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!).

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.

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

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 it’s 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.

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.

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).

Helen

Much porn DOES create unrealistic expectations of the viewer. For example, R0bert thinks most porn empowers women - either he doesn't watch very much or has his eyes closed ;D

However, what about the unrealistic expectations created by women's romance novels - you know the bodice rippers with bare chested men in ripped frilly shirts on the cover (on a horse of course)? Do these depict real men (or real women)? Don't think so. OK, at least men aren't depicted with their bums in the air in a group fvck - but should little girls be allowed to read Barbara Cartlandesque novels? I don't think so. But I don't like to think of my 14 year old nephew watching a woman being urinated on either.

I did check on your link to "Big Porn Inc" and who should be the editors? None other than Abigail Bray and Melinda Tankard-Reist who are, I believe, of the oooh sex, oooh "vapours" variety of anti-porn activist.

For you edification (please be aware of profane language before watching):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7emg8WSHG0&feature=relmfu

PS

I have had lovers who have turned off the porn because they found it too OTT. Of course, what they do when not with a real woman is best left to themselves.

With the exceptions of nutters, who have already started posting here, most men can tell the difference between real sex and sexploitation.

Sorry, can't be bothered clicking the link if it's more of what was in that article.

Well I can guarantee that there is plenty of Gay Porn out in the world, and I definitely do not feel 'victimized' or 'objectified' by men who like to look at images of other men in positions intended only to entertain the reader.

End of debate, really.

Anti

Knee-jerk reaction? Much.

My link is to one that claims Romance Novels are worse than porn.

Cheers m'dear.

KH

You're not offended by gay porn, so that means women aren't demeaned by straight porn? How sweet and simplistic.

I'm not sure how we can have a truthful debate about pornography when it's framed as an exclusively heterosexual activity.

Framing it as such justifies the gender arguments, but these are undermined when gay porn is included in the discussion.

A similar thing happens when domestic violence is framed as an exclusively heterosexual event. Viewing these issues solely through the gender lens restricts our understanding, and therefore our ability to address the problems.

If we are to envision pornography as a civil rights matter then how can we justify excluding gay porn? Surely we aren't going to attempt to argue that gay porn doesn't hurt boys and men like heterosexual porn hurts girls and women?

The rights of adults to be perverts over ride the dignity of human being and the safety of kids. Its amazing how so many caught in their own lusts will deny reality in order to preserve their right to feed their lusts. Millions of woman are now subjected to perverted behaviour as men and woman feed and then what to act out their learned behaviour. No wonder the suicide rate among teenagers is so high. Then again don't expect an honest look at this. We would rather blame homophobia or climate change rather than face up to the obvious.

Briar Rose

I do believe that filming sex acts where ANYONE, male, female, Straight or Gay, is demeaned is a retrograde mark on our society. I just wanted to draw attention to King Hazza's rather naive conclusion that because HE isn't offended by gay porn that women need not be offended by porn that dehumanises them.

The very worst of which has to be child pornography, even that where the actors are old enough to give consent but appear to be children is deeply troubling. Also troubling is the manner with which so many dismiss the dark side of pornography such as posters here have already done. I wonder how they would feel if it was their sons or daughters being filmed as the subject of anal sex, bestiality, gang-bangs or other acts?

People so often don't think things through.

Briar Rose,

The issue of gay porn is addressed in Big Porn Inc, in a chapter by
Queensland author and lawyer Christopher Kendall.

This book covers a lot of ground. A very confronting read, I've had to read a chapter at a time and take a break in between.

Ammonite, I wasn't referring to your link, I was referring to the link in the article.

Pornography exists, it will continue to exist and given the way people respond to novelty, it will continue to evolve and diversify.

So what? Don't the people making it get paid?

Thanks, Katie, I was referring to this article as I haven't read the book.

Anti

Thank you for you clarification. Your post following on immediately after mine referring only to a single link, rather than several as in the article, meant I concluded you were referring to my post.

On topic:

So, you wouldn't mind your daughter doing porn as long as she was paid, then?

Ammonite, I'd be uncomfortable with her choice and I'd hope not to see the images. I also think she'd be able to make better money doing something else, but who knows? Life is a stochastic process.

If she chose it and she made money at it I'd have no real problem with it, even if I was uncomfortable.

Some porn stars make very good money indeed and sex is a natural activity. What's bad about that?

Perhaps Ammonite confuses the argument that 'the author is choosing an abusive sub-set of porn to represent all porn', with her own imagined argument that people 'dismiss the dark side of pornography'.

I would be happy if the author used the term 'Some Pornography', or even 'degrading and Violent Pornography'. Even 'Most pornography', though I would not agree with that. But it is plainly ridiculous to put all porn into the same basket.

This is the trouble with these debates. There is as many different genres of porn as there is genres of literature.

'those of us who are not directly involved in its production are made responsible for it, because our reality as ‘respectable’ and respected women is built on their ‘fake’ bodies.'

If this is true, then it is true of romance models, which cater to predominately female view of relationships and men. Men are no more obliged to replicate Mr Darcy than women are Jenna Jameson. Sex and the City, Home and Away etc. Most work on the premise of women manipulating men and each other for the prize bad boy in order to tame him.

'I do believe that filming sex acts where ANYONE, male, female, Straight or Gay, is demeaned is a retrograde mark on our society.'

Do you believe violent crime as depicted in movies is a retrograde mark on our society?

There are sites on the interwebs that feature men suffering all sorts of painful abuse to their genitals, being verbally humiliated, 'cuckolded', you name it. It is fantasy. As, if you have perused Nancy Friday's work, rape is a fantasy with a significant number of women. Sexual fantasy is complex.

I am interested if the author would have the same objections to porn if it was computer generated, or if the same subject matter appeared in text rather than video.

All in all I think it's intellectually lazy to lump all porn in together and to not even discuss the medium and why sex fantasy in film is more harmful than other fantasy or sex fantasy in other mediums.

"Pornography also affects even women who are not involved in its production. In fact, those of us who are not directly involved in its production are made responsible for it, because our reality as ‘respectable’ and respected women is built on their ‘fake’ bodies. So the central issue about pornography for a woman on the left like me is sexual subordination, and how to end it."

So let's ban all fashion and women's magazines because they are using women that aren't close to our reality.

What a lot of cr*p. This is the feminist thought police out again. Ban everything that might make someone think less of themselves. Ban movies, because not everyone can be a hero. Ban short skirts because many women feel inferior because they can't wear them.

Helen Pringle claims not to be for censorship, but then wants to apply the most onerous version possible.

For what it's worth I agree with Houellebecq and rObert. The problem with this article is that it's absolutist. It seems to be arguing against the concept of pornography by only objecting to a certain variety of it. But I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be possible to make pornography that doesn't degrade anyone.

Notwithstanding, I like the slant of this article. I appreciate the writer's efforts to declare herself and her views in such a comprehensive way. Intellectual honesty is such a rare commodity!

The author writes: "Pornography also affects even women who are not involved in its production. In fact, those of us who are not directly involved in its production are made responsible for it, because our reality as ‘respectable’ and respected women is built on their ‘fake’ bodies."

This is intellectually lazy codswallop and a fine example of why as long as the pornography debate is dominated by authors such as this it will get nowhere and achieve nothing other than derision and exasperated sighs.

Firstly, define "respectable" and "respected." Are you arguing that the only determinant of a woman's "respectability" is whether or not she performs in porn media? Because that is utterly ludicrous.

And what is your definition of a "respectable" woman in the first place? Because in my grandmother's time it meant women who wore gloves and hats when they went out the door and didn't smoke in public.

Really. We need a robust debate about certain kinds of extreme pornography. Nobody in their right minds advocates pornography that depicts degrading violent abuse of anybody. But if you aren't prepared to define what you consider pornographic in the first place then you don't have an argument, you're just pushing stereotypes and generalizations and it doesn't come much lazier than that.

'Nobody in their right minds advocates pornography that depicts degrading violent abuse of anybody.'

I'm actually not so sure Briar Rose. The human psyche being what it is, there seems to be men who enjoy the fantasy (Even the reality perhaps) of having a woman stand on their testicles, spit on them and uriniate on them, among other things.

I understand some sub-cultures in the gay community are into some quite violent sex too.

If such a fantasy is consentual, who decides it is degrading. And what if the degradation is essential to the fantasy or proclivaty? For all involved in the activity as actors and audience. Where is the harm?

One could argue the humiliated and degraded are the same gender as the targetted consumer in this case, but it's still humiliation and degradation and you cant be sure no women find it titillating or are consumers of it. In fact these men's humiliation/degredation sites don't seem to ever be entertained enough for a topic of investigation. Maybe it's because men are assumed in control even when tied up and painfully tortured, humiliated and verbally abused.

Not my cup of tea, but who decides these things. I have noticed a surge of CFNM (Clothed female naked man) sites, where many clothed women humiliate a vulnerable naked man with taunts. It's a tame form of sexual power-play, but who's to say someone cant categorise that as degradation.

People seem happy enough for fantasy in other mediums but not in film it seems to me. The author even says any concerns about the actors isn't integral to her objections, so that's why I ask what of computer generated fantasy or fantasy in other mediums. We very quickly and easily get into the territory of thought crime as soon as we change mediums.

If the fantasy is consensual, Houllie, I'd argue it isn't degrading. I take degrading to infer some kind of force, manipulation, persuasion to participate in something against one's wishes.

So in consensual situations its a fantasy of degradation, not the real thing.

good old moral relativism showing its true colours (putried). No wonder parents are deserting secular based schools in droves.

The article presupposes all women who get involved in pornography do so without their consent. It paints women as helpless victims unable to make conscious decisions. This style of argumentation is too simplistic. The exact argument can be made of men; that they are exploited by women because they are conned into participating in porn, that they were forced to participate beyond their volition. But never would a feminist paint it that way, they would lose their victim status if they did.

The logic used by Pringle is women are passive and intellectually deficient, men are embodied with free will and therefore masters of their destiny at all times. Because Pringle, like most feminists on this issue, argues on emotion and not logic, she ends up with an illogical argument based on the notion that only men have free will and women are determined by men.


The only way anyone should be entitled to compensation is if they were physically forced to participate. Being intellectually stupid in regards to making decisions in directing one's life is not an excuse for compensation.

I also notice Pringle is in the Humanities. Please do not tell me this article represents the type of "logic" you use to influence your students? It's little wonder the Humanities has almost no credibity left if the above is an example of what passes for "logical" argumentation.

"All you will find are women who respect the dignity of others, who support sexual equality and mutuality, and who are opposed to sexual degradation and humiliation."

Sorry Helen, but I disagree with your assertion that pornography affects all women, even if they are not directly involved in the industry.
There are many, many men who view pornography in some form or another, and the women they know are none the wiser and will never be affected by their menfolk having viewed pornography.

It's a big, bad world out there Helen, and there are just as many really nasty women who are in the game of pornography purely for the money, or to feed their drug habits etc, as there are poor women who feel they have no choice but to do porno flicks for various reasons.

These women don't give a damn about how their activities may or may not affect anyone else.

There will always be pornography...as long as there are always people willing to pay for it.

As for Antiseptic's disgusting assertion about how he would feel if his daughter chose to work in the porno industry<
"...If she chose it and she made money at it I'd have no real problem with it, even if I was uncomfortable.
Some porn stars make very good money indeed and sex is a natural activity. What's bad about that?"

Any comments about this by the other fathers on this site?

Thank you for all the comments.

This opinion piece has a fairly limited objective: to note that there is another form of opposition to pornography than that provided by the religious right. Sometimes when I read comments on OOL articles, and not only things I have written but on many other pieces, I feel like saying: can we please get back to the topic at hand! Often the comments seem to be along these lines: you have written a piece about oranges, so why haven't you mentioned apples? or: why haven't you written about the difference between oranges and apples? Here's the main reason: opinion pieces are not books or even articles, they are 600-1000 words long, and the most effective pieces (in my view anyway -- and in the view of op editors) are those where the writer doesn't try to pack too many things or questions into the one piece.

In this piece, I don't set out in any detail my understanding of pornography, all I am doing here is saying that you don't need to be on the religious right to critique it. I briefly mention another ground of opposition to it – on equality grounds - which I then say can be read about in more detail in a recently published book of essays by a wide variety of writers (btw it includes two essays of mine).

Jennifer, I think what is "lazy" is not grappling with the argument at hand, but rather reaching for the quick and easy retort that the writer doesn't cover everything.

And just maybe, the writer has covered it elsewhere.

Helen

Suze, what should I do about it if my daughter was to choose such a path? Should I rant and rave and drive her out? Is that what you'd do?

Now, I realise you don't think much of sex, but most people practise it as much as they can. Our bodies are well-adapted to the task, although my back isn't as strong as once it was. If my daughter (or my son, for that matter, why didn't Ammonite mention him, I wonder?) was to make a quid out of doing it then I really can't see a problem, any more than I'd be able to see a problem if they chose to work as nurses even though I reckon that'd be a waste of their talents as well.

The problem with the original article and with your comments is that you see pornography, in fact sex generally, I suspect, as something done by men to women. What a shame for you.

"In this piece, I don't set out in any detail my understanding of pornography, all I am doing here is saying that you don't need to be on the religious right to critique it"

"I am a woman on the left, and I am opposed to pornography. "

Helen there does not seem to be a lot of room for nuance in that statement. There is no note that you are just speaking of porn that has a focus on degradation and or violence, you are opposed to porn.

You've been writing long enough that I'd be really surprised if you were not aware of the implications of that.

"Sometimes when I read comments on OOL articles, and not only things I have written but on many other pieces, I feel like saying: can we please get back to the topic at hand!"

Sometimes I agree with that however given you've expressed an opposition to porn, not just porn with a clear focus on degradation and or violence I think it's reasonable for those who disagree to choose not to be bound by your terms of reference.

There is perhaps a parallel with feminism itself, some of the strongest opposition comes from the religious right but others have concerns either with all of feminism or parts. If someone declares them self to be opposed to feminism (with no clarification), and uses examples of the harm done by the extremists to point out that their case is different to that of the religious right it's a given that moderate feminists will point out the good done by feminism and that not all are extreme.

suzeonline, why is it disgusting? I don't have a daughter so I can't speak directly to that but one of the things I've accepted is that my son's life choices won't always be mine. There are a whole lot of career choices which would bother me much more, mostly around choices that involved actual harm to others.

R0bert

Oh come on Antiseptic, are you suggesting there is anything 'natural' about the sex involved in porno movies?

Of course I wouldn't throw my daughter out if she 'took this path', but I sure as hell would make a huge noise about this choice, and I would wonder why she had to make this choice too.

Most women in the porno industry also have drug and alcohol problems, and sexually transmitted diseases and violence are rife.
I wouldn't want that for anyone's daughter.

By trying to deflect your apparent appreciation of the 'profession' of pornography by having a go at the profession of nursing and your false perception of my sex life says a lot about you.
There is nothing wrong with my back...

RObert, there are huge amounts of 'harm' done to all active participants in the pornography world, as I have said above.
The mental health issues alone would be enormous.
You would be hard pressed to find a more harmful job, except perhaps a terrorist...

>> If my daughter (or my son, for that matter, why didn't Ammonite mention him, I wonder?) was to make a quid out of doing it then I really can't see a problem, any more than I'd be able to see a problem if they chose to work as nurses even though I reckon that'd be a waste of their talents as well. <<

Anti

If I had been absolutely sure you had a son as well as a daughter - do you think I would've wasted the opportunity to ask whether you would have concerns about your boy working in porn? I am not going to suggest that you are trying to portray me as being only concerned about the welfare of women (although I do believe you are so doing), I'm not and have already expressed concern for my nephew watching extreme porn.

Given your answer regarding your daughter, I assume that you'd have no problems for your son working in the porn industry (as long as he was paid of course). However, I wish to clarify the porn I object is of the extreme variety such as degradation, bestiality not just sex.

My next question is do you see porn as a good career choice for your children as compared to nursing? Your appear to think that nursing is not worthy of their "talents" which is a very low opinion of the nursing profession - where would any of us be without it?

Anti - why not just admit you will say anything as long as it supports your interests - you like porn, fine.

However, I posit you are not at all concerned about the effect EXTREME porn has on anyone including your children. Disturbing. Please correct me if I am wrong.

PS

Could not reply until now due to posting limitations.

You guys are funny.

Suze, if my kids want to do a trade like nursing, I'll support them all the way. It's an honest enough way to earn a living. Shame that it seems to attract so many Mother Grundy types, but such is life. I'd encourage them to move to one of the more challenging parts of the industry like theatre or critical care.

Ammonite, I've already said I'd be uncomfortable, just as I'd be uncomfortable with other choices, but I'd learn to live with them. Over the years I've had to learn to live with all sorts of things I find unpalatable or that make me uncomfortable. I'm sure you've had to do the same.

If it makes you feel better then I'll happily say that I find some of the stuff depicted in porn a long way from titillating, but obviously some like it or it wouldn't get made. We've come a long way from French postcards.

What about prostitution? gambling etc.

Should everyone have the right to sue everyone else for the decisions they made as adults and later regretted?

The law assumes that people over the age of 18 are adults and that they are responsible for the decisions they made. The state is not there to protect people against stupid decisions, only to prevent them being forced into something they don't want.

If someone takes the ready cash that comes from pornography or prostitution, then as adults they have to accept the consequences. Freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes.

@suze

I think it is a difficult question, and depends entirely on the reasoning and thought process of the child in question. I would be proud to have a daughter like Bobbi Starr or a son like Danny Wylde. If you read some of the things they have written about why they do pornography, what they gave up to enter the business and what they hoped to get out of it, and what they actually get out of it, then you can only conclude that they are smart, healthy people fully in control of their own lives. More power to them. I think both are examples of well brought up people.

On the other hand, someone pushed into anything due to drug dependency or lack of options is obviously not a proud moment, regardless of the business in question. There is a real problem with the way that resources are distributed that can make sex work seem a good option. We have to be able to answer the question, 'what will the least privileged people be doing instead if we take away the "least bad" option?' Why not instead ensure there are better options, so that only those who really want to be there are?

I should also say that the 'all are on drugs' stereotype of pornographers isn't as true as you imply. While it certainly happens (just like in all other avenues of life), those who are on drugs, nobody wants to work with. They're difficult, don't turn up on time, and don't have energy or presence. People who are on drugs often do try to enter the industry because they assume they'll be accommodated, but they typically don't last long, and soon move on to claim that they were hardly done by by the industry.

SilverinCanberra

I like your reply to Suzeonline. I am sure that there a few people, just as in prostitution, who make a good living for a time as porn actors. Good on them.

I can think of better ways to make a living (I do mainstream acting when I can) and don't have to worry if my face winds up on in the news - can't say I'd feel the same if my face was associated with porn or prostitution - because society loves a label. Have you noticed how once a person does either prostitution or porn they are labelled as such, losing any other identity. For example, if a woman works as a librarian and is assaulted she is not forever labelled a 'librarian' in news reports, but if she worked as a prostitute, that is the label that will be used.

Of course all the above indicates the difficulties our society has with sex. However, to claim one must be religious to find some forms of porn abhorrent is spurious as you did:

>> It is hard to believe the "I'm not a religious nut and I hate porn" position. <<

Let me be very clear, I am an atheist. That doesn't mean I find all forms of porn acceptable. For other people who are not necessarily religious, full on porn is very confronting - even the relatively tame stuff like coming over a woman's face or anal.

And what does one write on one's CV? Porn acting is not for the long term, especially if you are female. Would like to see some studies into the self esteem and well being of the average porn actor - not just the successful ones.

And I still don't want my niece or nephew winding up in the industry - they have abilities to be engineers or veterinarians (as is the current preference) or any career that will carry them through life far better than the contacts one would make in the porn industry.

*Most women in the porno industry also have drug and alcohol problems, and sexually transmitted diseases and violence are rife.
I wouldn't want that for anyone's daughter.*

Suze, I'd venture to guess that your perception of the world has
more to do with your English/Australian/Victorian background, then
anything.

Australians inherited all that from the Victorian school, where women
were meant to chew an apple and think of England and sex was
dealt with, with the lights out and seldom talked about.

I spent a couple of years in my late teens living in Paris and more
time in other parts of Central Europe, where people were far less
inhibited about sex. Alot of them frankly could not care if they
were filmed having sex or not. Its why the Swedes, the Danes and
the Dutch made so much money out of the industry.

Who bought all their products? People who lived in countries
with a prude attitude to sex, like the English, Australians, Arabs,
Americans and all the rest.

There are some very uninhibited people in the world, clearly you
are not one of them. Fair enough, that is your cultural background.
That does not make your perception of the porn industry in any way
correct however.

You'd be surprised how many Lawyers and Doctors are on drugs man.

There is no such thing any more as an accident or act of stupidity for which one should just shut up in embarasment and be more careful next time.

In regards to the agonizing over different tastes in porn, I don't have any problem with any porn as long as there is consent. Whatever floats your boat. I think it's silly to assume that people value their sexual expereince as something at all connected to their core being or soul. Sure, fine, if that's you, that's you, but if someone is happy with using their sexual and communication skills to get money, how is that any different from being a Hairdresser?

This fixation people have with nudity and sex is irrational and something we should move past and evolve from as humans. I think as a society that's where we should go; Where sex is thought of as a bodily function like eating. Sex and emotion need not have anything to do with each other. I think a stable upbringing would be more possible in these days of long life expectancy if we moved away from this ego-protecting monogamy. We should, as a society, look to embolden the ego to a point where monogamy is not at all necessary for long lasting relationships and public sex and nudity is commonplace and accepted.

I think we're getting there. Advertising is full of quite erotic imagery that nobody looks twice at a lot of the time. The more we saturate the world with sex, the more blase people can become and the hangups will eventually be overcome.

We can and should look forward to a world where people wander around naked and ask strangers for sex at the bus stop, and a polite refusal or acceptance occurs and there are no hard feelings either way.

'Fancy a shag?' should be as common as 'do you have a light?'. Service stations will have a display cabinet of sex toys and Cinemas will have a screen at the front and the back.

@Ammonite

As I said in that original post, I too don't think all pornography is brilliant nor free from bad, even abhorrent messages. The point is more that I don't see how you can paint all pornography with the same brush. Only the religious seems to make such a broad argument. Obvious examples that should be acceptable to the author (as 'not a religious nut'), are a sexy story someone writes to his partner to get them excited before they next see each other, or a video a couple shoot together to get them excited in the future and to learn about each other and remind themselves of their youth in the future. I would argue both are pornography. The question then becomes one of scale and production, rather than all pornography being inherently evil.

Most people will find that there are plenty of genres of pornography that do absolutely nothing for them. Most because the particular proclivities they cater to are not their own. Others because there is a clear problem with the production.

The clearest example of this is child pornography. While there is a clear problem with a 50 year old filming themselves having sex with a 12 year old, I find it difficult to condemn a 16 year old who sends pictures of themselves to a 17 year old partner. The real problem in the later case seems to me to be the person who makes the images public.

It seems to me there are a couple of words missing from this topic title. What it should have read is,

“ Pornography: Who’s sleeping with whom?”, & who the hell cares.

Now that fits the mood of the times better.

Mother Grundy is deeply concerned, Hasbeen.

Mother Grundy is always concerned about other people doing as they choose.

She seems to be calling herself a Feminist these days. Who'd have thunk?

Didn't Grundy make Sons and Daughters? These two kids fell in love and didn't know they were brother and sister. It was quite the scandal, and who was going to tell them.

Why are people going on about child stuff that's already illegal. Under 16 cant give consent there's no probs there.

A letter to you on a cassette
'Cause we don't write anymore
Gotta make it up quickly
There's people asleep on the second floor
There's no aphrodisiac like loneliness
Truth beauty and a picture of you
You'll be walking your dog in a few hours
I'll be asleep in my brother's house
You're a thousand miles away
With food between your teeth
Come up for summer I've got a place near the beach
There's room for your dog
There's no aphrodisiac like loneliness
Truth beauty and a picture of you
There's no aphrodisiac like loneliness
Youth truth beauty fame boredom and a bottle of pills
There's no aphrodisiac like loneliness
You shouldn't leave me alone
There's no aphrodisiac like loneliness
Bare feet like a tom-boy and a crooked smile
Truth youth beauty fame boredom red hair no hair innocence
Saturday and a picture of you
A letter to you on a cassette
You shouldn't leave me alone
Forty shaved sexy wants to do it all day
With a gun-totin' trigger-happy tranny named Kinky Rene
Tired teacher twenty-eight seeks regular meetings for masculine muscular nappy-clad brutal breeding
While his wife rough-wrestles with a puppy all aquiver
on a wine-soaked strobe-lit Asiatic hall of mirrors and a dash of loneliness
There's no aphrodisiac quite like it
Truth youth beauty fame boredom red hair no hair innocence impunity and a picture of you
I got a video set-up me love you short time she pay me suck his finger with some fine wine

I don't think this article is advocating censorship of pornography at all.

I think a lot of people miss the point that porn is a product, a business, a VERY profitable business, actually... for a few people. Most porn actors are poorly paid for what they do and for the income they generate for others.

Porn films and the industry as a whole should be critiqued just like any other big business. We should question the effects it has on our culture, and I think you'd be pretty naieve to suggest that porn has not had a massive effect on our culture.

People are so damn defensive about porn, it's bizarre. No one is saying it should be banned or you shouldn't watch it at all or it's all bad, but the fact is mainstream porn has changed a lot in recent years and humiliation of women seems to be a big part of it.

Even porn actors like James Deen (known for doing some rather hardcore stuff) have expressed opinions on it, saying the idea that a woman should be "punished" for being sexual is both depressing and boring.

I also think it's kind of hilarious the way some people think porn is so modern and/or cutting edge, when a lot of the stereotypes it reinforces are so very traditional, sexist and racist.

Well said Chloeraina.

Porn has been around a long, long time, and I agree it is certainly not cutting edge, however as you said , porn is big business, and while there is big money to be made, the pornography world will do anything to keep people interested.

I doubt we can ever stop it though...

SilverinCanberra

>> While there is a clear problem with a 50 year old filming themselves having sex with a 12 year old, I find it difficult to condemn a 16 year old who sends pictures of themselves to a 17 year old partner. <<

Absolutely agree. It is a ridiculous state that a teenager can wind up with a criminal record because of sending (or receiving) nude photos.

The law continues to be an ass. Men and women continue to have unrealistic expectations of each other.

At least I can choose what I watch and what I read.

So it goes.

chloeraina, "No one is saying it should be banned or you shouldn't watch it at all or it's all bad"

Are you sure about that? Helen may have more nuanced views expressed elsewhere but in this article she says

"I am a woman on the left, and I am opposed to pornography." - sounds a lot like it's all bad.

Most of the religious objectors would go with the "you shouldn't watch it at all" and "it's all bad" description and the more vocal of the feminist opponents rarely seem to differentiate in their objections.

This article is quite specifically not advocating official censorship, rather trying to increase the social pressures on makers and users of porn by a one sided negative portrayal of porn.

Social censorship can be very effective form of censorship.

R0bert

R0bert:"Social censorship"

George Lakoff prefers the term "progressive debate framing"...

the closet communists have an extremely short memory.

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm ladies please read all of this, but especially #24, #25, #26, #40 & #41.

suzeonline, or any other feMANazis care to comment on this link?

you have carefully manufactured your own problems, then complain about your own self inflicted injuries?

What is wrong with you?

do you have Munchausen's disease?

Or do you have Munchausen's by proxy? like the crazy desperate for attention mother who poisons her own children?

Formerrsnag <"suzeonline, or any other feMANazis care to comment on this link?"
Ooh, I love it when you talk rough, Neversnag!

This link is about pornography, not communism.
Start your own thread.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12579#217626

suzeonline, the link i posted was about feMANazi/communists promoting pornography. Did you not read that, or are you lying deliberately, or are you too brain dead to understand the direct link between these 2 issues?

Oh come now, Formersnag, there's no need for that level of attack. I don't think feminists are out to destroy the world. Indeed, some of the best arguments for pornography come from avowed feminists.

@chloeraina, suzeonline
While it may have been correct to argue in the heyday of Playboy, and even up to the turn of the millennium that pornography was big business, that isn't true today. Record numbers of pornographic companies have been closing over the last three to four years. Rates for all involved have declined as studios can no longer afford to pay the rates they did 10 years ago. The rise of amateur pornography and the increase in piracy has meant there is far less money then in times past.

I agree that pornography should be critiqued as any other business or product. All for it. The trouble is that rarely happens. Indeed, I'd say it is over-critiqued for what it is. It is a luxury good, certainly, but the conditions and messages are overanalysed compared with other luxury goods. Consumer electronics manufactured in China in very poor conditions, using rare-Earth metals mined by children in Africa. Diamonds, which are also a purely luxury good, which come with the hidden costs of blood of innocents. Gold mining and the associated environmental damage gets little attention. Indeed, in terms of gender implications, jewellery and the expectation many women have that the men in the lives provide them with it, is just as worthy of debate as pornography, but gets no coverage at all. That's not to say any of these things are evil, or can't be produced or consumed ethically. So yeah, proper critique, sure, but some perspective too.

@isabelberner (Helen) I don't think requesting that someone making a critique of pornography or those who oppose it should first define her terms is complaining that the writer doesn't cover everything. The definition of terms in such an argument is a fairly foundational requirement I think, and in this argument, absolutely essential. When you use the word pornography, I don't know your meaning because you don't tell me.

Perhaps you have defined your terms in other places, but it is a little arrogant for a writer to assume every reader is fully acquainted with everything the writer has written. One should surely start from the assumption that one's views are not universally known no matter if they've been previously publicly expressed, unless one is enormously famous for them.

In this debate, there is enormous confusion and disagreement about what is actually being defined as pornographic and why. This is one of the major difficulties in addressing the topic and a major reason why people with very good intentions and very good arguments consistently get an awful lot of other people off-side.

'It is a luxury good, certainly, but the conditions and messages are overanalysed compared with other luxury goods. .... Indeed, in terms of gender implications, jewellery and the expectation many women have that the men in the lives provide them with it, is just as worthy of debate as pornography, but gets no coverage at all.'

Ah so very true! But all those other things you mention don't involve s-e-x. Sex is on this pedestal where people think it must remain personal or spiritual or 'pure' to everyone. But therein lies the paradox. It's the people who think sex should be behind closed doors that want control over how others percieve and express their sexuality.

If sex is something apart, something personal, not to be turned into a comodity, it's also something for which individual expression must rule; If some guys are into violent porn, ie fantasy, who is to tell them this private kink is not allowed to be entertained.

The feminist critique I often read about laments that women have their sexuality defined by men due to porn culture that caters for mens taste. But, somehow, this rejection of mens fantasy in porn by feminists doesn't count as women defining what is allowable male sexual fantasy. What a surprise!

PS: With the jewlery thing, you have to look it through a woman=victim lens. Even though the social expectation is on the man to provide a symbol of his provider ability, status and intentions, any feminist will see it as an abusive 'owning of women' by the abusive patriarchical male.

Yes, the feminist is more than happy for men to continue to compete for women's affection with trinkets and sparkly things, but not for women to have 'unrealistic expectations' thrust upon them via consumption of porn. That and it's always a source of feminist resentment for men to have their sexual needs gratified or to be allowed any sexual fantasies independent of the women they bought diamonds for.

All this talk of pornography has got me thinking, why is "porn culture" so different from what I (speaking as the universal "I", because I don't believe porn is a particularly good representation of what *anyone* finds arousing) think of as arousing? What would "good" porn look like?

Porn culture is just that - a culture. It has grown up out of a situation where women were, arguably, highly disadvantaged. Let's say, it has its roots in the era when people first started manipulating bodies and using cameras (comic strip/animated porn doesn't count because actually, some of that's rather good!). Porn developed within something of a cultural vacuum, inhabited by a small, fringed-off clique of pornographers whose only source of inspiration was their knowledge of what sold - and the fact that it wasn't widely talked about allowed it to morph into this monster which inflates women's breasts to an unnatural size and causes men to withdraw *before* they ejaculate. What a mess!

But when I for one first came across pornographic magazines - I turned 11 before the internet was invented - I remember having a very strong reaction of "that's not what real people are like!". And that's been my reaction to "pure" porn ever since. Some peaple have even tried to write about this:http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/169/1/sexuality.pdf. So what I'm thinking is, I'm almost tempted to try to write a porn film myself, which would satisfy the dual exigencies of good taste and intelligent titillation, but isn't far-fetched or degrading. I remember reading recently that a panel of some sort had voted the spanking scene in Secretary as the best sex scene in mainstream cinema. My personal favourites are those in Lust:Caution and My Own Private Idaho. What these scenes have in common is discretion. They don't just lay it all out; they leave something to the imagination. The eroticism they evoque comes from what the sex acts mean to the relationships between the characters, rather than from the acts themselves, or the bodies that are doing it. So that can be my starting point! Anyone wanna fund me? Helen??

'What would "good" porn look like? '

What does good food taste like? What does good music sound like? It depends on the individual. The point is there should be no arbiter of such.

I get the feeling the feminist authors who critique pornography have done their 'research' by going into some dodgy DVD shop and buying titles like The Penetrator with an actor with a Terminator eye. That kind of pulp.

It's akin to someone lamenting food, and saying it's all unhealthy and tastes like crap, but they do their research on this wide ranging topic of food, by going to Maccas and KFC.

Doesn't mean Maccas and KFC are all bad either, I sometimes eat them.

Everything has it's place, the point is why does the feminist assume to be the arbiter of what is suitable male fantasy. That very act is an attempt to define what should turn men on, which is basically an attemnpt to define male sexuality in their own narrow (and female) vision, aggressively controlling mens fantasy and turning into some kind of thought crime.

There is no corresponding innitiative to ensure womens sexual fantasy is acceptable to men. Many men find Mills and Boon as distasteful as women find aggressive domineering porn. SO they read other things. Men, in general, have decided women like overblown romantic cheezy crap, and they leave them to it. Women could do the same for men who like agressive gang bang porn.

Women in relationships could be said to act out this soap opera pulp at a similar rate to men attempting to immitate their favourite porno. But both men and women have equal opportunity to assert and express what they want from a sexual/romantic relationship. Why do we assume women are victims to mens sexual tastes (supposedly corrupted by porn) but men are not victims to womens romantic tastes (corrupted by Home and Away)

Anyway, as I said and as SilverInCanberra has alluded to, the x-rated DVD porn market is on the brink anyway.

PS: Degrading is also subjective and how many rom-coms are 'far-fetched'.

By "good porn" I'm referring to pornography that people like Helen Pringle would find acceptable. As I think I remember saying earlier, I don't think the article puts up a convincing argument for why the concept of pornography is bad - only that some forms of it - ie those that depict women in unedifying situations - are toxic. But that doesn't necessarily have to be the case... and I wonder whether anti-porn activists might receive some level of frission from sexually explicit material that gets its eroticism from the emotional realm rather than the physical. Presumably these people have some sort of sex drive?

In any case, subtle, nuanced pornography strikes me as far more tasteful and powerful than what you normally get. Of course taste is subjective, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't capable of educating and improving their tastes.