On edit: just spotted the admin's notice about lost data in this forum; my earlier reply to this post was obviously a casualty of the glitch, and not of someone's delicate sensibilities. The above is a lengthier version of my initial response, which went more or less thus:

Why do you persist in opening your mouth without thinking?

"How do you know they are being coerced/exploited?"
Have you stopped beating your dog?

Glad to see that sensibilities aren't so delicate.

[reorg]

112. your argument would be better served if you toned it down a bit

You clearly said (#47):

"The very certain fact is that most sex trade workers have problems associated with childhood sexual or physical abuse, economic disadvantage, substance dependency, and so on. The sex trade really is not a CHOICE for most of its labour force, ..."

and further asserted that "decent people" (the implicit suggestion here being also quite transparent) "really don't just shrug their shoulders and say that it's her choice."

A statement of fact (made out of thin air) coupled with an ad hominem attack -- both of which don't help your cause.

Which is still somewhat buried in your arch conservative rhetoric:

"I do, as a rule, support legislation and policies that combat EXPLOITATION -- the USE for PROFIT, to the detriment of the person being exploited, of someone who feels forced, by circumstances, to permit the use."

Which means, I GUESS -- correct me if I'm wrong -- since you take it for granted that it is a "very certain fact ..." that "... the sex trade is really not a CHOICE for most of its labour force" you support legislation to prevent, i. e. seek to outlaw profits from such trade.

on edit: msg # added; clarification

[iverglas]

113. missing something?

You clearly said (#47):
The very certain fact is that most sex trade workers have problems associated with childhood sexual or physical abuse, economic disadvantage, substance dependency, and so on. The sex trade really is not a CHOICE for most of its labour force, ...

Like maybe the fact that "sex trade workers" are not exclusively performers in pornographic productions, and include, very particularly, prostitutes, and that I have referred in this thread (and in the post you responded to) to that aspect of it?

I'd venture to say, with little fear of contradiction, that there are considerably more women in the world, and even in North America, working as prostitutes than as performers in the pornography industry. Maybe you can survey them for us, and find out how many of them would prefer to have another option for earning a living.

A statement of fact (made out of thin air) coupled with an ad hominem attack -- both of which don't help your cause.

You can call my statement of fact "made out of thin air" all you like. Your statement of it doesn't make *your* "fact" true, and I'm not really all that interested in your opinion of what helps "my cause", thanks ever so much anyway.

Which is still somewhat buried in your arch conservative rhetoric:
"I do, as a rule, support legislation and policies that combat EXPLOITATION -- the USE for PROFIT, to the detriment of the person being exploited, of someone who feels forced, by circumstances, to permit the use."

That's very entertaining, I'm sure. A statement of one of the fundamentals of modern "liberalism" -- that the vulnerable among us are deserving of our protection -- is "arch conservative rhetoric". (I put "liberalism" in quotation marks because I refer to a school of thought that is referred to as "liberalism" really only in the US; I would never ever refer to myself as a "liberal", being, in the circumstances, a social democrat.)

Which means, I GUESS -- correct me if I'm wrong -- since you take it for granted that it is a "very certain fact ..." that "... the sex trade is really not a CHOICE for most of its labour force" you support legislation to prevent, i. e. seek to outlaw profits from such trade.

Hey, you feel free to guess anything you like. Far be it from me to go correcting you. Not my job.

Of course, any time that anybody wanted to fucking ASK what my or anyone else's position on anything is (the baseless ascribing of objectionable positions, and thence objectionable personal characteristics, being about the favourite pastime of a huge number of people at this site), s/he could do so. Of course, it might be wise to start out by asking whether I have one.

[reorg]

117. Well, how about coming out and stating your opinion then, for a change?

Instead of beating around the bush and constantly complaining about being misinterpreted.

As far as I know -- haven't followed it closely -- the Social Democrats (in Germany) have done away with all legal barriers for prostitutes to work under regular conditions. Not sure if it is still illegal to employ prostitutes (anti-pimp law which makes many real but not exploitative employment situations illegal).

In the process of this liberalisation there were many opportunities for prostitutes to publicly state their views in the media, and talk about their experiences. From this I did not get the impression that violence and exploitation are the rule, or even prevalent, in this business, which according to public utterances of prostitutes and porn actors alike is without any connection to the pornography industry. Actors may have experience as "swingers", but never work as prostitutes and prostitutes would never consider working as actors. Two completely different things.

[iverglas]

119. nah, don't think I'll bother

I haven't noticed any interest in civil discourse about the issues that are raised in this context, so I don't know why I'd waste my time.

I don't generally bother stating (or arguing, or defending) an opinion unless I have an impression that I can expect somebody to address it in good faith, and not by pretending that I am operating from principles I do not espouse, that my opinions are determined by my character defects, etc. etc.

Of course, in certain forums, I also like to think I am among people who share those fundamental "liberal" notions about protecting the disadvantaged and vulnerable from oppression and exploitation ... and when I find I'm not, I kinda lose interest.

Casting one's pearls, and all that.

[reorg]

129. that's what I thought

and .. with the ad hominem again, oh well.


Chyng Sun's argument, BTW, to which Nina Hartley had responded, was different from yours (or what I imagine would be yours since you don't cast it). She thinks certain misogynistic kinds of pornography are bad education particularly for youngsters, and that "pornography and a pornographic culture also affect 'consensual sex,' sexual identities and relationships" (... in a certain way, I guess).

I strongly disagree that "pornographic messages help further solidify and normalize male supremacy in the bedrooms and elsewhere".

And I believe she is not only misinterpreting these flicks, she also seems to have very little trust in education and the personal judgement of individuals, which would be the "liberal" way to deal with these things, or at least she remains very unclear about what Nina Hartley critizes as her "generalizations and oversimplifications". ... "to confabulate the images on a screen, which are created performances, with the actual experience of the performers themselves, would be laughably literal-minded, were it not so profoundly insulting. Sex performers, like the products they make, vary greatly in taste and temperment. We are much more than the characters we play. Like it or not, many female performers enjoy what they do, including things Professor Sun finds repellent. If we are not to choose what forms of sexual expression we find appropriate for ourselves, who is to do the choosing for us, Professor Sun and her like-minded friends of the Christian Right?"

[iverglas]

130. here ya go, honey

I actually DON'T HAVE AN OPINION.

I know this will be incredible to folks in the land o' Jerry Springer, where everyone must have, has, and incessantly spews opinions.

But me, sometimes I just don't think I have the answer to everything.


I share various concerns that other people have and express.

I value the liberty of individuals and societies.

I value the security of individuals and societies.

I wish to live in a society in which individuals have the widest possible range of opportunities, and the best possible supports to take advantage of those opportunities.

I wish to live in a society in which individuals have protection from oppression and exploitation, and the ability to make genuine choices about the course of their lives.

I believe that individual rights and freedoms should not be interfered with unless the interference is justified; in the words of the Canadian constitution, that individual rights and freedoms must be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I recognize that there are limits on individual rights and freedoms that are justified in a free and democratic society; that's the whole reason we have laws.

On the political compass http://www.politicalcompass.org I am way down in the bottom left corner, in the "libertarian left" -- far more both "libertarian" and "left" than all but a few here at DU, from past observation of others' results. On the axis of modern politics, I am a social democrat (not a "Social Democrat").

Some time ago, on an issue that involves similar questions -- the exercise of individual liberty and ("vs.", if you like) the protection of vulnerable individuals -- whether drug use/possession should be legal -- I came to the conclusion that it should. The major factor in that conclusion, apart from the concern that individual liberty should be restricted no more than is absolutely necessary to achieve pressing and substantial societal goals, was that the cure was worse than the disease: criminalization and enforcement create more harm, to individuals and to society, than drug use.


In the process of forming an opinion, I seek out information, and informed opinion, to consider. I am particularly on the lookout for opinion that is both informed and disinterested. That is, I am most interested in the opinion of thinkers who share my fundamental concerns about individual liberty/security and the kind of society in which those things are most likely to flourish.

When I encounter the opinions of people who do not share those fundamental concerns -- most particularly, people who are operating from self-interest and who plainly form their opinions without regard to the interests of other individuals and of society -- I am suspicious. I do not trust them to present genuine information in support of their opinions, i.e. to demonstrate that they have considered all the relevant information, and are sharing it. And I do not trust them not to be engaging in inappropriate techniques of argumentation -- the demagoguery of appealing to emotion and prejudice, demonizing the adversary and all that. I examine their facts and arguments very carefully.

When I encounter the opinions of people who do share my fundamental concerns, well, actually, I search them for the same flaws. People who apparently share my concerns may well be wolves in sheep's clothing. And the fact that they share my concerns does not mean that they place the same emphasis on competing interests as I do, or can produce facts that provide sufficient basis for their opinions, or have reached defensible conclusions from those facts.


In the case of pornography -- and I would note again that I was initially talking about all aspects of the sex/sexual services trade, and not just pornography -- we have a bit of a classic case.

In our context, this not being the best of all possible worlds, we have competing interests. Some individuals are not in need of protection from oppression and exploitation, and wish to exercise their rights and freedoms without interference. Some individuals are in need of protection, and it may be that such protection can be provided -- that they may be guaranteed the minimum level of security that I prefer to see all individuals enjoy -- only by interfering in the exercise of some other individuals' rights and freedoms. And, as in all other instances in which individuals act, their actions may have adverse effects on society as a whole, and thus on the opportunities available to its members.

I might cite the example of family law. I am very definitely not in need of protection from oppression or exploitation. I am a highly skilled woman with property of my own and a secure and substantial income. I do not need laws that arrange my household financial situation for me. I do not need the protection of laws that provide for spousal support or the division of property. I long ago chose not to marry, and instead to cohabit, partly because I did not wish to be governed by those laws. And yet, in an effort to protect women who were exploited by men who would not marry them but who were economically dependent on those men (because they, like a majority of women in our societies, and for a range of reasons, were less able than the men to retain economic independence after establishing a family -- they were disadvantaged and vulnerable), my society enacted legislation to extend the "protections" of marriage to people like me. And I'm cool with that. Life really isn't all about me. I am perfectly willing to forego some of my liberty in terms of how I arrange my private financial situation if that is what it takes to ensure that vulnerable women are not exploited.

So what is the perfect balance? Of course there is no perfect balance. It is all a matter of opinion. But as a society, we have to make decisions.

I have various concerns about the pornography industry. One is very definitely the large opportunity it creates for the oppression and exploitation of disadvantaged and vulnerable people -- mainly women and children. Some people working in the industry are making a genuine choice, and exercising their rights and freedoms. Some are not. And the pornography that our friend here sells in his shop really just isn't the only kind of pornography in the world, made by the only kind of producers and performers in the world.

Another is indeed the effect on society, and thus on its members. One of the factors that interferes in women's exercise of rights and freedoms, women's making of genuine choices, is the entire body of norms, expectations and restrictions that are imposed on women by society. An industry that contributes to the formation of the attitudes that are the basis of those norms, expectations and restrictions is not my idea of "good".

Whether that industry contributes to the formation of those attitudes is a debatable question; facts, and interpretations of those facts, are legion and not always reconcilable. I believe, from my knowledge and analysis, that it is more than arguable that it does. And I am perfectly aware that there are a host of other actors in society that do the same: the educational system, producers of mainstream cultural products, religious institutions, individual economic actors (employers, the fashion and makeup industry, media outlets ...), governments, and so on.

And being a reasonable and decent person, I would not wish to single out any individuals or industries, for example, for suppressive treatment -- it would neither be reasonable to do so, since this would leave the other influences unaffected, nor decent to do so, since this would impose some degree of hardship based on discriminatory criteria.

So damn. I'm torn. And I prefer to focus on specific things that can be done to improve the situations that I consider to be problematic. I'm just not always sure what they are. I don't think, for example, that "legalizing" prostitution, and bureaucratizing its practice, is going to do anything at all to assist the miserable, sick, abused prostitutes in my neighbourhood. They are not miserable, sick and abused because prostitution is illegal -- but the practice of prostitution most definitely exacerbates their problems. They really are not going to magically, overnight, become happy hookers ensconsed in nice safe houses where polite gentlemen treat them like ladies. (No more than the homeless sleeping in front of Toronto's city hall are all going to become happy employed householders if we just give them apartments.) They're just going to stop being our problem.

And I believe she is not only misinterpreting these flicks, she also seems to have very little trust in education and the personal judgement of individuals, which would be the "liberal" way to deal with these things

Y'see, that's why I have never in my life called myself a "liberal". I stick with Phil Ochs; liberals are basically self-interested assholes wearing a veneer of reason and decency. I recognize that "liberal" doesn't mean, to many people today, what it meant to us in the 60s. But your statement makes obvious the equivocation to which the word lends itself. Anybody can be a liberal; all they have to do is call themselves one, crossing their fingers behind their back and saying to themselves, for instance, "that's Jeffersonian liberal".

The "liberal" way to deal with these things -- in another common modern USAmerican sense of the word -- is to recognize that not all individuals are educated and capable of exercising or acting on personal judgment and to seek ways of protecting those who are not and cannot, while interfering as little as possible in the ability of those who are to do so.

So for starters, your conclusion appears to be based on a very selective selection of facts. You are pretending that there are no individuals in need of protection and vulnerable to oppression and exploitation in the industry you wish to release from all restrictions.

Next up:

If we are not to choose what forms of sexual expression we find appropriate for ourselves, who is to do the choosing for us, Professor Sun and her like-minded friends of the Christian Right?"

... we have the classic false dichotomy. I know, it's a question. But might you not have come up with some other prong for that dilemma besides the demons you evoke (and, in the case of Sun, mischaracterize)? Like maybe people who sincerely, and to all appearances actually, are concerned about the disadvantaged and vulnerable among us? -- which, in our societies, does include women as a group.

So even though I started this post as a generic reply to a lot of what's been said here, without having more than scanned your post, I find that what I said at the outset applies rather well:

When I encounter the opinions of people who do not share those fundamental concerns -- most particularly, people who are operating from self-interest and who plainly form their opinions without regard to the interests of other individuals and of society -- I am suspicious. I do not trust them to present genuine information in support of their opinions, i.e. to demonstrate that they have considered all the relevant information, and are sharing it. And I do not trust them not to be engaging in inappropriate techniques of argumentation -- the demagoguery of appealing to emotion and prejudice, demonizing the adversary and all that. I examine their facts and arguments very carefully.

And that would be why I wasn't particularly interested in continuing this discussion. It didn't seem too likely to contribute to my own or anyone else's knowledge of facts, understanding of issues or formation of informed, rational opinions.

[mongo]

133. I'm baacck

Ok, Iverglass you stated your last post well. Also, you are obviosuly quicker on your feet and more eloquent than I will ever be.

But here's the problem, and the jist of your comments throughout this thread:

I have various concerns about the pornography industry. One is very definitely the large opportunity it creates for the oppression and exploitation of disadvantaged and vulnerable people -- mainly women and children. Some people working in the industry are making a genuine choice, and exercising their rights and freedoms. Some are not. And the pornography that our friend here sells in his shop really just isn't the only kind of pornography in the world, made by the only kind of producers and performers in the world.

But the kind of porn that Nina and Prof. Sun are talking about IS the kind of porn that I sell in my shop. Not illegal child porn, or porn made in other countries. When you lump this together you are muddying the waters. Also, you lump all sex work together and address that instead of the issue at hand, which is porn that is commercially available in the US.

Now I can't say that there has NEVER been a case of a woman "forced" to work in a film by a husband/boyfriend. But that is no reason to condemm the industry. Guys that sponge off the girls (suitcase pimps as their known) are despised by the filmmakers. But there are plenty of guys who sit on their ass all day and drink beer and let their woman support them by working at Walmart. (There are plenty of women happy to sponge off their men too).

But that being said, most of the women are in the industry because they want to be. It is easy money for them - lots of it. Some people are just cut out for that kind of work. Some people are naturally promiscous, some crave attention and validation, some crave fame, etc.

[daisygirl]

100. Either women own their bodies or they don't

If you're a feminist, then surely you must agree that women have the right to do what they want with their own bodies, including having sex in front of a camera, whether you agree with their choice or not.

Having people who call themselves feminists try to dictate to me what I can and cannot do with my body is no different, no better, and no more palatable to me than having a patriarchy try to dictate those same things.

[iverglas]

105. my, my

If you're a feminist, then surely you must agree that women have the right to do what they want with their own bodies, including having sex in front of a camera, whether you agree with their choice or not.

Somebody else telling me/us what we MUST do if we're proper feminists.

It's a damned funny thing how many laws there are that tell us what we may and may not do with our bodies. Like ... just about every law that was ever made.


Either women own their bodies or they don't

Well, you're right there. And the answer is: they don't. Nobody "owns" his/her body. A body is inseparable from a person, and nobody owns a person. If I owned my body, I could sell it. I may not. Nor, under the laws that our societies currently apply, may we sell bits of it, even.

Human persons have rights, and human societies commonly restrict the manner in which individuals may exercise those rights in all sorts of ways.


Having people who call themselves feminists try to dictate to me what I can and cannot do with my body is no different, no better, and no more palatable to me than having a patriarchy try to dictate those same things.

No individuals or groups of individuals dictate anything to you. Society may dictate to you, whether you like it or not, and it does so every minute of every day.

The question is not whether society may do so, it is when it is legitimate -- justifiable -- for society to do so.

That's where facts and arguments come in a lot handier than "you're not the boss of me" statements.

[daisygirl]

109. No, that's not what I"m saying

You said: Somebody else telling me/us what we MUST do if we're proper feminists.

No. I'm saying that nobody, whether or not they call themselves a feminist, is allowed to decide how I express my sexuality with other consenting adults. What is so difficult about that?

[iverglas]

111. reconstructing the lost post ... briefly

It was a casualty of the GD glitch.

"I'm saying that nobody, whether or not they call themselves a feminist, is allowed to decide how I express my sexuality with other consenting adults. What is so difficult about that?"

Nothing at all. Except for the fact that it's not what you said, which was this:

"If you're a feminist, then surely you must agree that women have the right to do what they want with their own bodies, including having sex in front of a camera, whether you agree with their choice or not."

You are talking about women's work in the pornography industry, but you say "how I express my sexuality with other consenting adults".

Hmm. Is that the only way to describe all women's work in the pornography industry?

Isn't it kinda like describing what McDonalds does as "selling delicious and nutricious meals to families"? That's undoubtedly some of what McDonalds does, but it really isn't all of what it does, and so it isn't quite an accurate description of what McDonalds does.

I'm just flabbergasted at the wilful ignorance naïveté of some people hereabouts. Really and truly some women's work in the pornography industry just is not a matter of "how <you> express <your> sexuality with other consenting adults".

First, there really are other women in the world besides you.

And second, some of those women really are coerced into work in the pornography industry that they do not consent to, and that they are harmed by.

Google trafficking women pornography. Not all of the 112,000 results will be about the trafficking of women into coerced work in the pornography industry, but some will.

And that's just something that I like to think that latter-day "liberals" give a damn about.

Opinions can vary as to how to address the problem and how best to protect the vulnerable individuals who suffer the harm. Myself, I haven't actually stated an opinion, not that this has prevented anyone in this thread from ascribing one to me and negatively characterizing me based on it.

One opinion is that more limitations on everyone, involving policies prohibiting the activity, are the best way of protecting those who need the protection. This is an approach that is indeed taken to many activities that we might engage in. (We're all prohibited from driving over a certain limit, no matter how well we drive and regardless of how empty the highway is.) Another opinion is that eliminating those prohibitions altogether and instead regulating the manner in which the activity is carried on is the best way of doing that. There are hybrid possibilities.

But I will stick to the position that "you're not the boss of me" just is not an appropriate basis for a discussion of public policy in this area any more than it is in respect of public policy in any other area. There is sometimes justification for society being the boss of the individual, in the interests of other members of society.

[reorg]

114. There is sometimes justification for society being the boss

Okay, thanks for making that clear, I think we all needed this lesson in the philosophy of law.

Even though the poster made it quite clear that she was talking about consensual and probably private activities among adults -- where there isn't a justification for society being the boss. The contrary is true, IMO -- this is one of few occasions we may experience in our lives when society may get lost altogether.

You say:

"some of those women are coerced into work in the pornography industry" (I guess the men are not ...) --

How do you know that?

"that they do not consent to"

How do you know that?

"and that they are harmed by"

How do you know that?

I for one would indeed give a damn about that -- if it were true. But I doubt it -- judging from numerous public assertions by people in that industry, like Nina Hartley's, or Susan Block's, or many others I could list. Which is not to say that there may be any number of disgusting bullies in that industry using all kinds of "persuasion" -- just as in any other industry or business.

But what I'm wondering is this: How would regulating the sex industry be any different from, say, regulating the flipping of hamburgers?

Why do you think (as you apparently do when speculating that most sex workers may feel/be coerced into this kind of job) that this business is somehow special?

Is it perhaps that you dislike the idea of actively promoting this line of work as being something that is normal, sane and okay?

[iverglas]

118. c'mon, ask me again now ...

You say:
"some of those women are coerced into work in the pornography industry" (I guess the men are not ...) --
How do you know that?
"that they do not consent to"
How do you know that?
"and that they are harmed by"
How do you know that?

... and I'll give you the same sage advice:

Google trafficking women pornography. Not all of the 112,000 results will be about the trafficking of women into coerced work in the pornography industry, but some will.

I could also say "I know this because I have actually, in the course of my work, read extensively in the research on trafficking in women", which would be true, but I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed.

But what I'm wondering is this: How would regulating the sex industry be any different from, say, regulating the flipping of hamburgers?

Why do you think (as you apparently do when speculating that most sex workers may feel/be coerced into this kind of job) that this business is somehow special?

I dunno ... are many people trafficked into the hamburger-flipping industry against their will, and at great risk and harm to themselves?

Is it perhaps that you dislike the idea of actively promoting this line of work as being something that is normal, sane and okay?

Why ... that must be it!!!!! Thank you ever so much for clarifying my motives and my personality flaws for me. Here all this time I'd thought that I was an informed, responsible member of society, anxious to know relevant facts about a problem and eager to consider ways of addressing it and protecting the people who are the victims of it.

Thanks to a number of helpful people in this thread, I now know the truth. I HATE SEX, and I just hate to think that people who like it might be regarded as normal. Excuse me, I have to go cook a steak for my co-vivant and explain this to him.

[reorg]

128. pretty weak ...

So you have studied it extensively and this is it. Uhuh. Please demonstrate that such incidents are statistically significant (not sure if you even claim they are -- since you are so overly protective of your actual opinions ...).

And, yes, there are incidents of illegal foreigners who are forced into jobs they don't like (in order to pay back the transfer fee) I have heard of. It's not exactly legal, just as trafficking women and forcing them into pornography wouldn't be.


I did not suggest, BTW, that you hate sex. No, no, don't twist it:

I asked you a straight question: Do you dislike the idea of promoting PORNOGRAPHY as something good and normal?

[iverglas]

131. ooooo ... "foreigners"

And, yes, there are incidents of illegal foreigners who are forced into jobs they don't like (in order to pay back the transfer fee) I have heard of.

Christ almighty.

Does it occur to you that not all non-USAmericans are "foreigners" -- that in their home countries ... and hell, maybe even in the US ... they are just PEOPLE?

I gather that you didn't bother doing the search.

The pornography industry exists outside of the US. Whole lots of things exist outside of the US.

And thanks to the miracle of modern communication -- and even if this particularly mattered, which it actually doesn't to a decent person -- the products of that industry are readily accessible in the US.

So you have studied it extensively and this is it. Uhuh.

Nice try, but I said it first:

I could also say "I know this because I have actually, in the course of my work, read extensively in the research on trafficking in women", which would be true, but I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed.

I didn't offer my private knowledge as a reason for you to believe anything. I recommended that you do the work yourself.

My private knowledge was most certainly not "it". Allow me to repeat myself:

Google trafficking women pornography. Not all of the 112,000 results will be about the trafficking of women into coerced work in the pornography industry, but some will.

I asked you a straight question: Do you dislike the idea of promoting PORNOGRAPHY as something good and normal?

Let me ask you: do you dislike the idea of promoting EATING MCDONALDS HAMBURGERS as something good and normal?

Your question is a dog's breakfast of silliness, just like mine.

If you think carefully for a while ... actually, if you exert about 2 calories of effort for about a nanosecond ... you'll know why. If you didn't already.

Feel free to read my post #130 if you have any genuine interest in what I think, what I sincerely doubt.

[reorg]

149. Tens of thousands of sex workers in Thailand lost their jobs

in the wake of the Tsunami. An estimated 1000 brothels, bars and other places of work for these people have been destroyed. Sex workers are not officially recognized in Thailand and therefore do not have insurance against illness, joblessness, occupational disability. It is doubtful that help will be directed towards them, according to the Thai sex worker organisation "Empower", which therefore is organizing help on its own, informs "Hydra", the German sex workers association on the website:

http://www.hydra-ev.org/master/start.html (in German)

Short description of Hydra in English: http://www.lolapress.org/artenglish/hyde14.htm

Hydra is one of 38 members of the KOK (Federal Association Against Trafficking in Women and Violence Against Women in the Migration Process):

http://www.kok-potsdam.de/artikel/boeker_speach_fulda.htm (statement in English on latest European immigration policies).

In this statement, for instance, the word "slavery" figures prominently, prostitution is mentioned -- but also other, non sexual-services related forms of coercion of women.

Pornography is not mentioned at all.

Judging from what I know through all kinds of public channels and from watching some porn myself I sincerely doubt that coerced participation in this business happens in any statistically significant way (whether in the US, or in Germany, where I happen to reside, or wherever porn is produced that is offered in the market, including the misogynistic, the rough and the messy stuff).

So I would suggest that if YOU have any indication for this happening you should quit dodging around and come up with a source (and no, Google hits found with arbitrary word collections will not suffice).


Oops, and what was your answer to my question again?

Do you dislike the idea of promoting PORNOGRAPHY as something good and normal?


(You'll get my answer to your return question for free: since it is nowhere illegal to flip Hamburgers, not even in India, nor will "community standards" or "decency laws" prevent any kind of promotion for this service, there is no need to promote it "as something good and normal". With pornography, however, some people seem to have problems, and therefore a public stance in favor of it could help.)

[lazarus]

115. You said

"Human persons have rights."

That is, except women who want to be in porn, right? Why are you anti-choice?

[iverglas]

120. have you stopped beating your dog?

Why are you anti-choice?

I repent. I firmly believe in the choice of all persons to sell themselves into slavery, and to purchase those who so sell themselves.

I shall henceforth be "pro-choice" in all things, no matter how ludicrous the position and now idiotic that makes me sound.

'K, now?

[lazarus]

122. slavery?

Sex is perfectly legal. It only becomes illegal when money is exchanged.

You want women to have a choice, but you don't want them to have the choice to be in porn. That doesn't make you very pro-choice to me. But go ahead, don't worry about inconsistency.

Try explaining how porn actors are slaves for me, though. More than ditch-diggers, or waitresses, or anyone else "trapped" in a job they may not like.

[iverglas]

132. specious and idiotic distinctions?

Sex is perfectly legal. It only becomes illegal when money is exchanged.

Doing someone's housework is perfectly legal. It only becomes illegal when ownership of the person doing it is transferred.

You asked me why I was "anti-choice". I'm still asking you the same thing.

Well, not really. I don't ask stupid questions. Nonetheless:

You want women to have a choice, but you don't want them to have the choice to be in porn. That doesn't make you very pro-choice to me.

We'll leave aside your false claim about what I don't want, since I HAVE NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. But hey, you go right on demonizing the adversary with falsehoods.

Back to our sheep: you want women to have a choice, but you don't want them to have the choice to sell themselves into slavery. That doesn't make you very pro-choice to me.

Y'see? Be in porn ... sell one's self into slavery ... TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. This is called an "analogy". Allow me to introduce you.

You assert that I am "anti-choice" because (allegedly, though false) I don't want women to have a particular choice. I don't want anyone to have the choice of beating his/her dog, either. Damn me. I'm just an authoritarian.


Try explaining how porn actors are slaves for me, though.

What the fuck are you talking about? Why would I even try to "explain" something that is a nonsense?

Are you pretending to think that I said that porn actors are slaves? Can it be possible that you actually think that I said that???

Whew. No hope here.

Read my post #130 if you have any genuine interest in what I think, which I sincerely doubt.

[lazarus]

143. sigh

Hey, you're the one who first mentioned slavery in the context of this discussion. If you don't like getting called on your rhetoric, rein it in a bit.

You then went on to further your use of the slavery "analogy" in your next post. But you don't think I should actually call you on this. Fine. Any other rules to the debate I should know? Any other terms or rhetoric you're allowed to use and have nobody comment on?

And using the terms "idiocy" and "stupid" aren't really conducive to a good discussion. But then, constantly shifting positions and claims that one doesn't mean what one says are also not conducive to a good discussion.

See ya.

[iverglas]

144. I leave you to trace the breadcrumbs

What I actually said, that you first responded to (with a little emphasis on some bits you chose to ignore):

Nobody "owns" his/her body. A body is inseparable from a person, and nobody owns a person. If I owned my body, I could sell it. I may not. Nor, under the laws that our societies currently apply, may we sell bits of it, even.

Human persons have rights, and human societies commonly restrict the manner in which individuals may exercise those rights in all sorts of ways.

It's always possible that if you were to stop pretending that I said things I never said, and slowly and carefully read what I actually said, and start over again without misrepresenting or pretending not to understand what I did say, you'd say something true and sensible and worth thinking about.

One just never knows.

[lazarus]

148. You never said "slavery"?

Interesting. We'll need to track down the hackers who inserted the word into your posts.

[iverglas]

150. yeah

You never said "slavery"?
Interesting. We'll need to track down the hackers who inserted the word into your posts.

Along with the one who inserted "I never said slavery" into one someplace.

Or maybe you can find for me where I said "I never said slavery", or even something remotely resembling it ...

[Czolgosz]

13. Sylvia Law is a great feminist, and great legal scholar, and she has

has made a very well articulated argument that pornography does not harm women. Here's her bio http://www.law.nyu.edu/faculty/profiles/fulltime/laws.html

[DistantWind88]

14. Pornography in and of itself

doesn't "harm" anyone. It's PEOPLE who take advantage of other people who do the harm.

[Czolgosz]

21. It's been a long time since my feminist legal theory class so

I might be confusing Sylvia Law's arguments with other feminist legal scholars, but I think her main point was that the criminalization and marginalization of pornography and prostitution was basically one means of a male-dominated society to rob women of a powerful bargaining position within our socio-economy.

Before you send Sylvia Law and hate mail, please double check whether that's a fair characterization because, as I said, I may be misattributing that argument to her. Also, my oversimplification of the argument really doesn't do it justice.

[jdj]

31. The problem for me is that our society isn't opposed to porn

as degrading to women, it's opposed to the nude female body as degrading and dangerous to humanity, and this is more offensive to me than any porn. Why can't most cultures handle female nudity?

At it's heart it's a male instinct to possess the woman and her potential offspring, and all cultures have different standards for how a woman should fall in line with her appearance to make it seem like she's a possession or willing to be possessed by one male. Folks who can't get this point should consider that women who don't play by the rules are labeled 'whores', i.e. not sexually monogamous i.e. any offspring she bears might not be your legal issue.

It's her relationship to the male and her behavior with regards to men that makes her a whore or virgin or this or that, which is incredibly fucked up and dehumanizing.

Compared to all this cultural conditioning that is irrelevant to the character of the individual woman, porn (without portrayals of violence) pales in comparison.

[KissMeKate]

60. good analysis- porn is one part of our overall cultural attitude

towards women. Banning porn would be like banning alchoho- it wouldnt work. We have already seen that with prostitution.

[KissMeKate]

59. yes, bring sex work out of the shadows, and sex workers

will be safer and more empowered. Legalised prostitution and public education and outreach to prostitutes and porn actresses about their rights under the law is a start.

[AnnInLa]

36. And, guns don't kill people,

people kill people. Riiiight.

[Pushed To The Left]

15. Feminists should support

a woman being free to make her own decisions about whether or not to participate in pornography. One of the main arguments that feminists use (and I agree with) when it comes to reproductive rights is that they don't want the government telling them what they can and can't do with their own bodies. You don't have to like pornography to support somebody's right to do it or watch it. That's what freedom is all about.

[DistantWind88]

16. True, if you don't like "pornography"

Don't watch it or perform in it.

[CheshireCat]

33. Porn & women's rights

"Feminists should support a woman being free to make her own decisions about whether or not to participate in pornography."

As a woman who has been an activist in the women's movement since 1969, I agree with you 100%.

I have never heard anyone talk about how men are degraded by porn and about how porn teaches women to see men as sex objects.

Women who enjoy sex & have an active sex life are denigrated by society. They are called whores and sluts. But men who do and feel the same are admired by much of society. A man who has sex for money is called a "gigolo". Compare the images projected by the words "gigolo" and "prostitute".

Think of all the men in Congress who have multiple mistresses. They are tolerated by the most conservative of their peers. Some even represent the Christian right. Do you think a female member of Congress would be treated in the same fashion?

Women will never be free & equal as long as society insists that they need to be protected from sex. Throughout history, this attitude has been used to keep women from gaining equality.

It is this "need" to protect women from sex that some Muslim societies use to restrict women from the moving about freely, from driving, & from attending school. Some Christians do the same thing.

If you do not like pornography, do not watch it. If you do not enjoy sex, then abstain. Do NOT pretend you need to be protected from it.

[Djinn]

48. DING DING DING

we have a winner - best post in this thread

Women will never be free & equal as long as society insists that they need to be protected from sex

:headbang:

[poe]

61. This is not a womens issue it's a mans issue (read problem-read control)

I cannot recommend this book highly enough-"Woman and Nature (The Roaring Inside Her)" by Susan Griffin. I suggest that these aren't 'womens issues' but mens hang ups and need to control. calling them womens issues seems to put the onus on the women and obscure who has the flaming hang nail over control of bodies-seeds-biology-ecology.

[Djinn]

67. if porn is all about men's

hang ups and need to control - why do women watch it? Porn is no more complex than it makes money from the fact that human beings (in general) are interested in sex and like watching it.

Some of it is violent and/or exploitative, some is badly made, some is degrading, some just isn't very sexy, but the only overarching thing you can say about the industry is that it exists because we like to watch

[poe]

74. totally agree

my point is that women/body issues and sexual freedom issues serve to distract and prevent us all from addressing the core issue which is the uptight/christian/hierarchical etc., mostly white male urge to control. that means nature, knowledge, sexual freedom and expression etc. It always gets thrown off as a civil rights issue or a black issue so we discuss that. that leaves the deeper darker issue left unattended-the violent mechanism of the habit of mind that needs to control and enslave every aspect of our being.
i'm saying porn should be available and our sexuality should be freely expressed. i was kinda cloudy i think in my other post.

[readmoreoften]

50. Here Here!

When Andrea Dworkin convinced Canada to adopt anti-porn laws the only store that closed down was a lesbian book store.

I don't consume porn personally. And I've had a lot of experience with it, I worked in adult entertainment for years. But the only thing anti-porn feminism seems to do is demonize female sex workers.

Sex exists. Photos exist. If you really care about how porn effects women, fight for sex workers rights.

[iverglas]

56. poor stupid Canada

When Andrea Dworkin convinced Canada to adopt anti-porn laws the only store that closed down was a lesbian book store.

Get a grip.

[Miami Liberal]

73. Amen sistah! n/t

[iverglas]

47. yes, sir

"Feminists should support a woman being free to make her own decisions ..." yada yada yada

Next time I'm deciding what to support, I'll remember that you've already told me.

It's been some decades now, and we still have a man telling feminists what they oughta do?

"One of the main arguments that feminists use (and I agree with) when it comes to reproductive rights is that they don't want the government telling them what they can and can't do with their own bodies."

Indeed. But you will also hear feminists saying that what government should do is create conditions in which women do not feel compelled by circumstances to make any particular choice.

This Ms. Hartley may have made some free and enlightened decision, out of all the wonderful options and opportunities available to her, to become a sex trade worker. No thank you, I don't need that scholarship to Harvard; I think I'll be a prostitute. (Maybe Nah, that community college diploma won't make me the money I figure I deserve; I think I'll go be a porn star was more like it.)

The very certain fact is that most sex trade workers have problems associated with childhood sexual or physical abuse, economic disadvantage, substance dependency, and so on. The sex trade really is not a CHOICE for most of its labour force, any more than an abortion is a "choice" for a woman who knows that her partner may batter her to death if she discloses her pregnancy. It is a choice that the woman feels forced by circumstances to make.

And decent people really don't just shrug their shoulders and say that it's her choice. They try to do something to make other options and opportunities available.

In the case of abortion, a prohibition would be a violation of a woman's fundamental human rights -- to life, liberty and security -- without any justification. It is therefore up to the woman alone to decide how to exercise those rights; and the fact that she feels as if she has "no choice" is an entirely separate matter.

Is there justification for prohibiting prostitution, or the production of pornography?

One of those questions that liberal democracies wrestle with. The public/social harm that results from an individual exercise of rights and freedoms really can justify limiting that exercise in some instances.

Do I, personally, support outlawing the selling of sex services by individuals? Nope, because that seems to me to constitute blaming and punishing the victims.

But I do, as a rule, support legislation and policies that combat EXPLOITATION -- the USE for PROFIT, to the detriment of the person being exploited, of someone who feels forced, by circumstances, to permit the use.

That's why I support public policies like the minimum wage -- which takes away individuals' "choice" to work for pennies. I support policies like the ban on advertising snake oil to cure cancer -- which takes away individuals' "choice" of a cheap medication. I do not support the exploitation of disadvantaged people.

And neither, I think, do modern "liberals".

[Djinn]

49. true

we should be trying to ensure that EVERYONE has options open to them, but even if a fairy godmother gave everyone Harvard scholarships, not everyone would want one.

I only know two people that have worked in the sex industry (that I know well and am aware of that is) one worked as a stripper for about 3 weeks to feed a habit, she hated it, wasn't doing it for any other reason than heroin, felt awful and stopped doing pretty sharpish. The other was a friend at uni who thought it was INSANE that we all exploited ourselves working shit jobs for shit pay that meant we hardly had time for Uni when she'd work one day in a legal brothel and make twice what we made. She was very upfront about it and she HATED the fellow students (ALWAYS women) that told her she was doing it because she was exploited by the patriarchy or must have been abused as a child, neither of which were true. She didn't like everything about her job, but as she said does anyone?

There should absolutely be options for women so that those who do not wish to be in th sex industry have other means of making a decent living, but that shouldn't belittle the women that CHOOSE it

[iverglas]

55. to each her own

... reasons, that is.

The other was a friend at uni who thought it was INSANE that we all exploited ourselves working shit jobs for shit pay that meant we hardly had time for Uni when she'd work one day in a legal brothel and make twice what we made.

She probably could have made even more money committing murder for hire.

Nope, I'm not saying the two things are the same.

I'm saying that the economic self-interest of the individual wanting to do a particular thing is not a sufficient answer to any justification offered for prohibiting the doing of it.

She was very upfront about it and she HATED the fellow students (ALWAYS women) that told her she was doing it because she was exploited by the patriarchy or must have been abused as a child, neither of which were true.

And not all child abusers were beaten as children; some are just selfish and/or psychopathic bastards.

Again -- her willingness to do something she disliked doing because of all the money it made her isn't a sufficient reason for society to permit the doing of it, if there is reason to prohibit it.

There should absolutely be options for women so that those who do not wish to be in th sex industry have other means of making a decent living, but that shouldn't belittle the women that CHOOSE it

Nuh uh, I won't go with that one.

First, I have to point out that your evidence is the height of anecdotal -- it depends on your experience, and your experience tends to involve people who have the opportunity to do things like go to university. Mine includes those kinds of people (not one of whom ever worked in the sex trade), but it also includes the people in the neighbourhood I have lived in for over 20 years, including the miserable, sick, drug-addicted, often underaged women living at the mercy of their pimps, dealers and johns. I see no "choice" being exercised at all, at least at this point in their careers -- if they did at any point feel that they had a choice, they sure don't now.

And I'll belittle any more privileged woman who does make the choice all I want! I think that women like Hartley (whom I saw expressing no concern for women who work in her field because of exploitation rather than choice, or for all the women and girls not in her field whose victimizers, the rapists and child molesters and spouse-beaters, hear her message all too well) are disgusting, self-centred human beings, and I'll belittle her and her ilk without hesitation.

[Djinn]

68. back atcha

She probably could have made even more money committing murder for hire.

yes she could have made more money killing someone but that would have involved killing someone, she wasn't hurting anyone, and while I doubt she's big on murder, she was happy to do this job.

Again -- her willingness to do something she disliked doing because of all the money it made her isn't a sufficient reason for society to permit the doing of it, if there is reason to prohibit it.

she didn't dislike it though iverglas - THAT's what I'm saying, I don't like to speak for other people but I've heard her have this argument so many times I think I can give you the gist. She didn't LOVE doing it, in the same way she hadn't LOVED working in a bar previously and I certainly didn't love being an office lackey. She PREFERRED it to every other part time/no experience job going. She didn't dislike it anymoer than most people dislike their jobs, but few other people had fellow feminists telling them they MUST be being exploited and they just weren't aware of it

but it also includes the people in the neighbourhood I have lived in for over 20 years, including the miserable, sick, drug-addicted, often underaged women living at the mercy of their pimps, dealers and johns. I see no "choice" being exercised at all, at least at this point in their careers -- if they did at any point feel that they had a choice, they sure don't now.

of course it does - as I said, no-one should HAVE to go into the sex industry because there is no other option, you don't need to argue that one with me

First, I have to point out that your evidence is the height of anecdotal -- it depends on your experience, and your experience tends to involve people who have the opportunity to do things like go to university

before you get too righteous, yes what I detailed was anecdotal but FYI my experience also involves a six month placement with the EROS foundation and three years volunteering with the Prostitutes Collective of Victoria and there are women in the sex industry who are there by choice whether your ideaology approves of that or not

And I'll belittle any more privileged woman who does make the choice all I want!

so any choice YOU don't agree with is a choice to be belittled? I've heard that before from people who think women should stay home and look after children, and from people who think women who want to have sex before they're married are rabid sluts.

I'm SO not arguing that many women in the industry absolutely HATE it and were there a choice they'd do something else, but that's also true of many other jobs. The situation should NOT exist in which a women's body is liable to be the only thing of the marketplace values, that doesn't make every women in the sex industry a victim and most of those I've worked with/met really resent that attitude.

[donsu]

72. thank you and here's a bouqet of violets for speaking truth to power

nt

[Pushed To The Left]

62. Men can't be feminists?

Is it wrong for a male who supports women's rights to express an opinion on what men and women who support women's rights should do to further the cause?

[KissMeKate]

63. are you trying to say supporting porn furthers feminism?

thats quite a stretch.

I dont think any feminist is trying to limit womens choices- even those who argue that porn hurts women.

[Pushed To The Left]

66. No. I'm saying that supporting

a woman's right to choose whether or not to be involved with pornography is more consistent with feminism than having the government take that choice away from her.

[bloom]

65. Thanks for bringing up this side of the story

It makes sense to consider wage inequities (esp. in red states, btw) and how jobs become devalued when women are the main gender that does that particular job. So there are fewer job choices that pay a reasonable amount (esp. without college). So it seems like it would end up being a desperation sort of job for some people.

I suppose that there would be people who don't see it that way - or don't want to see it that way.

Most people were not be happy about the German story about the unemployed women who would have to take a job as a prostitute if she couldn't get anything else - or lose her benefits. (Due to the legalization of prostitution).

[mongo]

76. FYI

"This Ms. Hartley may have made some free and enlightened decision, out of all the wonderful options and opportunities available to her, to become a sex trade worker. No thank you, I don't need that scholarship to Harvard; I think I'll be a prostitute. (Maybe Nah, that community college diploma won't make me the money I figure I deserve; I think I'll go be a porn star was more like it.)"

Nina went to Berkley and was a RN before entering the adult business.

But I do, as a rule, support legislation and policies that combat EXPLOITATION -- the USE for PROFIT, to the detriment of the person being exploited, of someone who feels forced, by circumstances, to permit the use.

Then do you support legislation prohibiting people from working at Wal-mart if that is the only job they can get? How about a coal mine?
There are many jobs more explotive of the employee that adult entertainment - where the typical woman only works 6 - 10 days/month.

Any and all work can be explotive. Should we ban it? Why can't you accept that some women enjoy this line of work? Why is it that you know better than they do what is good for them?

[iverglas]

81. excuse me

Why can't you accept that some women enjoy this line of work? Why is it that you know better than they do what is good for them?

Why do you ask me questions that assume things not in evidence?

Did I say that I knew better than any women what was good for them? Did I say that I do not accept that some women enjoy this line of work? I really don't think I did.

Did I not, in fact, say that what any individual thinks is good for him/her is not necessarily a sufficient reason for society to permit him/her to do it?

Hmm. Well yes, gosh, I think I did say that.


Then do you support legislation prohibiting people from working at Wal-mart if that is the only job they can get?

How about I support legislation prohibiting Wal-mart from paying people $2.49 an hour to work there? We happen to have such legislation, and that legislation requires what we call the "minimum wage", which all employers are required to pay even if there are potential employees willing to work for less. Legislated minimum wages tend not to be adequate for the purpose of supporting a family with a single wage-earner, very true. But the intention behind the adoption of such rules was to ensure that a worker can meet his/her basic needs by working, and that people who work full time not be left still unable to buy food and shelter at the end of the work week. (I am not, of course, saying that the present minimum wage in all jurisdictions meets this objective, any more than any other public policy has not been subverted by the exploiters and their political puppets.)

Minimum wages are what they say they are -- minimum. A line drawn between exploitation that results in abject misery and a lousy but tolerable bargain imposed by a more powerful party on a less powerful party.

How about a coal mine?

Have you really managed to miss the history of labour standards legislation over the past few decades?

Once again -- life is hardly perfect as we know it at present, but work in a coal mine really is subject to a variety of health and safety requirements that have been brought in to prevent the imposition of terms and conditions, by exploitive employers on desperate workers, that involve grave risks of death at any moment, prolonged exposure to high levels of disease-causing substances, etc. And once again, life ain't perfect, but minimum standards have been set to prevent exploitation that results in abject misery, and we can all elect governments that will set even better ones.

Some folks would undoubtedly be happy to work at Wal-mart for pin money. A developmentally disabled adult with a basic social security-type pension could work 40 hours a week for $1 an hour and have the money to go to movies on the weekend -- and if Wal-mart could get him/her to do the job for that pay, everybody else who wanted the job would have to accept the same pay. I'm sure there are even people who enjoy risks and don't need money who would be happy to climb around on scaffolding a few stories up without the employer having to bother with that expensive safety equipment stuff -- so nobody else would be likely to get the protection either. We don't permit these things to happen.

There are many jobs more explotive of the employee that adult entertainment - where the typical woman only works 6 - 10 days/month.

Perhaps you thought that I thought that the work:money ratio was determinative of the exploitation quotient of an occupation. I don't, and don't think I suggested that I thought it was.

There are a multitude of reasons why society does limit, and is justified in limiting, how individuals earn their living or exercise any of their various rights. I am not arguing any specific possible justification for prohibiting employment in various elements of the sexual services trade. I am saying (and apparently must keep saying) that an individual's personal desire to do something is NEVER sufficient to rebut a limitation based on a legitimate and pressing societal interest.

[mongo]

89. And your argument was essentially the government's position

in Lawrence vs Texas. That the government has a valid interest in "upholding moral values" for society's sake. That was struck down my dear.

Not that there's a legitimate or pressing social interest in prohibiting porn. Many studies in Europe show cases of sexual assult, etc. went DOWN after they legalized porn. There has never been a legitimate study showing any harm in porn.

[iverglas]

97. go patronize somebody your own size

And your argument was essentially the government's position in Lawrence vs Texas. That the government has a valid interest in "upholding moral values" for society's sake. That was struck down my dear.

And your argument was essentially that there are faeries at the bottom of the garden.

Make shit up all you like and try to persuade somebody I said it. I don't really care.

My "argument" had precisely not Thing One to do with "upholding moral values", and I'm quite sure you know this.

Not that there's a legitimate or pressing social interest in prohibiting porn. Many studies in Europe show cases of sexual assult, etc. went DOWN after they legalized porn. There has never been a legitimate study showing any harm in porn.

Blah blah blah.

Of course, the potential harm associated with the consumption of pornography (and I'll take your bald statement as to the non-existence of evidence of that harm ... even if absence of evidence were evidence of absence ... as a proved premise about when hell freezes over) is entirely beside the point I made about the potential harm associated with the exacerbated risk of women being exploited in the PRODUCTION of pornography and in other elements of the sexual services trade.

If you need any more straw folk to knock over, you might see whether the Wizard can spare you some.

[mongo]

135. I was making an analogy

Between your assertion:

I am saying (and apparently must keep saying) that an individual's personal desire to do something is NEVER sufficient to rebut a limitation based on a legitimate and pressing societal interest.

And the government's arguments for upholding the sodomy laws in Texas, which were struck down by the Lawerence Decision

the potential harm associated with the exacerbated risk of women being exploited in the PRODUCTION of pornography and in other elements of the sexual services trade.

Again with the lumping of all sex work in with the porn that is legally made in the USA. Here again, I'm going to use the same analogy.

Homosexual men have an exacerbated risk of HIV transmission during sex. Should that be a suffecient reason to keep sodomy illegal?

[KissMeKate]

19. I support woman positive porn- but so much of it is hateful.

sex is beautiful- but you wouldnt notice from alot of the porn out there these days.

[DistantWind88]

20. Some people like different things

What's wrong with that?

[KissMeKate]

52. no one said there was anything wrong with people likeing different things.

Dont put words in my mouth.

[KissMeKate]

53. no one said there was anything wrong with people likeing different things.

Dont put words in my mouth.

[lukasahero]

87. Please refer to post 86...

Some people like to watch 5 year old girls get raped. You have no problem with that?

[DistantWind88]

101. You'll notice, if you read my posts

(a huge assumption, I agree) that I have been talking about sex between consenting adults.

Try not to put words into people's mouths, ok?

[mongo]

77. How is it that people who don't consume porn know

what the makeup of it is?

so much of it is hateful/degrading, blah,blah,blah..

Why is it then that the bigest companies in the business - Vivid, Wicked and Adam & Eve produce the more couple-friendly stuff?

Maybe it is because you listen to the MSM sensationalism.

[paineinthearse]

23. Buy Adelphia stock

see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3044454&mesg_id=3044454

[libnnc]

30. I have a lot of respect

for Nina Hartley, Jenna Jamison and Tristan Taromino. I see these women as self-directed and in total control of their actions and their careers. There's a real market for woman-centered porn. What's wrong with taking the industry and changing the locus of power? I think the work that these women do actually empower women. Why can't women enjoy porn? I'm a lesbian, I do like woman-centered porn and I don't feel bad about it.


That's my two cents.

[Fleshdancer]

35. As a feminist, I would like to see the subject approached differently

I think we make a big mistake when we paint all porn as either good or bad. Truth be told, there's a lot of both. As a feminist, I have to come to terms with the fact that the pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and because we live in a capitalist society, that fact is ample proof that porn isn't going away any time soon.

So what to do? I would like to see regulation in the industry. Health care, benefits, overtime pay if applicable, union is possible. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to get away with substandard working conditions just because we don't like or agree with their product. Instead of going back and forth over whether porn is harmful or not (an important discussion, but still a matter of opinion), why can't we focus on making sure those in the industry are safe and truly empowered to make their own decisions and not forced into their situation?

[AngryAmish]

41. I totally agree

About a year ago some performers came down with HIV from their work. The poor woman who got HIV participated in an act known as "a double anal" and I think everyone can figure out what that is. Without condoms. That is just plain dangerous. I heard that the California Dept of Labor was going to do something about mandatory condoms, but I have not heard anything since.

I have about the average male's affinity for porn but I don't understand why one would watch something where someone is being hurt.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[AngryAmish]

90. I would have a hard time banning anything

Yourself and your wife are allowed to watch whatever you wish to watch. It is just my personal preference and plenty of people have different preferences than I.

I still think there should be strong, hopefully nationwide, workplace safety laws about the porn industry. 3 people with HIV are 3 people with a deadly disease (if untreated) or a bad, lifelong disease if treated. The CA system is good but not foolproof. Peformers can go to Brazil (or Ohio, or Ireland or anywhere) and engage in risky behavior. Plenty of folks have 2 passports. Then come back to CA and maybe get someone else killed.

However, I can also see the libertarian argument against mandatory condoms. Same as if someone chooses to ride a motorcycle w/o a helmet. If there is an OSHA model, then employers are liable for risky behavior by their employees (or even independant contractors).

[mongo]

91. The HIV rate in the adult industry is lower than that of the

general population. That in itself says that there are workplace safety laws in place.

The propossed OSHA laws are overkill, more meant to punish the industry than to keep people safe.

[AngryAmish]

98. The laws may be overkill

However, I think they are necessary. If you have a chance look up the OSHA regs that apply to healthcare (CFR is available on the web somewhere). Nurses, etc. must wear gloves when encountering any bodily fluid. Human blood is considered a biohazard.

I also realize that it is a slippery slope I am advocating hopping on. While I want to ban certain acts w/o condoms, the total anti-porn folks may ban anything that could remotely be construed as body-fluid transfer. So I understand the difficulty.

In a perfect world none of this would be necessary. We do not live in a perfect world. I am not totally into porn but don't hate it either. "The Industry" is an industry. I would not want them to make up their own rules just as I would not want the coal industry determining workplace safety issues for their workers. Workers should have some input (UNIONIZE) and I think intelligent good practices can be determined. (For example, a male has much lower chance of getting HIV via receptive oral sex than via receptive anal sex. I think a logical regulation would see a difference.)

Lets just hope commonsense can rule on this.

[readmoreoften]

51. Exactly!

The problem is that anti-porn feminists are generally concerned more about what porn does to "the image of women" than it does to the actual flesh and blood women who work in the industry.

[KissMeKate]

57. feminists are concerned about both.

where did you get the idea that feminists are less concerned about sex workers in the porn industry than they are about porn's effect on society?

Can you give me some quotes from famous feminists juxtaposing one and the other,to back up your assertion, please?

[KissMeKate]

54. thats sort of an obvious goal- for all progressives, not just feminists

I think legalising prostitution would help women in both industries become more empowered towards job benefits and safety.

[Fleshdancer]

64. It's interesting you bring that up...

I've been very curious about the regulations in Nevada where brothels are legal. It would be interesting to compare those regulation standards with the ones in Europe and perhaps try to model that system somehow for the pornography industry. I wonder if Europe or any other country has regulations for their adult film industry...never thought about it before.

[iverglas]

42. funny thing about those "right-wing ideologues"

"If she bothered to consider the writings of ... Wendy McElroy ..."

Why, there's one now. A prime right-wing ideologue indeed.

http://www.ifeminists.net/about/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy-arch.html

The Domestic Violence Law
It's another big-government trick.

Repeal the 'Violence Against Women' Act
It's based on female myths, anti-male bias, and the total state.

Made-Up Crimes
Wendy McElroy on sexual harassment.

Identify the Accuser
After all, we all know the accused in a rape case.

Etc.

That one there is a boot-licker, and as a Canadian I can only be grateful that she, like David Frum, left home to seek fame and fortune south of the border. (She sure wouldn't have got much up here.)

I'm going to read Chyng Sun's article for myself
http://www.counterpunch.com/sun01312005.html
before taking the word of someone who quotes Wendy saying that Sun is "making common cause" with anyone.

When I was horrified by the Janet Jackson incident, it had nothing to do with prudish offence at breasts on TV. It had to do with the portrayal of a sexually violent assault on a woman (with or without the collusion of the woman involved in the portrayal) before an audience of men and young boys, and the approval of that act that was implicit in the way it was performed and the fact that it was broadcast.

And I'm really quite capable of expressing my own position without "making common cause" with anybody who doesn't share it, and I do not accept such characterizations.

I'm not seeing much wrong with what Sun wrote:

We should be afraid of government forces interested in repressing sexual expression. But we also should be afraid of the influence of misogynist pornography. These two fears are not mutually exclusive and can co-exist. Our fear of the former shouldn't stop us from critiquing the latter.

But I'm noting a little self-interest in what Hartley wrote (which she conveniently offered up in black and white), and I'm generally sceptical of people whose policy positions are so indistinguishable from their personal interests:

To me, she's just one more exploiter, seeking to make her living from the attempt to deprive me of mine.

The rest of us really do sometimes get a say in how other people get to earn a living. That argument wouldn't be sufficient coming from a taxi driver who refused to fix the brakes on his/her vehicle, and it isn't sufficient in this instance either.

[Taxloss]

58. It's the son of the porn post!

Let's wait until this gets to 150-200 and then gets locked.

[eridani]

69. What if for-profit porn was outlawed?

People could then make and share their own. Ya don't gets any until ya gives some. Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice and their minicam on Saturday night.

[geniph]

124. You know, eridani, I like that idea

Wanna see Carol and Alice make out? Fine, Bob and Ted - you two go first.

[AlienGirl]

70. Some of us women *like* porn! (warning: may gross you out)

I'm a woman. I'm a feminist. And, yes, I like porn. It's not always "erotica"-style porn either, with romance and equality between the partners. In fact, I'm fond of BDSM porn, and I understand fully that it's just pretend. I also really prefer porn that features two men, rather than a man/woman couple. Some of my favorite porn is "slash" fiction (for the uninitiated, that means two characters generally from a TV show or movie, as in Kirk/Spock) featuring Dib and Zim from Invader Zim.

I think porn is altogether too complicated to fit into one all-encompassing "feminist theory of porn."

Tucker

[Mad_Dem_X]

92. I don't look at porn, but

I do enjoy reading slash fiction stories, if they are well written. I prefer words to pictures (I like to think of my own pictures in my imagination). But I'm not really into stories where people (usually it's women) getting hurt. To me, pain is not a turn-on.

I am a feminist, BTW.

[cynatnite]

71. Double Standards Apply

I don't mind porn myself. DH and I have on occasion sat and watched some.

What I've had a problem with was the double standard applied. Women who are prostitutes or do porn are sluts, whores and various other names. Men are labeled as lucky.

It's a stigma that's applied through every portion of our society. Just put the big scarlet A on these women for having the gall to do it outside of marriage, let alone for money.

I would like to see the industry regulated to protect the workers. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Right-wingers would say that it means making porn acceptable in society. They would pull out their bibles and step up on the bully pulpits.

[bhunt70]

78. Bush against Bush !

[killbotfactory]

80. People like to have sex.

People like to watch other people have sex. Sex allows life to continue on earth. As long as they are all consenting adults, they should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want on film. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

I also find it highly ironic that right-wingers, and other fundamentalists throughout the world, who believe that women our inherently inferior to men, believe that porn should be banned because it's degrading to women.

[lukasahero]

86. "downloading an Internet video showing the rape of a 5-year-old girl"

How is it there is a lengthy discussion on DU regarding the value and benefits of how wonderful porn is without discussing the current event of "A well-known local attorney and Republican committeeman is among 39 people across New Jersey facing charges for allegedly downloading an Internet video showing the rape of a 5-year-old girl."?

http://www.njherald.com/news/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1107033375,60567,

You know, just because some people here are trying to bring up the fact that not ALL porn is wonderful and beneficial to women and society doesn't mean they are part of the American Talibangelist prudes trying to stop you from watching porn. Perhaps they are just trying to say that there are dangers present that we need to address. The whole "black and white" it's either "evil or perfect" scenario is as stupid as shrub's "with us or against us" decree - it simply allows the topic to be clouded so that any real concerns that might exist are ignored.

I have no problem with porn when the people who make it are willing participants. Unfortunately, that's not always the case and that problem needs to be addressed. Fact is, it never will be if we (on the left) keep calling it nothing more than freedom of speech and accusing anyone who suggests otherwise of being prudes.

[Mad_Dem_X]

93. You make a very good point

We on the left need to acknowledge that not all porn documents consensual acts.

[mongo]

96. "not all porn documents consensual acts."

Where do you get this? Fox News?

AAARRRRGGGHHHHH! I think my head is going to explode.

The porn in my store is entirely made with people who are being paid well to perform consentual acts.

[mongo]

94. We are not talking about child porn.

which is illegal regardless of obscenity laws. The quasi-legal porn, made in Ca. and sold in stores throughout the US has only people who are willing participants performing. They are all over 18. ID's are checked and records are kept.

I think that you are clouding the issue with your post. Assulting an adult or a child and filming it is a crime. But these video's are not what are available in your friendly neighborhood adult store.

The problem of child porn is being adressed. Clinton took the focus of the FBI's obscenity unit off of adult porn and focused it on child porn. Bush has increased funding and manpower in this unit, as well as the justice department, but has taken some of the focus off of child porn in order to go after smaller compaines that produce some of the harder adult porn. Several people who have small internet compaies has already pleaded. The were charged for selling defication videos.

[seabeyond]

95. i dont give squat about porn either, i dont watch it, but.......

another perspective we pretend isnt in existance is many marriages are being destroyed by the easy access, addictive nature of porn. this is truly a problem in way too many families. too many families the husband is spending way more time watching porn than interacting with wife. many wives are feeling unwanted, because of the obsessiveness of porn. not love, rejected.

it is a reality.

there is a lot of darkness in porn. it is the small percentage in my view that is living this in a healthy and non destructive way, vs a destructive manner in life. i dont know why we pretend otherwise.

[mongo]

102. If porn is addictive - why isn't there a DSM diagnosis for it?

The truth is that porn is NOT addictive. In the situaiton you describe porn is a symptom of a failing relationship. Men do sometimes turn to porn for sexual release when there is a problem with their relationship. Blaming it on "porn addiction" takes the heat off the people involved and provides a scapegoat.

If you don't watch porn - how do you know how much "darkness" there is in it.

[iverglas]

107. hmm

http://www.contentwatch.com/learn_center/article.php?id=101

A somewhat more scholarly view.

[DistantWind88]

103. Any study showing this?

[mongo]

134. Studies

All of the following comes from "Defending Pornography. Free Speech, Sex and the Fight for Women's Rights" by Nadine Strossen

The National Research Council's Panel on Understanding and Preventing Violence concluded, in 1993: "Demonstrated empirical links between pornograpy and sex crimes in general are weak or absent".

Within the United States, the Baron and Straus research has shown no consistant pattern between the availability of sexual materials and the number of rapes from state to state. Utah is the lawest ranking state in the availability of sexual materials but 25th in the number of rapes where New Hampshire ranks 9th highest in the availability of sexual materials but only 44th in the number of rapes.

The 1991 analysis by Univ. of Copenhagen Professor Berl Kuchinsky revealed that, while nonsexual violent crime increased 300 percent in Denmark, Sweden and West Germany from 1964 to 1984, all three countries rape rates either declined or remained consistant during this same period, despite their lifting restrictions on sexual materials. Ktchinsky's studies further show that sex crimes against girls dropped from 30 per 100,000 to 5 per 100,000 between 1965 when Denmark liberized it's obscenity laws, and 1982.


I could go on but I won't.

[seabeyond]

106. i simply googled ......

is pornography addictive
studies on pornography addiction

there is plenty of information and sites.

[mongo]

136. Here's some more googleing for you

Try googleing "penis enhancement". You'll find plenty of sites with lotions, creams, pills and devices - all with a money back gaurentee that they will increase the size of your johnson. But nothing short of surgery will do that.

Likewise google "creation science" I'm sure that you will find lots of sites "proving" that the earth is 4,000 years old.

[seabeyond]

138. i am honest about what is going on in the real world

want to look at your porn, i dont give a shit. lose a woman over it, or a family, your problem. want to spend all day all night looking at the shit, do it. doesnt effect me one iota. it isnt in my life. i dont need it to have great sex, and my husband and i are totally happy. those that like porn and doesnt hurt them a bit, good for you all go for it. i dont care. but to pretend there are no problems with porn is wrong

like with almost anything else, taken to extreme cause unbalance, unhealthy

i also have a niece whose mother is a real slut, prostitute, loves porn and doesnt have a problem sharing with her daughter. no motherly instincts in ths woman. has done a lot of damage to daughter. brother spent a deacde and over 150k to get sole custody

wtf

i have been watching the porn on the internet issue for about 5 years now. want to dismiss what the interent says, there is plenty of other areas to see the validity of what i say

[mongo]

139. Why is it that the porn is the "problem" it becomes the scapegoat

There are plenty of women who have a shopping "addiction" that spend the families food budget or the kids college fund on shoes. But you don't hear calls for banning shopping malls.

However, you do hear calls for porn to be eliminated from our society, based on ancedotal evidence. Porn in and of itself is not harmfull.

i also have a niece whose mother is a real slut, prostitute, loves porn and doesnt have a problem sharing with her daughter. no motherly instincts in ths woman. has done a lot of damage to daughter. brother spent a deacde and over 150k to get sole custody


So is the real problem here that the mother is a bad person, or that porn is available? If porn wasn't available, would she still be a prostitute?

And BTW, I don't look at much porn. My wife and I watch a movie maybe 3 times a month if we're lucky, and I read a few magazines, for the columns and articles.

[seabeyond]

141. firstly when saying you i was NOT meaning you

i try to avoid that and not always successful.

i do know women that have shopping addiction, and then gambling addiction. i dont deny or reduce the effect anymore than i do on porn addiction. (and like one article defined addiction in an above post, addiction is just a word to use, we use addiction too much in our world and is taken as an excuse to do and not be in control or responsible)

when a behavior comes to a point where it is causing damage in life, their is a problem. porn easily does it to a lot of people. sexuality is a confusing thing for a lot of people. especially young. it is such a strong and intense and powerful feeling. it has all kinds of effect on our self worth. it is wrapped up in the way our parents raised us and the relationship we had with our opposite parent.

it is all in what the society feeds and conditions in us, wrapped in self worth

be honest, cause i shouldnt be a threat to your beliefs anymore, you run a store and i am all for your right to sell. you see people coming in there all the time. do you not see some, where you say, this porn may not be condusive in this persons life. may not be such a good thing. may be taking it too far.

i mean why cant you see, become obsessed with it, how it would shift a persons reality. and a lot of people are obsessed with it

now i dont care, really dont. not my problem. just like the friend that is a shopping addict isnt my problem. i can understand, i can see, and i can "not" judge. but i am not going to deny

i mean not a little subject. both sexes use sex to hurt and manipulate and have control over.

this is just a reality

i am not a fundie. i dont want to take away someones porn. i was single til 32. i looked at porn here and there. i also know when i got into porn, i was easily wanting it regularly. not an issue. but i did say wow, and learned something. you and your wife thumbs up. my husband and i play our own games. but i am not talking about that

i would not tell a liquor store to quit selling. but having an alcoholic i know the hold booze has on him

i would not deny the person a cig. but i know the hold

shit i dont care if someone choses to do drugs, but it is an addiction and will cause some people problems.

i wont say close up las vegas or stop the lottery's (and i know the states are fuckin the poor, going after their desperate)

[mongo]

145. Customer profile

First of all, let me say that 40% of my overall business is women and couples. But I wanted to give you an impression of my more regular porn customers, of whom the bulk are men. This is just the porn customers, as we sell more toys to women and couples than men (outside of valentines week and the week before xmas anyway).

Most of these guys are either alone or are in a non-sexual marriage. Typically, they come in once a week and buy 3 movies (at the 3 for $30.00 special). Most of them buy the 4hour wall to wall sex tapes. That's 12 hours of nothing but sex scenes. I doubt if most of them watch it all. They fast forward to their particular triggers (e.g. blowjobs), or for a girl they like. I have had some customers come in twice a week for 3 movies, but they tend to burn out and either stop coming in, or start coming in maybe once a month. I have some customers that will come in every week and buy only one movie, but I know that some of them watch the movies with their partners - they ask me advice about what the wife will like.

I have some women regulars too, and at least one of them tells me that she comes in to get porn to watch with her husband, who's "afraid" to come into the store.

There's a handfull of couples that come in every week to buy movies. They tend to get 1 or 2 and are more likely to go for the features with a plot - but that's not a hard and fast rule. I've had plenty of women tell me that they would rather see just sex and not have to watch a really bad movie to see it. The couple regulars also purchase a new toy every month or so.

The Connoisseurs. These are the guys that special order movies from me because they have to see everything a particular performer has ever done or want to see her latest release. If anyone is obsessive about their porn, it is these guys. They always want to ask me if I saw so-and-so in this movie and how they were so awesome. Most of these guys don't shop at my store for long because they are more likely to find what they are looking for at the superstore 30 miles away, or in Columbus 60 miles away. I sell "discount" porn, most of my titles are a couple of years old.

Before I ramble on, I wanted to say that I don't think that buying 3 or 6 4hr sex tapes makes an "addiction". How many people rent or pay-per-view 3 movies a week? Or play video games for 12 hours a week? I've never encountered anyone who could be construed as "over-consuming" porn. I have a couple of regulars who come in and buy 6 or 9 movies, but they tend to only come in about once a month.

You had asked about customers who I thought had a problem, so I'll give you a couple of examples:

We had a 40yr mother and 18yr son come in to BUY PORN TOGETHER. eeeewwwwwwww! I used to pray that no one else would come in when they were here. "Mommy? What do you think of this one?" I still shudder when I think of them. I haven't seen them for about 6 months. I got the impression that she was inviting his young friends over for gang bangs from a conversation I overheard one day. YUCK!

I have some customers who can't read, and I have some customers who aren't quite right in the head. I also get people in groups (usually 18-20yo) who browse the gay section in order to be "disgusted" and make homophobic comments. These people really piss me off.

I had one guy come in and ask for the videos we "kept under the counter" He was looking for child porn. I sent him on his way.

Other than that, the biggest problem is ignorance. I had one customer exclaim to his freind holding the ben-wa balls "them's boullion balls!" Other people seem to need really basic sexual education. "will my girlfriend become addicted to her vibrator?" "Do you have any of those pills that make your dick bigger?"

I also have a lot of guys who will be browsing the gay movie section when they are the only customer in the store and scamper off to some other area as soon as they hear the door chime. That makes me really sad. I can imagine how hard it must be to be gay in Appalachia.

[seabeyond]

146. wow mongo

that took time for you to write all that, but i really appreciate you sharing all this with me.

thank you. very interesting. hm...........food for thought

[mongo]

147. Yeah, I had some time to think about it

The store got busy for a while then I had to run to the light store ($22.36 for a wierd bulb in one of our showcases), the tax office, and heavenly ham for lunch.

Most of my customers are just normal people. You should have been here for the 4 18yo girl's first adventure into a porn store. It is really hard not to crack up laughing listening to the customers sometimes. They were really cute and one bought a video for her BF for his birthday.

I have a policy of not bothering the customers unless they ask for help, some people are really embarrased to be in here. But those young ladies could have used some education about the toys. At least I believe they had their horizons broadened when they browsed the she-male section. (ha!)

[lazarus]

116. bullshit argument

By the same logic, sex should be outlawed. And maybe even children.

Oh, and the internet. And videotape.

It's a stretch, but we could even outlaw New Jersey.

[TheOriginalAmerican]

99. I'm a feminist for pornography.

I understand the arguments from anti-porn feminists againt porn. It degrades women. However, not all women are degraded by pornography. Some of them like their work. They like their work because they're not ashamed to be openly sexual on camera (as women are often taught not to be openly sexual).

As far as the right wingers go, do you realize that feminists have sometimes teamed up with right wingers to ban pornography? They have literally been on the same side before.

It was once argued that abortion was the ultimate exploitation of women. At the time, it was. Now, it's not exploitation of women. Porn can change too. Instead of trying to outlaw porn, we should empower women in the pornography industry.

I don't know the details of that case. I just wanted to add my points.

[superconnected]

127. yes but you have to watch out for a lot of the pro-porn

women, doing porn.

Theres a big group of women out there doing everything for male entertainment that stab women who don't obey/entertian etc. males in the back.

Sort of like women for wife beating. They take the male side and totally sell out the female. Ever have a female friend get raped by an aquaintence you all knew and notice women who liked the guy defend him to the death. Some women do that KNOWING what the guy did. As was a case I ran into once.

That's the kind of people I start running into when getting into women who are pro porn.

I don't care about porn. I do care about pointing out that there are plenty of patriarchy supporters among women -who sell out women, even when the men are hurting the other women.

Lastly, a lot of women who do porn are down and out, used to being abused types. Sure there are some women who are not, but I've met far more personally that were druggies etc, and didn't have healthy strong perspectives. I could write a book here of real world examples I've met, but I'll spare you.

And to remind you, I don't care about porn in itself. There's just more there than naked pictures.

[seabeyond]

137. porn isnt an attack on female, ya right

two experiences.

my brother a controlling man. two young kids a daughter 6 and son 3. go to house for dinner there is a playboy calendar on kitchen wall. i tell him how offensive, i dont want to look at that shit. nor does mom. he tells me it is the valueing and honoring beauty of female body. i tell him bad for daughter and not to bring her into his sexual fantasy, her sexuality is tied into what kind of man he is. he tells me no, this will make her comfortable with her body

ya right. it was all about controlling degrading every female, especially his wife. the sole purpose for that calendar to be there. a weapon against women, in his own inferior mind

at a friend of husbands house for a visit. obviously he is having issues with wife, is mad at her. pulls out a tablet of pictures of boobs. page after page of boobs, sittin on the couch looking at them making stupid faces and even more stupid noises, sole intent to make us uncomfortable. husband is totally obtuse not knowing what is up. friend throws to husband. my husband doesnt need nor desires to put me in my place. he realizes what he is looking at and in disgust throws back at his friend. like why the f* do you want to get me in trouble. i started busting up laughing. i love my man. he loves me so

anyway

two occassions where porn was to put woman in her place, degrade, make less

is this not true

[jswordy]

142. Uh, it's a BUSINESS, not a philosophy. And businesses are amoral.

So, just like in any other business, you will find people who "appeared to be having a good time and enjoy doing what they are doing. I'm sure some don't, and I'm sure others will regret it later," as ProudToBeBlueInRhody writes.

Science tells us that men and women perceive differently. That a man is much more visual in sexual perception than is a woman, and so porn has more appeal to men.

Does it objectify women? Oh I am sure some of it does. Anyone watching the final scenes of an interlude can see for themselves. But then, some of it doesn't, too.

Does it exploit women? I am sure some women working in porn films are doing so out of coersion -- they are broke and stuck in California, or they have no other skills to find work, or some other reason. But many women in porn work there because the money is outrageously excellent. Women earn about 5 times what men do in porn. So some of it exploits, but some doesn't.

Can porn help hold down rape? That's a view that changes with the political winds. In the '70s there were studies showing that porn could keep down sex crimes by providing an outlet to potential offenders. But then those were disputed with other studies in the '80s. So much of the "science" about porn is politically motivated, it is hard to tell what the real evidence is.

Now to the essential question: Despite the debates, is porn "normal" by sociological means? Well, one could argue yes, that by its sheer pervasiveness and by the extent of usage in society today. It's the most profitable Web business to be in, and comprises the majority of all business done on the Web.

And all of that is just relating to video or pictoral porn. What about "dirty stories"? Certainly no actors and actresses are "exploited" in those. Do they have the same alleged effects, and should they be controlled or banned?

So porn is a mixed bag, which is why the Supreme Court had such a hard time dealing with it. I think their community standards ruling was excellent. The debate will always rage, of course.