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