When White Males Attack: Larry Flynt, Racism and The Left

Er, right this makes sense

Anyway moving on...

Right okay getting straight into it - this reveals a great deal about your attitude to sex. Okay so you know I'm a bloke, and I guess you correctly assume I'm heterosexual.

So you see sex as a process by which the man (or dominant male amongst gay men) fucks and demeans the woman, right? (Because if not why wouldn't you ask me "if it's no better or worse than other work, are you saying you'd prefer to fuck loads of beautiful women every and get paid for it", no?)

You're implying there's something inherently demeaning about sucking cock, taking it up the arse or having your face come on.

Sorry but I don't have those ridiculous attitudes to sex so this line of argument doesn't bother me, sorry.

It is a fact that some women choose to work in the porn industry over other careers. Fair enough on them. I am opposed to the entire system of wage labour and capitalist exploitation - singling out one industry is counter-productive in combatting this.

Everyone's coerced to work by capitalism. And how are you ever going to stop people working in pornography, in a society based on work??

Why do they have to be gay? ???

Yeah sorry I do - I'm talking about pornography - the making and distribution of images, sound or text designed to arouse people sexually.

What is it you're even trying to do? You don't want porn banned, so... what?

This question doesn't even make any sense at all - why ask such a ridiculous question?

Ah you Americans, eh...

Ah c'mon you know I love Americans

American lefties certainly don't though, ha ha

First i'd just like to point out that im not the fucking spokesperson for the "porn industry" and that im opposed to it as i am to any other industry. I would also like to point out that under no illusion that many and i'd say the majority of porn "produce and reproduce bipolar, hierarchical, oppositional experiences and understandings of gender" as liberation put it. Having said that i refuse to to attack "porn" in itself ie "the making and distribution of images, sound or text designed to arouse people sexually" as the right honourable indie poof put it

I feel that to be anti porn is either essentially meaningless or at worst reactionary and only serves to increase the sexual repression and guilt that a great many people feel about their sexualities. I hold that pornography is not and does not always have to reinforce gender binaries or heterosexist seuxal assumptions. I also feel that the critiques of porn tend to overestimate the role of porn in patriarchy, and give very little credit to the viewer to critically interact with the text themselves. The focus on the consumption of porn and the implicit moral condemnation of those who enjoy it is essentially missing the point, it isolates pornography from the totality of the commodity and does nothing of value for either the consumers of porn or the workers in the industry.

Saying you are anti porn must mean you are in favour of a ban or wish to assert moral, political or economic leverage in order to put an end to it, or you just want to sit on some sort of smug moral highground. If it is a matter of personal taste then it makes as much sense as for someone to describe themselves as anti marmite (a topic even more controversial than porn).

I am opposed to any attempt to ban pornography a) because it would only serve to strenghten the very forces that underpin hierarchial relations in a much more concrete way than porn b) people should be free to record, distribute and enjoy acts of consensual sex commited to any median they wish. c) It would put a great many sex workers at much greater risk and would criminalise millions of people d) it would do fuck all to stop the abuse and general oppression of women, afterall porn was unavailable in Ireland for decades yet domestic abuse and rape weren't exactly rare.

I am oppose do people using moral, political or economic leverage to attempt to get rid of porn because a) it won't work, pornography is as old as human representation itself b) it only adds to the stigma and guilt around sex that is so prevalent and ironically which gives porn much of it's appeal c) Porn is a very vague term and I see no reason why anyone should feel guilt or remorse for wanking off to people having consentual sex d) it also overlooks the views of people involved in the making of porn, perhaps the sex workers have a right to decide their own methods of struggle instead of having someone no involved in the industry (and lets be honest more than likely college educated) come down and anounce boycotts (sorry girlcotts ) in their name.

If your aim is to take the moral highground as some sort of purer person who has escaped patriarchial conditioning, may I suggest that you can politely fuck off. this does nothing to further the struggle against damaging gender binaries. Such an attitude will do little to endear you to anyone other than smug righteous fuckwits, and perhaps thats why Dworkin and MacKinnon felt so comfortable with the christian right.

well I would actually consider myself a very sensitive peron. I do not wish to patholgise feminists, i merely take issue with some feminists attempt to pathologise peoples subjective sexualities and I wonder if this need to police other peoples sexualities says something more about the analyst than the patient. I also think it's ironic that it has been claimed that pro porners have personalised the thread and subtle accused anti porn posters of being frigid or feminazis. From my reading i have seen many people try to equate a defence of pornography with a desire to keep women in their place as sex machines, underhand comments about peoples masturbation habits in what looks like a childish attempt to instill embarassment or guilt. Now it is claimed that a defence of porn makes you an insensitive patriarch. The fact that your first post on these boards is to come on and attack someone for being a patriarch is indicative of the ad hoc, pathetic, moralistic and one dimensional approach that has helped push millions of men and women away from feminism, rather like the Communist Party did for socialism.

So what is the goal of self described anti porn activists? Is it cultural criticism, like we have of films or books? Is it about critiquing the underladen assmuptions in porn texts? If it is then one would expect a much more nuanced approach that recognised difference within pornography and didn't condemn a whole median. One would also expect a more sophiscated approach to pornography eg reader response theory, deoturnement etc From what I have seen if cultural critique is the goal, it's less subtle than the Talibans review of Buddhist architecture.

Is it a campaign focussing on the exploitation of the women in porn? If so one would expect the voices, desires and needs of those women to be the starting point for any activism. I have yet to see any evidence of this other than approaching sex workers as one dimensional victims who need rescuing. I would also expect to see an analysis of the wider economy in order to get some understanding as to what pulls or pushes people into porn. Activism revolving around this would probably involve campaigning for better rights, health and safety and pushing for greater regulation of the porn industry.

I have no desire to do any alienated labour at all. But im forced to and I make limited choices depending on the options open to me. Some would rather work miminum wage than do sex work, whilst some women would rather do sex work than get mimium wage doing something else. Why don't you ask the women doing porn why they have chosen that work over others? Do you think they made the wrong choice, do you not think they are capable of deciding their best option within a limited scope? If a porn star told you she did it because it was to her less degrading than waiting tables for mimium wage or working in a call centre would you then go out and start a campaign against restraunts? Would you start an anti restraunt campaign? Would you stop eating out yourself?

As for preferring antiporn feminists to be knitting or breastfeeding well thats just ridiculous. I would prefer if they did something useful or even intelligent, if they put their energies into their own struggles. If they work in a restrautn start fighting back there? If they are unemployed they should organise around welfare issues etc basically they should be trying to remove the barriers that push people into porn rather than preaching at people for watching it. Perhpas they could even carry out studies into the sex industry, find out what issues those involved in it have and how they can help them in their struggles. If they are opposed to pornography cos the majority of it is msygonist, then maybe they should set about finding other people who want to explore depictions of sexuality that move beyond sexist gendertyping, if they just don't like watching people have sex then they can just avoid watching pornography.

I fail to see how pornography produces the surbordination of women. Violence and oppression of women exists in many cultures which have no pornography. I agree that a great many women are harmed in the production of porn, but what i would ask sets it apart form many other industries which rely on cheap female labour? I also take issue with the idea that women are harmed by the consumption of pornography, I have yet to see a porno tape beat a women. This line of argument is taken logically would mean also focussing on movies which show violence to women, how about movies which show war and help reproduce the oppression of men via militarism and the glamourisation of violence? What about banning computer games which put you in the role of protaganists who take part in violence?

Also what about thsoe women who enjoy pornogrpahy, my ex girlfriend quite enjoyed porn every now and then, and her two mates who lived together had a huge porn collection, with some stuff that I found rather disturbing personally. but hey it didn't seem to be doing them any harm. If they wanna watch japanese bukkake porn thats their business. Infact a great deal of my female friends use pornography without any demonstrable harm to themselves. Likewise I use porn myself and yet i think I have a very healthy view of women.

As for cambodian children, well im afraid thats quite a different story from porn, in much the same way paedophilia is a different story than sex. And raising such hyperbolic statements just serves to descredit your argument.

You seem to be mistaking a defence of pornography and peoples rights to enjoy it with a defence of wage labour, alienation and economic coercion. I have no desire to defend the porn industry, any more than I would wish to defend the fucking sports shoes industry.

Im also well aware as to why women are paid so well to be naked (you fail to acknowledge that they also get naked in front of other women), on a simple level it's about supply and demand, but this itself is rooted in thousands of years of culture, division of labour and the sexual repression. I think you'll find that patriarchy is not a single unified system and that it is merely a term to cover a wide range of phenomena which have negative impact on women. Patriachial societies also value chasity and purity, i don't think Iranian society "values" prostitution very much.

So if someone does make porn which attempt sot move away from sexist narratives are they not pornographers themselves? There are plenty of people out there making their own porn. As I said before even the major companies understand that there is money to be made in diversifying and finding niche markets. My point is that it is possible to have porn that no longer reproduces negative gender discourses but it would still be made with alienated labour. Of course it all depends on a very subjective interpretation of what constitutes a negative gender discourse eg some people find s&m to be negative whilst others don't. Some people see not problem in fantasy dynamics whilst others will.

this is just absurd, you act as if boys approach porn as tabla rosa, they don't. Infact from the experiances relayed to me from straight female friends most boys aren't flipping them around and fucking them in 20 different mad cap positions, before jizzing on their face. They are wriggling around on top of them before blowing their load within 10 minutes. I can wathc a porn of some girl having sex with guys without ever wishing to be part of that myself. As for being tunrt on by flat images of women. i don't think prn has to teach anyone that. I remember being turned on just watching attractive women on tv, ffs I remember finding the Caramel bunny arousing for some strange reason.

If your looking for something to blame for reprodcing sexost discourse i reckn you would be better starting on womens lifestyle magazines, of course i would criticise any campaign agaisnt them as one dimensional and counter productive as well.

liberation -

besides the valid critique that has already been made of your post's occasional illogic

(for example, while you say "noone is for banning porn" it does sound like you are interested in banning porn, and you certainly sound like you're speaking for "women" as a class, vs. a specific subset of women who are victimized by brutal capitalist practices like kidnaping, etc.)

why are you ignoring the points that i have made, and that lucy82 has made, in order to address the points that men have made?

the reason that people keep talking about "why not other options to attack these same issues" whether that's women's lifestyle mags, sneaker sweatshops or whatever, is because the question of sexuality is insanely complex in this culture.

while sexuality is usefully addressed and questioned, that sense of nuance and complexity usually isn't apparent from the feminists who make porn their main issue (this is in my experience, at any rate).

(perhaps revol made that point in his looooong post, but i couldn't get through the whole thing. maybe tomorrow.)

yeah, i wondered that too. could it be simply an example of reading only the shoutier bits of the thread? although it does look like certain posters have been singled out because they are male.

as for the rest of it.. well, from what i've read of it, good post revol.

sorry about that long rambling post, the spelling is awful as usual but I was just a tad fed up with having my position twisted into

"revol hates women and believes he and other leftist males have a divine right to violate the female body !!!!1111!1!!!"

It is interesting how anti porn feminists seem to just side step those women who disagree with them, almost like they're not there. Then again when you;ve got the weight of the world on your shoulders trying to save womanhood you've really got no time to listen to impetuous little children who don't know whats good for them.

Of course MacKinnon had a great justification "women under patriarchy are incapable fo giving any meaningful consent". Well thats just fine and dandy isn't it, of course MacKinnon and her mate Dworkin will therefore take that terrible work load of these women, free will is a terrible burden to carry and who knows many women might kid themselves into thinking they enjoy pornography.

It's very sad to see anarchist feminists pushing Leninist sloppy seconds as critical insights. MacKinnons whole outlook is underpinned by a kind of female "trade union consciousness" that means educated middle class women like her have to inject good feminist politics into the rest of the "sisterhood".

Revol, that long post above wins this indie poof's seal of approval. You have more patience than me!

yea, revol, i repeated your points. and you made them right up near the top too of your post too.

patience = not my virtue...

i'd just like to draw extra special attention to this bit:

bravo! incidentally, does liberation's line here not reproduce the logic of that grand old sexist defence of rape, in which the victim is attacked for dressing too provocatively around men, those mindless one-dimensional automata, who then could not help themselves from getting their wrench out? in this case, the corrupting influence is displaced onto porn, but ultimately it's every bit as guilty of letting rapists and abusers 'off the hook' as the former.

it also defeats me how people can take a cute little deconstructive pun like that and take it absolutely dogmatically seriously. "histeria" is an etymological joke, a parody, not a fiery condemnation. that's the point - that's its power.

To John, from liberation:

I do believe the "you must be talking of banning porn" knee-jerk reaction to antiporn feminists, says far more about men's (and pro-porn women's) histeria than antiporn feminists' agendas. No feminist I know has advocated "banning" porn. Not that a capitalist patriarchy would do such a thing, so wipe your brows, fellas. The porn flow will not be stopping anytime soon, and if it does, it will likely be because, increasingly, consumers are

a. tiring of it,

b. bored with it,

c. too addicted to it to get their "work" done, or

d. those affected negatively by it are finally getting through to those consumers and producers who are invested in it, financially and sexually.

Given the invisibilitiy and/or denial of the harm to women in and out of porn, I would expect the porn industry to "dry up" so to speak, only because of how it is affecting men, not because capitalist patriarchy gives a shit about women used and abused in systems of prostitution, which includes the porn industry.

John: Right okay getting straight into it - this reveals a great deal about your attitude to sex. Okay so you know I'm a bloke, and I guess you correctly assume I'm heterosexual.

Your comments say more to me about YOUR sexuality and your views of sex, and I shall take time to analyse what your comments reveal.

See next posts.

John: So you see sex as a process by which the man (or dominant male amongst gay men) fucks and demeans the woman, right? (Because if not why wouldn't you ask me "if it's no better or worse than other work, are you saying you'd prefer to fuck loads of beautiful women every and get paid for it", no?)

No. First of all you are decontextualising my comments, which is a convenient but ineffective strategy typical of those whose lenses have trouble perceiving institutionalised misogyny as such. I see patriarchy as a system of uncivilisation in and through which "men fuck women, subject verb object", as Catharine MacKinnon has astutely noted. And "fuck" does not mean "made love with", to clarify the semantics.

To put my comments back in context, I am talking about the degradation that is endemic in the porn industry, not what you do or do not do in sexual-political arena of your own pro-patriarchal bedroom, unless you are a producer of porn, that is, and film yourself dehumanising, exploiting, and degrading others is your cup of capitalist-patriarchal tea.

So, to ground this back in something called reality, the porn industry mass produces the dehumanisation of people, especially women. Those women also endure varying degrees of exploitation, abuse, and misogyny. This obviously is not "real" to you. That's your privilege showing: you don't have to know. Some of us do not have the luxury of "not knowing" about this particular system/industry of anti-humanitarianism, harm, and injustice. Jack gets to call it irrelevant. That only shows Jack to be grossly insensitive to these political issues.

John: (Because if not why wouldn't you ask me "if it's no better or worse than other work, are you saying you'd prefer to fuck loads of beautiful women every and get paid for it", no?)

(Because I'm talking about reality, not fantasy-land. In the real world, in the real porn industry, it is lots of men fucking women and other men. Not the other way around. Show me ONE porn video where a man is forcibly gang-raped by women, or where a man is coercively or forcibly fucked by a half dozen or more women, and then I'll entertain your absurd question.)

John: You're implying there's something inherently demeaning about sucking cock, taking it up the arse or having your face come on.

Wrong again. The degree to which you misunderstand my points tells me a lot about how successful patriarchy is in controlling your perceptions of reality. You might want to get your eyes checked by an antipatriarch. I'm not "implying" anything of the sort. I'm saying (not implying) that if you were IN THE PORN INDUSTRY, getting used and fucked and cum on by lots of men, you would then be in the position to tell me how "liberating" that experience was for you, or how "just like every other job you've had" it was. Until then, you are, sir, in no position to know, and are, therefore, not qualified to make such declarations that all demeaning work is equally or similarly demeaning.

More next post.

When the fuck does that ever happen in normal porn??? Jeez, no wonder your pov is so skewed if that's what you think most porn is like.

John: Sorry but I don't have those ridiculous attitudes to sex so this line of argument doesn't bother me, sorry.

Well, then, I guess that's something we have in common, eh? I also don't think "sex" is inherently anything, other that what it is at any given time, in any given society, among any given people. What porn makes sex into, however, can be analysed, as well as the degree to which that "sexxx" becomes peoples' sexlives. That you seem to equate sexxx with sex only tells me how damaged by the porn industry, and by patriarchy generally, you have been. It also indicates to me your relatively high level of privilege to "not know" much about the harm to women's civil status and human dignity the porn industry is determined to produce and reproduce.

John: It is a fact that some women choose to work in the porn industry over other careers. Fair enough on them. I am opposed to the entire system of wage labour and capitalist exploitation - singling out one industry is counter-productive in combatting this.

Interestingly avoidant argument and logic. So, what exactly are YOU doing, in your day to day life, to combat this "entire system of wage labour and capitalist exploitation", besides jerking off to porn, I mean. What form does your anti-capitalist activism take, John? I'm all ears. Enlighten me about what the "real work" is that would be "really effective". Until you can detail such actions and detail how they will result in women not being sexually exploited and degraded, I will continue on with my own activist work. But I am waiting with bated breath for your "better agenda".

John: Everyone's coerced to work by capitalism. And how are you ever going to stop people working in pornography, in a society based on work??

We could start by collectively requiring the porn industry to use condoms on every penis being filmed or photographed, thereby saving lives, and collectively boycott the industry until this is accomplished, verifiably, by responsible workers in the industry. The porn industry won't do this, though, because it will "reduce sales" which tells you a bit about the porn industry's "humanitarian" priorities.

More next post.

John: Why do they [those in the industry] have to be gay? ???

Because I didn't want to recommend that you go through the ordeal of transsexual surgery so you could be in "lesbian" or "trans" porn. Duh. Nor did I wish to recommend that you use and/or harm women in the porn industry.

John: ...I'm talking about pornography - the making and distribution of images, sound or text designed to arouse people sexually.

Well, that comment of yours sure tells me how little you know about the porn industry. You think its "designed" to "arouse people sexually"? Why are the women's vulvas shaved then, and why are their breasts pumped with silicone, and why do men pull their hair and stuff their faces in toilets? Why are women raped or "pseudo-raped" if the industry's main goal is to "arouse people sexually"? Are you "aroused sexually" by rape scenes, John? If so, score more points for patriarchy, and the porn industry in particular. What industries teach males that dehumanised, objectified, exploited, degraded, battered, raped, and killed women is "sex"? What industries teach men that they have a "right" (a 24/7 right) to visual or physical access to women, regardless of what women want? What industries make sexxxism into sex to the degree that many men and women don't, experientially, know the difference?

Yup, you just revealed to me and everyone else how dehumanised your sexuality is. I'm sorry that that's the case, but I'm not surprised: the porn industry is "designed" to do exactly that. And that is what it does, primarily. If it were in the business of turning people on, why are so many people utterly bored with or desperately addicted to porn? Why the racism and anti-Semitism, and other forms of ethnic bigotry and pro-misopedic (pro-child-hating) images? Even ardent porn consumers complain about the increasingly violent content of porn. Hustler magazine sales have gone DOWN since Bruce David took the helm, showing only shaved vulvas because they then look more like those of prepubescent girls. And he's fond of women completely encased in bondage gear the likes of which I'm not sure is actually sold (yet) to the public. Check out the images on www.hustlingtheleft.com and tell me what Hustler is "designed" to sell the public, John. Get back to me on this, please, but only after a thorough review of the slide shows on that site. I'm waiting...

are you working in the porn industry then liberation?

I mean I'm saying that if you were IN THE PORN INDUSTRY, you would then be in the position to tell me how terrible that experience was for you or how "unlike any other job you've ever had" it was. Untill then, using your own logic, you are, sir, in no position to know, and are, therefore, not qualified to make such declarations.

there is a certain pomposity to your posts that is profoundly irritating and a degree of personal attack which is unjustified and rather odd given that it is aimed solely at the men posting on here rather than women like myself and dot. personally i broadly agree with the views of revol and john on this subject which no doubt means i too am blinded by patriarchy.

how arrogant.

see redtwister you thought i was making up these mad feminists who pathologise peoples sexualities.

Liberation fancy telling me what puts you in a position to criticise anyones sexuality?

This is elitist wank, your meta narrative of female sexual victimhood stands in judgement over everyones subjective desires. You and your MacKinnon reading mates will speak for all women, you will condemn anyone who doesn't agree with you as "indoctrinated" or "brutalised" by patriarchy.

I really can't be arsed having another debate with someone who thinks that some second rate pseudo intellectual radical feminist "theory" should be put ahead of peoples complex sexualities.

Why have you picked out men to have this argument with? Who the fuck do you think you are to accuse people you have never meet of being abusers of women and implying their sex lives reproduce and legitimise violence against women? Why won't you respond to dot or lucy?

And why have you not responding to any of the points I made? I responded politely to everyone of your posts, yet all you do is pick out a male poster who has made a few posts on this thread and tried to "shame" and embarrass him into silence with disgusting implications about his private life.

It is smug, self satisfied and, lets face it, hysterical feminists like you who have made a laughing stock of womens issues. When the world gets to complex for you all you can do is scream some shit slogan. When you try to assert your simplistic analysis to something as complex as sexuality you show yourselves up as no better than a fundementalist christian!

You talk about not understanding and silencing women, yet you have came on here and attempted to bully a man who was discussing openly his feelings on the issue. You have sought to slyly imply that he is some sort of msygonist who gets sexual kicks from the oppression of women.

You thought you could shame or embarrass people into silence.

Now why don't you take your essentialist, elitist and repressive sexual politics and stick them up your fucking ass.

revol68 writes:

I feel that to be anti porn is either essentially meaningless or at worst reactionary and only serves to increase the sexual repression and guilt that a great many people feel about their sexualities.

Hello, revol68.

Are you accounting for the shame that the porn industry produces, or just the shame that repressive puritanism and other sex-fearing institutions induce? I know of someone whose husband used to jerk off to porn for a bit in the loo before coming into the bedroom to have sex with her, regardless of what she was wanting to do at that moment. She relented, time and again, having learned that it's her wifely duty to satisfy her man, lest he stray for sex outside the marriage, which is chronically did, btw, which led her to divorce the fucker. Are you talking here about the shame she felt when he was in the loo with the porn magazine? Probably not, eh? Are you talking about the shame women in the industry drug away in order to put up with the chronic exploitation and degradation of them as women? Probably not. What shame are you talking about, revol? Oh, yeah, MEN's shame. Right: the only shame that matters. Forgive me for caring at least as much about how women are shamed in and by the porn industry.

revol68 writes:

I hold that pornography is not and does not always have to reinforce gender binaries or heterosexist seuxal assumptions.

Interesting. And is what you hold based in reality, or just your own suppositions? How long were you in the industry, revol? How many years did you spend learning what happens inside it? What are the names of the well-used industry-produced porn magazines and porn films that don't reinforce the gender binary and heterosexist sexual assumptions? I'm eagerly awaiting that list of titles. And please don't waste time listing "lesbian" and "gay" porn titles, which only manage to replicate hetero/sexism in queer porn arenas. I'd like you to list three titles of industry-produced porn that do neither of the things you "hold" that porn doesn't necessarily "have to" do. How about dealing, rather, with WHAT IT DOES?

revol68 writes:

I also feel that the critiques of porn tend to overestimate the role of porn in patriarchy, and give very little credit to the viewer to critically interact with the text themselves.

Um, forgive me, but do you know what you are talking about? What percentage of porn-users obtain porn to "critically interact with the text"? HELLO!!! Aren't they usually just flipping through the pages or fast-forwarding to the scenes that bring them to orgasm most quickly, thereby reinforcing through repetition what the consumers consider to be "hot"? Do most TV watchers "critically engage" with TV commercials? Apparently not, or corporations wouldn't be spending millions on 30 second ads.

And I am not making any claims as to what extent the porn industry makes sexxxism into sex, except to say that is what it is primarily designed to do, and therefore merits feminist and antipatriarchal activist attention. You get to disagree. Your opinion that such activism is somehow misplaced, or follows from a misperception of the (relatively undetermining?) harm the porn industry does is obviously not rooted in any real knowledge of what is "typical" in the porn industry. If the porn industry had NO EFFECT on consumers, it would still warrant feminist attention for the harm it does to real people (read: women, and children) in the industry. Anti-capitalist fundamentalists just don't get this point. That doesn't make it a politically invalid point or area of activism.

Critiques of antiporn feminists tend to underestimate the harm of the sexxxism industries, especially to those IN the industries. Such critics of this form of feminism tend also to overestimate feminists' abilities, claiming, histerically, that feminists can somehow "ban" porn. In what universe would that even be possible, even if feminists "wanted to ban porn" which they don't?

More follows.

revol68 writes:

The focus on the consumption of porn and the implicit moral condemnation of those who enjoy it is essentially missing the point, it isolates pornography from the totality of the commodity and does nothing of value for either the consumers of porn or the workers in the industry.

The focus is actually on the production and consumption of porn, and I haven't noticed any feminists morally condemning anyone, and please cite your sources in claiming feminists have, or don't make the claim. There's plenty of misinformation, rumor, and mistaken assumptions about what antiporn feminists do and don't do, without you adding to the heap of ignorance, revol.

As for the latter portion of your statement above, could you show me what studies reveal what you claim? On what basis are you making such claims? Antiporn feminism "does nothing of value for either the consumers of porn or the workers in the industry" you say. Please check out this site for evidence to the contrary:

http://www.andreadworkin.net/messages/archives/2005/04/personal_tribut.html#more

Then talk to me about how ineffective it all has been. You would have no way of knowing this, as far as I can tell. So to what do you attribute your abilities to mystically discern the effects of feminist antiporn activism? It has had a profound effect on most women I know, actually, making it possible for women to "not relent" to their boyfriends and husbands who want to do to them what the men see done to the women in porn. Antiporn feminists have had a profound effect on many males, who no longer assume porn is politically neutral, and in their own interests as human beings who desire sexuality free from commerce and commodification. I know several males who have given up sexual objectification and the use of pornography as actual and fantasy material used to achieve orgasm, and they report they can now see women more clearly as individual human beings, rather than as sex objects fitting into certain genres. I could go on and on about the positive effects of antiporn activism on the humanisation of women and men. But please read for yourself the posts by women AND men at the site included in this post. And then get back to me on the matter.

just a couple of questions, what about the views of women who enjoy porn? what about couples in respectful relationships who enjoy pornogrpahy and us it as a prop in their sex life?

I have alot fo female friends, infact the majority of my mates are female, and the majority of them use pornography on their own or in relationships, both gay and straight. Now watching porn doesn't seem to have harmed them in anyway, it also hasn't made me look at my female friends as commodtities or gaping orifices, though strangley your beginning to appear as a big gaping asshole.

What do you think the fact that women are increasinlgy using pornography, what about porn directed by women?

now i could give you lots of examples of porn directed by women but you would accuse them of just recreating male heterosexist assumptions. If the women is dominant it is just eroticising hierarchial relations and making women complicit in their own oppression, if i show you porn of women being submissive you'll denounce it too. Infact so all emcompassing is your narrative that any image of female sexuality is oppressive.

Let me ask you what would represent non mysgonist sexual imagery (i'll not call it porn)? what would it look like or involve?

ok i'm fucked off with you liberation. why won't you answer my question? or respond to any of the points either myself or dot has made? whats the problem? on second thoughts, don't bother. personally i couldn't be arsed now replying to you anyway.

probably to the same source as your mystic ability to phase out women who disagree with you. i'm bored with this now. can you not see that in a sense you are seeing women yourself as one dimensional objects and not as individuals who can think and act for themselves?

oh well, bugger this. i'm off.

revol68 writes:

Saying you are anti porn must mean you are in favour of a ban or wish to assert moral, political or economic leverage in order to put an end to it, or you just want to sit on some sort of smug moral highground.

Uh, or neither. Yes, "neither" would be the right answer, revol. Sorry to disappoint. Your capacity to understand feminist antiporn activism and why it exists is not evident in what you say above. Try again.

I will skip aspects of your histerical rants about why you are against the banning of porn, as no one is banning porn, or seeking to ban porn, nor does anyone have the power, status, or resources to ban porn, so talking about banning porn is a complete waste of time and cyberspace, wouldn't you say? I will, though, question your arguments, as they reveal the fatal flaws typical of those who defend porn or attack antiporn feminists:

revol68 writes: I am opposed to any attempt to ban pornography a) because it would only serve to strenghten the very forces that underpin hierarchial relations in a much more concrete way than porn b) people should be free to record, distribute and enjoy acts of consensual sex commited to any median they wish. c) It would put a great many sex workers at much greater risk and would criminalise millions of people d) it would do fuck all to stop the abuse and general oppression of women, afterall porn was unavailable in Ireland for decades yet domestic abuse and rape weren't exactly rare.

a) Explain how that would work, exactly.

b) What specifically leads you to conclude that the porn industry has any desire to produce and sell freedom, or "consensual sex commited to any median they wish" whatever that means? Please back up these claims with evidence rooted in what the porn industry actually produces.

c) Because, God knows, those sex workers aren't at risk now. Industry heads' (increasingly CEOs of major corporations) refusal to require the use of condoms is just the tip of the iceburg of contempt for women's lives shown inside the industry. The content of Hustler magazine is yet another blatant example of such contempt for women. The objectification and dehumanisation of women (and men) is yet another example. The degradation of women is another. The eroticisation of violence is yet another. And who is calling for the criminalisation of sex workers? Not feminists. They are calling for the criminalisation of pimps' and johns' abuses of women, and have called for a civil rights ordinance to be passed in the U.S, which also would not criminalise porn-makers even though most porn-makers are pimps who orchestrate the use and abuse of women in prostitution/porn. See stats of sexcrimes in Sweden for the effectiveness of that approach. Criminalising pimps and johns' behavior is one approach to dealing with the problem of sex trafficking of women, children, and young men.

d) This is, perhaps, you most inane argument, revol. How many times does this need to be spelled out. Your logic would conclude that because the Plague caused death, AIDS can't. No one, not any feminists, even, have said that rape and battery are ONLY caused by the misogyny and gender stereotyping produced and reproduced by the porn industry. That doesn't mean the misogyny (and racism) produced in the porn industry is magically rendered socially harmless.

More follows.

okay im not goin to debate any further until you explain what you mean by "anti porn activism", what is it's aims and how does it seek to get them?

Also could you give me an image of what a non or anti sexist visual depiction of female sexuality would look like. What are the parameters that define an image as degrading or violent?

down with this sort of thing

please, no.

My god you're a mentalist!

And how about answering my question, above, about what porn actually is blokes gang-ass-raping women ffs? Is your only contact with pornography those pictures on that hustlingtheleft site, by any chance??

Lol and I do love how you've ignored the two women on here who disagree with you, to just respond to us blokes!

What's that supposed to mean you nutter?

Lol again you see you're trying to shame people into winning your argument. Firstly I don't really watch a lot of porn, and the only porn films I've watched have been while having sex with girls (are they patriarchal too? Are all girls except you?), and either they've bought them or we have together, and secondly there's nothing wrong with jacking off to porn anyway.

Take a look round this website, all the ideas are here. And let me get this straight - you don't care about anything, unless is stops women "being sexually exploited and degraded"? Seeing as you think the female role in sex (getting passively "fucked", according to you) is inherently degrading (see your questions to me about porn acting) presumably nothing would ever stop this, save men being removed from the equation.

The porn industry, like all industries under capitalism, is driven by the quest for profit against all else. This is why I'm against it.

Right so here we get to the root of it. With sex there is the woman getting used and harmed, and the man doing the using and harming. Paying a man to fuck on film isn't exploiting him at all, in fact he is abusing the women right? Jesus

That is the definition of pornography you muppet! Saying you're against it cos some of it's shit is, like revol said, aking to protesting against film cos of Vin Diesel! Why can't you understand this???

What the fuck porn is this? I've never seen it! I imagine you kind find any kind of fucked up shit on the internet though.

Why are you asking if I'm aroused by rape scenes? Are you trying to say people shouldn't have rape fantasies, and saying people who do should repress their feelings? Fucking hell a very large proportion of the female population has rape fantasies, you can fuck off with you pathologising moralistic bullshit!

Child-hating? Are you nuts? I've never seen any of this stuff in porn! Anti-semitism, are you joking - they love circumcised cocks!

You have some fucking serious issues, girl

revol68 writes:

I am oppose do people using moral, political or economic leverage to attempt to get rid of porn because a) it won't work, pornography is as old as human representation itself b) it only adds to the stigma and guilt around sex that is so prevalent and ironically which gives porn much of it's appeal c) Porn is a very vague term and I see no reason why anyone should feel guilt or remorse for wanking off to people having consentual sex d) it also overlooks the views of people involved in the making of porn, perhaps the sex workers have a right to decide their own methods of struggle instead of having someone no involved in the industry (and lets be honest more than likely college educated) come down and anounce boycotts (sorry girlcotts) in their name.

a) By this logic, if cancer has existed since the beginning of time, it would be just plain silly for doctors and scientists to work to treat and understand it.

b) We are in agreement here, , if by "it" we mean industry-produced porn. This is not an argument for not challenging porn, but rather is yet another argument FOR doing so.

c) Porn, as I am using the term here, refers to the graphic, politically charged, erotically charged material produced and reproduced by the porn industry. Does that definition suffice? And, you or anyone wanking off to people having consensual sex does raise the issue: why does your sexual expression and pleasure depend on viewing other people having sex? How limiting, eh? But that issue aside, within the industry, "consensual sex" cannot be said to be happening, and I doubt you can prove it is. It has already been agreed upon by many here that the exploitation which inheres in capitalist industries precludes the possibility of meaningful "consent". Is it not a fundamental belief by anticapitalists that "work" in capitalism is, by and large, dehumanising? I find it interesting that such a critique goes out the window when the "work" being assessed is then used to wank off to.

d) You have no idea what my background is, do you? You have no idea who my friends are, do you? So fuck off with your assumptions about my past, and my knowledge base. And if every Black person wished to be subservient to whites, and every woman most wanted, since being a little girl, to be a stripper or a porn star, this would not convince me Blacks or women were now "empowered" or "liberated" or "free" from race and sex tyranny. It would, on the contrary, demonstrate that they were rather unfree. My politics are not determined by some women loving to be prostitutes and strippers and porn actors. Their wish to be sexually used by men doesn't render prostitution and porn politically unharmful. Their wish to be in those industries is proof of the harm of patriarchy on our psyches, wills, and desires. And most women in those industries are not there "willfully" in case you didn't know. The woman who "freely chooses sex work" is about as representative of women in the sexxxism industries as the sweatshop worker or assembly line worker who says "I like what I do and am grateful to be able to do it". This form of compromised human agency does not equal liberation. Sorry to disappoint.

revol68 writes:

If your aim is to take the moral highground as some sort of purer person who has escaped patriarchial conditioning, may I suggest that you can politely fuck off.

If my aim were that, you may impolitely suggest that I fuck off. (Can someone politely ask someone to "fuck off"? Perhaps this is a discussion for another time.)

revol68 writes: this does nothing to further the struggle against damaging gender binaries.

Feminists exposing the precise ways in which the sexxxism industries reproduce damaging gender binaries does nothing to further the struggle against damaging gender binaries? Explain please.

revol68 writes: Such an attitude will do little to endear you to anyone other than smug righteous fuckwits, and perhaps thats why Dworkin and MacKinnon felt so comfortable with the christian right.

First, Dworkin was and MacKinnon is, if they must be placed on the whitemale political spectrum, radical leftists, for all intents and purposes. To mischaracterise them as being "on the Right" is baseless and ignorant. Both have been lesbian identified, anti-war, anti-capitalism, anti-racism, anti-patriarchal religion, and pro-humanitarian. So how does this put them in bed with the Right? That some on the Right "got it" about the harm of porn, cannot be used, ethically or responsibly, as an argument that radical feminists are part of the Right. How many times does this have to be stated?

Second, my "attitude" is not really the point of this discussion, and to make it the focus is a ploy of the privileged to not deal with the real issues. In the U.S. many, many whites in the 1950s and 1960s were heard stating: "If only those Coloured people could be less angry, then maybe I'd be able to listen to what they have to say." This ignores the fact that it is precisely THE ANGER that needed to be heard and respected! It is an on-going tactic of the oppressor to require the oppressed to "speak in a manner most pleasing to the oppressor" which is an outrageous request or demand to place on oppressed people. Another request or demand is for the oppressed to "speak as the oppressor speaks". ("Why can't a woman be more like a man?", was the gist of a tune in "My Fair Lady".) And when those who have reason to be angry speak with that anger in tact, they are told not to. For it is only the oppressors who are allowed to be outwardly angry, so the patriarchal, racist rulebook says. (Chapter 6: How the oppressed must act in order to be seen by the oppressors. Please note: being seen by the oppressor does not usually result in any meaningful social change, hence the political futility of the effort to "speak real nice-like".) Witness the reactions to my "tone" here. They make this case rather well.

revol68 writes:

I am oppose do people using moral, political or economic leverage to attempt to get rid of porn because a) it won't work, pornography is as old as human representation itself b) it only adds to the stigma and guilt around sex that is so prevalent and ironically which gives porn much of it's appeal c) Porn is a very vague term and I see no reason why anyone should feel guilt or remorse for wanking off to people having consentual sex d) it also overlooks the views of people involved in the making of porn, perhaps the sex workers have a right to decide their own methods of struggle instead of having someone no involved in the industry (and lets be honest more than likely college educated) come down and anounce boycotts (sorry girlcotts) in their name.

a) By this logic, if cancer has existed since the beginning of time, it would be just plain silly for doctors and scientists to work to treat and understand it.

b) We are in agreement here, , if by "it" we mean industry-produced porn. This is not an argument for not challenging porn, but rather is yet another argument FOR doing so.

c) Porn, as I am using the term here, refers to the graphic, politically charged, erotically charged material produced and reproduced by the porn industry. Does that definition suffice? And, you or anyone wanking off to people having consensual sex does raise the issue: why does your sexual expression and pleasure depend on viewing other people having sex? How limiting, eh? But that issue aside, within the industry, "consensual sex" cannot be said to be happening, and I doubt you can prove it is. It has already been agreed upon by many here that the exploitation which inheres in capitalist industries precludes the possibility of meaningful "consent". Is it not a fundamental belief by anticapitalists that "work" in capitalism is, by and large, dehumanising? I find it interesting that such a critique goes out the window when the "work" being assessed is then used to wank off to.

d) You have no idea what my background is, do you? You have no idea who my friends are, do you? So fuck off with your assumptions about my past, and my knowledge base. And if every Black person wished to be subservient to whites, and every woman most wanted, since being a little girl, to be a stripper or a porn star, this would not convince me Blacks or women were now "empowered" or "liberated" or "free" from race and sex tyranny. It would, on the contrary, demonstrate that they were rather unfree. My politics are not determined by some women loving to be prostitutes and strippers and porn actors. Their wish to be sexually used by men doesn't render prostitution and porn politically unharmful. Their wish to be in those industries is proof of the harm of patriarchy on our psyches, wills, and desires. And most women in those industries are not there "willfully" in case you didn't know. The woman who "freely chooses sex work" is about as representative of women in the sexxxism industries as the sweatshop worker or assembly line worker who says "I like what I do and am grateful to be able to do it". This form of compromised human agency does not equal liberation. Sorry to disappoint.

revol68 writes:

If your aim is to take the moral highground as some sort of purer person who has escaped patriarchial conditioning, may I suggest that you can politely fuck off.

If my aim were that, you may impolitely suggest that I fuck off. (Can someone politely ask someone to "fuck off"? Perhaps this is a discussion for another time.)

revol68 writes: this does nothing to further the struggle against damaging gender binaries.

Feminists exposing the precise ways in which the sexxxism industries reproduce damaging gender binaries does nothing to further the struggle against damaging gender binaries? Explain please.

revol68 writes: Such an attitude will do little to endear you to anyone other than smug righteous fuckwits, and perhaps thats why Dworkin and MacKinnon felt so comfortable with the christian right.

First, Dworkin was and MacKinnon is, if they must be placed on the whitemale political spectrum, radical leftists, for all intents and purposes. To mischaracterise them as being "on the Right" is baseless and ignorant. Both have been lesbian identified, anti-war, anti-capitalism, anti-racism, anti-patriarchal religion, and pro-humanitarian. So how does this put them in bed with the Right? That some on the Right "got it" about the harm of porn, cannot be used, ethically or responsibly, as an argument that radical feminists are part of the Right. How many times does this have to be stated?

Second, my "attitude" is not really the point of this discussion, and to make it the focus is a ploy of the privileged to not deal with the real issues. In the U.S. many, many whites in the 1950s and 1960s were heard stating: "If only those Coloured people could be less angry, then maybe I'd be able to listen to what they have to say." This ignores the fact that it is precisely THE ANGER that needed to be heard and respected! It is an on-going tactic of the oppressor to require the oppressed to "speak in a manner most pleasing to the oppressor" which is an outrageous request or demand to place on oppressed people. Another request or demand is for the oppressed to "speak as the oppressor speaks". ("Why can't a woman be more like a man?", was the gist of a tune in "My Fair Lady".) And when those who have reason to be angry speak with that anger in tact, they are told not to. For it is only the oppressors who are allowed to be outwardly angry, so the patriarchal, racist rulebook says. (Chapter 6: How the oppressed must act in order to be seen by the oppressors. Please note: being seen by the oppressor does not usually result in any meaningful social change, hence the political futility of the effort to "speak real nice-like".) Witness the reactions to my "tone" here. They make this case rather well.

Sorry for the double post!

just remember to wipe from front to back.

Admin edit - post above removed. You know why.

To Lucy and Dot.

I am not purposefully ignoring you. It's just that there are only so many hours in the day, and I came across John's and revol68's comments before seeing yours, and I will respond to you at some point in the near future. No disrespect intended.