Pynchme, CJ and Foxy

Great posts all. I don't believe censorship is the answer either. I'm sure porn is a guilty pleasure for a lot of men - and that shouldn't be a problem. But I have to wonder how a man who watches a lot of porn actually performs as a real life lover.

I read Robert Jensen's article, Pynchme - a graphic and honest piece of writing. Have to wonder how porn is justified by consumers, maybe they tell themselves that the women are well-paid (most aren't) or that the women actually enjoy it.

Quick poll:

How many women would like to be treated as sexual receptacles - a living breathing toilet? What percentage?

_____

High enough to justify the preponderance of porn depicting such 'fanasties'? Well, clearly enough consumers to justify the industry. If men sincerely want to know what turns women on, suggest lesbian porn - made for and by women.

pynchme, "As Cornflower points out, some earlier playboy pics seem almost quaint - therefore pornography reflects something of the sexual revolution."

No, not right. I gave that example as a spin-off and excess as it would have been seen then, of the Sixties Sexual Revolution.

The Sexual Revolution was well and truly over before the grotty stuff you want to credit it with got going. If not for the Sixties Sexual Revolution, research on the sexuality of women and men would never have been publicised. That was not earth shattering stuff, but it was banned.

Feminism and other movements for example for gay rights, co-opted and re-engineered the 'sexual revolution' to suit their needs.

I don't particularly care if you want to lapse into the familiar 'f' territory of awful, disgusting men and pornography, but it is historically dishonest to credit the Sixties Sexual Revolution which achieved so much, especially in liberating women and men (didn't have to list them separately back then, all were in it together) from the yoke of a most restrictive, authoritarian State that in sexual matters was a tool of fundamentalist religions, especially te then powerful Roman Catholic Church.

Robert Jensen's article pushes the agenda of radical feminism, which provides endless examples of rhetoric and spin, but has never been known for factual correctness and honesty.

What you have done is hijack the thread for yet another 'f' rant on pornography. Your obsession and a certain thread killer.

Severin,

Thanks - you seem always to understand where I'm coming from.

It was interesting to me to read Jensen's article too. I found it when I was searching for this Dworkin quote:

<"I don’t believe rape is inevitable or natural. If I did, I would have no reason to be here [speaking to a conference of men]. If I did, my political practice would be different than it is. Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It’s not because there’s a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence.” >

Beaut quote isn't it.

Anyway, I can't imagine going through any of the humiliations and contortions depicted in porn just for a brief shudder.

Which when reading what he was saying; that men are not getting anything good out of it:

<"If empathy is part of what makes us human, and pornography requires that men repress empathy, then we have to ask a rather difficult question. While men watch pornography, are men human?">

I don't know, but if the faculty for empathy IS impaired, I wondered what is happening in relationships.

Cornflower, It's true that I have a primary interest in masculine and feminine identity and how they interact. BFD. It's important socially, intellectually and in my everyday work. If you disapprove please just bypass my posts.

Pynchme, "Cornflower, It's true that I have a primary interest in masculine and feminine identity and how they interact. BFD. It's important socially, intellectually and in my everyday work. If you disapprove please just bypass my posts."

It is not a case of disapproving or not. What you are on about has nothing to do with the Sixties Sexual Revolution and you are just using it as an excuse to vent. How professional is that?

Why not start your own thread instead of hijacking?

Well Cornflower, I disagree.

How can we say that the sexual revolution (decrease in traditional constraints on sexual activity; increasing tolerance for casual sex and all that) has nothing to do with pornography - being one means of sexual expression ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution#Normalization_of_pornography

I would say that mass communications has also contributed to the normalization of more liberal sexual attitudes. So that's another potential area for discussion.

I thought this thread had been declared dead; did you have some other plans for it?

Pynchme,

Again you misquote, I said that the Sixties Sexual Revolution challenged repression that was implemented through laws against obscenity and pornography.

You are back in your familiar 'f' rut about nasty men, with pornography 'proving' they are even nastier than anyone might dream in their most horrific nightmares. Next you will be saying that you have a male partner which is supposed to be taken as 'proof' you are not just disrespecting and mauling men for your own gratification.

It is so predictable, but what about letting it all rip in your very own thread for once and not hijack?