The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Pornography: Whos sleeping with whom? > Comments

Pornography: Whos sleeping with whom? : Comments

By Helen Pringle, published 8/9/2011

Locating the political, civic and equity impact of recent pornography debate.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. 10
  10. All
Complete dribble - the assumptions that underpin this argument are the same threadbare rhetorical devices that underpin the "right" and "left" critiques of pornography; That women do not have/exercise informed choice when deciding to partake in pornography and, the implied notion, that most/all pornography is heterosexual in nature. You need to spend a bit more time getting to know your subject matter (watching more porn!).
Posted by The Bulkman, Thursday, 8 September 2011 8:30:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And, what of the MEN who are harmed by partaking in pornography? Are they able to claim damages from harm to them? Gender-based arguments of this nature are intellectually juvenile.
Posted by The Bulkman, Thursday, 8 September 2011 8:33:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe I don't look at enough porn because the porn described by anti-porn writers does not seem to be the stuff I've seen or that which seems to be more popular.

The women as doormat's stuff exists, however I doubt that the users of that stuff will be reached by appeals to women's dignity.

My impression is that the bulk of popular heterosexual porn is themed around women in control of their sexual choices, women who like sex and enjoy the power that comes with their sexuality. Pretty much the direct opposite of women being treated as sexual doormat's.

There will be exceptions but I do think that the view of non religious anti-porn campaigners has missed a lot of what's happening. The message against what may be harmful is diluted or completely obscured because it's too broadly targeted.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 8 September 2011 9:23:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That paragraph by Melinda Vadas is something to behold. I have attempted to read it 3 times and can still barely parse it.

'I guess its easy (although not excusable) to see the women in pornography as fake'

As it is to think Luke Skywalker is fake. That's not excusable either.

'these names sum up how they are treated in pornography.'

Well, some pornography. I think the article should distinguish between different types of pornography. I also note the authors objections don't stretch to female domination porn; Of course that's harmless fantasy isn't it?

All pretty droll really. Pick one representation of porn and use it to build your straw man.

In return, I choose the author to represent feminism.

'All you will find are women who respect the dignity of others, who support sexual equality and mutuality'.

If you are actually looking, you will find that in porn too. Exhibitionism and voyeurism are part of human sexuality. As is domination and submission. As is fantasy.

I wouldn't worry, the porn industry has started to die. The cheap availability of AV equipment has 'liberated' the masses. The middle man has been cut out and the sexting teens and voyeur couples and even lonely singles are making porn for each other, often in real time video sex. It also has the effect of reducing the profit and hence production budgets and quality of bleached blond orange tanned fake boobed American porn, and so is a self perpetuating cycle.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 8 September 2011 9:40:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is hard to believe the "I'm not a religious nut and I hate porn" position. When you can explain exactly how the system will work to first prove harm has been caused, that pornography is the sole or even just a major contributor of that harm, and not have the system be so broad that it is applicable to anything (e.g. Tim Flannery agrees with the evidence about global warming, but his position offends me and thus caused me emotional distress. Therefore it should be my right to claim damages.), then I might be convinced. Such a system is practically and theoretically impossible, which suggests that this entire line of argument is nothing but intellectual masturbation.

All arguments from 'harm' are based on the Media Effects Model and are therefore inherently flawed. It doesn't work for Rock 'n' Roll. It doesn't work for video games. And it doesn't work for pornography.

None of that is to say that all pornography is brilliant or free from bad, even abhorrent, messages.
Posted by SilverInCanberra, Thursday, 8 September 2011 10:11:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suppose it should also be pointed out, that you are in bed with the religious right (Melinda Tankard Reist, Robi Sonderegger) and extremists and horrible individuals - especially if you're transgendered (Sheila Jeffreys, Melissa Farley).
Posted by SilverInCanberra, Thursday, 8 September 2011 10:28:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. 10
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy