Most porn is generally very poor: yer lowest common denominator, staid, hetro-normative rubbish. Occasionally though one can find something half decent among the heap of "hard core" flicks. These days though, I really can't be arsed with it all and tend to just crack one off without any multimedia assistance.
depends doesn't it? i mean, its kind of like saying "films what do you think?"
If you like porn yes. Kinda.
i wouldn't have though you needed to like porn to know there was a difference between pornographic writings, drawings, animations, photos, video recordings, live performances, porn produced by corporations, by workers cooperatives, individuals etc
depends doesn't it? i mean, its kind of like saying "films what do you think?"
If you like porn yes. Kinda.
i wouldn't have though you needed to like porn to know there was a difference between pornographic writings, drawings, animations, photos, video recordings, live performances, porn produced by corporations, by workers cooperatives, individuals etc
I don't have a problem with erotica, as long it doesn't promote any kind of abusive behaviour in any way. I think porn films and magazines are very exploitative though and open to abuse. People do it to make money and end up with STD's. I think the figure is something like 1 in 4 porn performers have an STD, and they continue to work in the business to carry on making money. I would say that anti-female attitudes are prevalent in the industry and in the films and magazines too. Something I found really sinister that I was reading about recently was cases of women being blackmailed into it. The women thought it was just modelling and signed contracts and then were threatened with violence and rape to comply. Because they had signed a contract, they were threatened with legal action aswell.Then you hear stories about porn actresses being assaulted on set aswell, I believe there was one such case in the media recently. Other than that I think it's something that exploits lonely, probably depressed people to make profit. And an individual and even a worker's co-op can be exploitative. So thats why I'm anti.
depends doesn't it? i mean, its kind of like saying "films what do you think?"
If you like porn yes. Kinda.
i wouldn't have though you needed to like porn to know there was a difference between pornographic writings, drawings, animations, photos, video recordings, live performances, porn produced by corporations, by workers cooperatives, individuals etc
I don't have a problem with erotica, as long it doesn't promote any kind of abusive behaviour in any way. I think porn films and magazines are very exploitative though and open to abuse. People do it to make money and end up with STD's. I think the figure is something like 1 in 4 porn performers have an STD, and they continue to work in the business to carry on making money. I would say that anti-female attitudes are prevalent in the industry and in the films and magazines too. Something I found really sinister that I was reading about recently was cases of women being blackmailed into it. The women thought it was just modelling and signed contracts and then were threatened with violence and rape to comply. Then you hear stories about porn actresses being assaulted on set aswell, I believe there was one such case in the media recently. Other than that I think it's something that exploits lonely, probably depressed people to make profit. And an individual and even a worker's co-op can be exploitative. So thats why I'm anti.
most of that is capitalism + misogyny though, its not something unique to porn and i can find you loads of examples of workers in other industries being abused and tricked too.
and you last point is just wrong, you appear to be conflating exploitation with alienation, exploitation is when some makes money from the labour of others, alienation is what happens when you are doing something not because you want to, or because you desire the result of what you are doing but because its a way of obtains something else you need, usually money, although i guess other things like having to read a book for school also alienates people from it
depends doesn't it? i mean, its kind of like saying "films what do you think?"
If you like porn yes. Kinda.
i wouldn't have though you needed to like porn to know there was a difference between pornographic writings, drawings, animations, photos, video recordings, live performances, porn produced by corporations, by workers cooperatives, individuals etc
I don't have a problem with erotica, as long it doesn't promote any kind of abusive behaviour in any way. I think porn films and magazines are very exploitative though and open to abuse. People do it to make money and end up with STD's. I think the figure is something like 1 in 4 porn performers have an STD, and they continue to work in the business to carry on making money. I would say that anti-female attitudes are prevalent in the industry and in the films and magazines too. Something I found really sinister that I was reading about recently was cases of women being blackmailed into it. The women thought it was just modelling and signed contracts and then were threatened with violence and rape to comply. Then you hear stories about porn actresses being assaulted on set aswell, I believe there was one such case in the media recently. Other than that I think it's something that exploits lonely, probably depressed people to make profit. And an individual and even a worker's co-op can be exploitative. So thats why I'm anti.
most of that is capitalism + misogyny though, its not something unique to porn and i can find you loads of examples of workers in other industries being abused and tricked too.
and you last point is just wrong, you appear to be conflating exploitation with alienation, exploitation is when some makes money from the labour of others, alienation is what happens when you are doing something not because you want to, or because you desire the result of what you are doing but because its a way of obtains something else you need, usually money, although i guess other things like having to read a book for school also alienates people from it
I'd say most industries don't harm or exploit people in the same way that porn does. Most industries (and porn is only an industry because of capitalism) don't spread STDs amongst it's workers. As for your second point as I'd say that the people buying or relying on porn are being conned and used to use a product- the fact that it is made into a product and sold on the market is the only reason it is legal. It exploits people who pay for it (I realise that alot of it is available free online) but also it effects people's psychology and their brain chemistry- there have been some interesting groundbreaking studies on that in recent times.
I'd say most industries don't harm or exploit people in the same way that porn does.
How do you know? Does porn harm or exploit people any worse than say, textile workers in Bangladesh? Or e-waste recycling plants in Ghana or China? It seems to be that you're arguing from a moral point of view more than anything else (which is fine, but people who do not share those morals will disagree)
Most industries (and porn is only an industry because of capitalism) don't spread STDs amongst it's workers.
Sure, most industries don't, but trucking for example have, at least in developing countries, been one of the main causes for spreading HIV/AIDS not just among its own workers, but also to communities where it wasn't prevalent. Of course, for this the trucking industry is closely tied to prostitution.
As for your second point as I'd say that the people buying or relying on porn are being conned and used to use a product- the fact that it is made into a product and sold on the market is the only reason it is legal.
This is poor argumentation. There are plenty of commodities that are sold on the market that is illegal; there is no difference between so-called "legal" and "illegal" commodities from a purely economic point of view (yes, I recognize the benefits and drawbacks of being legal/illegal).
it effects people's psychology and their brain chemistry- there have been some interesting groundbreaking studies on that in recent times.
This is important in these days when kids get access to the internet at a very young age; I wonder what these studies will look like in a few years when more people have grown up digital.
Well this is rather disappointing. So far only one of you has stated that you are anti.
Yeah, I think that it's messed up when anyone feels themselves compelled to sell their bodies in order to put bread on the table but that's basically the nature of labor under capitalist social relations. When the day comes that workers are able to fulfill their basic needs (shelter, nutrition, medical, etc.) without being compelled to service the whims of others for remuneration then commercial erotica will inevitably face a steep decline, as will others service industries, but that's not going to happen until capitalism is entirely replaced with a more equitable system of economics.
What's with the sexist quote? It looks like something that some alt-right arsehole would print out and turn into a poster that he could hang up on his bedroom wall.
What's with the sexist quote? It looks like something that some alt-right arsehole would print out and turn into a poster that he could hang up on his bedroom wall.
What's with the sexist quote? It looks like something that some alt-right arsehole would print out and turn into a poster that he could hang up on his bedroom wall.
While not disagreeing with the article, ‘Anarchism and sex’, in Organise #59, nowhere does it actually state what is meant by ‘pornography’. The examples in the article imply a multitude of meanings.
According to a TV series broadcast some years ago, I think on Channel 4, the word only arose in the Victorian era with the invention of cheap printing and photography. This meant that the lower classes could get access to the erotic material previously only viewed by the ‘educated’ elite.
As stated in other posts, porn - I mean material meant to sexually stimulate or titillate, comes in many forms. In my opinion the ‘erotic’ work of Jeff Koons is dire, while Gustav Klimt’s, particularly his sketch books are both beautiful and sexually charged.
The same thing applies to literature and movies. It serves no purpose to be for or against ‘pornography’, as sexuality will express itself, and the multitude of forms it takes reflects our society.
The Victorian were very against ‘porn’ and chose to chisel off the genitalia from many ancient statues. Channel 4 showed a museum room full of trestle tables displaying the offending items. Sexual hypocrisy has always been a preoccupation of the British ruling class.
Porn in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, I think if we can get past the current hang-ups about sex then I don't see why porn couldn't be produced in a communist society, not sure we'd need it though.
Porn isn't by it's nature exploitative but it is commodification and it is alienating.
In practise it's a pretty horrible business in many ways, but I think that our notions of sex mean that it seems worse to have sex for money on camera rather than all the other things we do for money.
I don't see why porn couldn't be produced in a communist society, not sure we'd need it though.
Well, that means the "porn" would be able to exist as porn without its commercial status. I think that is highly problematic; pornography without commercialism is, IMO, an oxymoron. Associated with its commercial status, of course, is its treatment of women (leaving aside, for the moment, homosexual porn, transgender porn-- the permutations are almost endless; boggles the mind, really). The "selling point" and the selling point to the "target market" involves pretty much consistent, persistent, insistent degradation of women (yeah, yeah, I know-- not always "What about BDSM porn with dominant women?" Short answer-- put that with the other stuff for future review).
Not for nothing that the money shot is called the money shot, you know?
K
There will always be some exhibitionists and voyeurs.
Yeah, but is there always going to be a market; a commercialconversion of need, or use, into exchange and value?
Porn's a commercial endeavor, top to bottom, front to back, you should pardon the puns, and I don't know if it can ever be separated from that commercial basis.
As for its treatment of its workers-- I'm sure they are exploited, and treated like meat, with probably the very same wage differentials that prevail in other industries-- where men make more than women, etc. etc. But as far as risk to workers-- sure, mining coal or working for a railroad doesn't put you in an environment where STD's are easily communicable, but there are these other risks... like black lung, like losing a limb in a derailment, or getting coupled up between cars.
Yeah, but is there always going to be a market; a commercial conversion of need, or use, into exchange and value?
If we're talking about a communist society,then of course not. Some folks will film themselves having sex and will share it on commie YouTube.
And that won't be pornography
so you saying that porn is exactly what it needs to be to support the argument that porn is bad, and anything that doesn't support the porn is bad argument isn't porn even if everyone calls it porn and uses it the same why they'd use porn
I don't see why porn couldn't be produced in a communist society, not sure we'd need it though.
Well, that means the "porn" would be able to exist as porn without its commercial status. I think that is highly problematic; pornography without commercialism is, IMO, an oxymoron. Associated with its commercial status, of course, is its treatment of women (leaving aside, for the moment, homosexual porn, transgender porn-- the permutations are almost endless; boggles the mind, really). The "selling point" and the selling point to the "target market" involves pretty much consistent, persistent, insistent degradation of women (yeah, yeah, I know-- not always "What about BDSM porn with dominant women?" Short answer-- put that with the other stuff for future review).
Not for nothing that the money shot is called the money shot, you know?
There's already non-commercial pornography, i.e. free of charge/no paying involved, just like there's non-commercial software. I don't really need to list all the services for that.
The selling of your labor (in this case sexual) or entering into a contract with some pornographic company, if that's what you mean, I don't believe is some requirement for pornography to exist, which encompasses a lot of different things as already pointed out (images, drawings, audio, literature, video games, etc.)
I don't see why porn couldn't be produced in a communist society, not sure we'd need it though
There will always be some exhibitionists and voyeurs.
Well there was that communist exile from Yugoslavia who made films with explicit sex scenes about the nature of capitalism, and the benefits of communism.
In general terms I think its important to look at what Sex workers themselves have to say. I do find it weird how these discussion tend to look at every other angle but the Sex worker point of view.
All organizations for sex workers I've come across have been clear that its a form of work like any other and most of the extra dangers and difficulties like STI's are a result of illegality and social stigma.
An objection to the sex industry as an industry seems perfectly uncontroversial, so long as we understand that it won't be abolished without also abolishing the others.
First off, I never said "porn is bad." I said porn is intrinsically connected with commercialization, and the commercialization is deeply connected with the subjugation of women.
A couple making a film of themselves having sex is not necessarily pornography.. Think about it-- a big challenge, I know, but give it a try. Is every depiction of sexual intercourse pornographic?
Yes, no? If no, then what distinguishes the pornographic depictions?
There's already non-commercial pornography, i.e. free of charge/no paying involved, just like there's non-commercial software. I don't really need to list all the services for that.
Just because a fee is not charged for an individual or individuals does not mean it's not a commercial endeavor. Ever get "free" samples of anything? Two-fers? Comps? Teasers?
The adage about heroin dealing? "First taste is free."
When we talk about pornography, we're talking about an industry that produces pornography.
Again it's not for nothing that the climax (!) of a porn film is called the "money shot."
I'd agree with that in the sense that porn can be understood as something inherently capitalist that is based on all sorts of misogyny, racism etc. The, erm, "narrative" and "aesthetics" would change.I'd presume. Then again, people might still call it pornography even though it's completely different from what we have today.
Just because a fee is not charged for an individual or individuals does not mean it's not a commercial endeavor. Ever get "free" samples of anything? Two-fers? Comps? Teasers?
The adage about heroin dealing? "First taste is free."
Well, there are people who upload photo and video of themselves for free and don't care to charge for it later either. But it's usually uploaded to some commercial platform (that doesn't have to be about porn), which typically is all about gaining as many users as possible prior to some IPO.
Free porn is kinda like piracy. You may download or stream what you want, but those sites may make bank from the advertisement it presents to you.
I think your definition of what constitutes ‘porn’ suggests you disapprove of the industry. From what I know I tend to agree with you. However, I think your ‘we’re talking about an industry that produces pornography’ is far too restrictive and instead ‘the industry’ should be seen as a large sub-set inside a larger set of pornography.
I think explicit material relating to sexual relations with children pornographic, even if freely shared between individuals.
You ask in your post, if a couple making a film of themselves having sex could be considered porn. Well if it is made available for viewing (consumption) then my answer is yes. A sub-set of enthusiastic amateurs is not I think, too dissimilar to wage earning professionals – in content and desired reaction of the audience. Presumably the amateurs may be less predictable, than the porn machine (?).
Is every act of sexual intercourse porn? No. Nor is the depiction of sexual intercourse necessarily pornographic. Hindu temples being an example. The ‘eye of the beholder’ plays a large part in our attitudes, therefore the context is important – both class and cultural. Recently on ‘Time Team’ a large Neolithic stone penis was discovered – and was described as a phallus. Presumably it was hoped the uneducated would fail to realise they were handling a cock! I could only laugh.
There's already non-commercial pornography, i.e. free of charge/no paying involved, just like there's non-commercial software. I don't really need to list all the services for that.
Just because a fee is not charged for an individual or individuals does not mean it's not a commercial endeavor. Ever get "free" samples of anything? Two-fers? Comps? Teasers?
The adage about heroin dealing? "First taste is free."
When we talk about pornography, we're talking about an industry that produces pornography.
Again it's not for nothing that the climax (!) of a porn film is called the "money shot."
No, I mean completely non-commercial. I'm not one to usually quote Wiki, and this is all very smutty for my tastes, but:
More recently, sites such as [blah blah blah] have served as repositories for home-made or semi-professional pornography, made available free by its creators (who could be called exhibitionists). It has presented a significant challenge to the commercial pornographic film industry.
Non-commercial pornography
In addition to the porn industry, there is a large amount of non-commercial pornography. This should be distinguished from commercial pornography falsely marketed as featuring "amateurs".
And this is not to mention all the other pornographic forms like drawings, video games and so on that are not commercial. I don't think pornography is really a problem as far as communism goes, pornography galore.
in a society which lacks any incentive for sexual oppression - or historically considered, as long as, and as far as, a society has no such interest - that society will be free of sexual misery. We could say, then, that the members of that society experience a life which is sexually economical - a statement which implies no value judgment but, rather, refers to the fact that there is a well-ordered patterning of their sexual energy.
Communism should be 'sexually economical'. Better education, awareness and more honesty/openness (as well as not working 40+ hours a week, stressing about rent/mortgage/bills, etc.), greater acceptance of the fact that traditional forms of relationship (heterosexual monogamy - "the norm") might not suit everybody and a greater acceptance of non-traditional relationships, all these ought to enable people to have better relationship/sex lives. And this ought to reduce the demand for substitutes.
Communism should be 'sexually economical'. Better education, awareness and more honesty/openness (as well as not working 40+ hours a week, stressing about rent/mortgage/bills, etc.), greater acceptance of the fact that traditional forms of relationship (heterosexual monogamy - "the norm") might not suit everybody and a greater acceptance of non-traditional relationships, all these ought to enable people to have better relationship/sex lives. And this ought to reduce the demand for substitutes.
Left out the most important element in the reduction in repression-- and that is the withering away, or abolition, of the (thermo)nuclear family.
Any know if there is any particular reason why the term "sex workers" rather then "sex industry workers" seems to be the commonly accepted nomenclature to define workers employed in the providing of sexually related services? Could it be said that workers employed in providing sexually related services are basically service sector workers?
Any know if there is any particular reason why the term "sex workers" rather then "sex industry workers" seems to be the commonly accepted nomenclature to define workers employed in the providing of sexually related services?
Probably because it's shorter, in the same way that fast food workers is commonly used instead of fast food industry workers or where I live which is dominated by the aerospace industry, aerospace workers as opposed to aerospace industry workers.
Probably because it's shorter, in the same way that fast food workers is commonly used instead of fast food industry workers or where I live which is dominated by the aerospace industry, aerospace workers as opposed to aerospace industry workers.
Sex is an extremely intimate act between two people, it's a very intimate and emotional way one can relate to another, this is one reasons rape is much worse than assault. What porn does is commodify sex, it does what capitalism always does. Porn is to sex what candy is to fruit, fruit has sugar, but it also has many nutrients that you need; candy is just sugar with nutrients, candy takes something good, and makes it damaging and, for some people, addictive.
Porn offers the instant pleasure of sex without the intimacy, it offers the pleasure but without the relationship. I think this is a problem for the same reason I think candy is bad for you, except moreso because of the intensity and emotional depth of sex.
Ultimately what capitalism does is corrupt what is good in life, "candifies it", and alients people, capitalism wants atomized consumers, and desperate workers; thats it. What it doesn't want Is people who are in relationship with one another, who love one another and who care about one another. They want to turn sex into a commodity consumption.
Not only that but much of porn basically teaches (especially Young boys) to have a very sick view of women, that women are something to be used, I don't know if there has been any social impact from the onset of internet porn, but I suspect there will be.
I think Alain Badiou was right when he talked about "love" being at risk in capitalism, I am pro love, pro sex, against porn.
Of course porn has always existed (in one form or another) and probably always will, but what capitalism has done with it is something I'm completely against. If any one asked me I would recommend to stay away from porn, go out and fall in love and have sex.
Sex is an extremely intimate act between two people, it's a very intimate and emotional way one can relate to another, this is one reasons rape is much worse than assault. What porn does is commodify sex, it does what capitalism always does. Porn is to sex what candy is to fruit, fruit has sugar, but it also has many nutrients that you need; candy is just sugar with nutrients, candy takes something good, and makes it damaging and, for some people, addictive.
Porn offers the instant pleasure of sex without the intimacy, it offers the pleasure but without the relationship. I think this is a problem for the same reason I think candy is bad for you, except moreso because of the intensity and emotional depth of sex.
Ultimately what capitalism does is corrupt what is good in life, "candifies it", and alients people, capitalism wants atomized consumers, and desperate workers; thats it. What it doesn't want Is people who are in relationship with one another, who love one another and who care about one another. They want to turn sex into a commodity consumption.
Not only that but much of porn basically teaches (especially Young boys) to have a very sick view of women, that women are something to be used, I don't know if there has been any social impact from the onset of internet porn, but I suspect there will be.
I think Alain Badiou was right when he talked about "love" being at risk in capitalism, I am pro love, pro sex, against porn.
Of course porn has always existed (in one form or another) and probably always will, but what capitalism has done with it is something I'm completely against. If any one asked me I would recommend to stay away from porn, go out and fall in love and have sex.
We may have our differences about religion but I agree with you 100% on this. Well said.
Left out the most important element in the reduction in repression-- and that is the withering away, or abolition, of the (thermo)nuclear family.
I completely dissagree here; There's a reason why modern late Capitalism is A-OK With getting rid of the traditional Family, becuase the more People rely on the market for their needs, the more they are socailly atomized, the more they view themselves as individual consumers rather than anything else (fathers, mothers, daughters, neighbors, comrades, brothers, and so on) the better for Capitalism.
When I (as I often do) speak to market-fundamentalists or just People who still trust Capitalism about the possiblity of communism; one of the first examples I give is the Family, both Nuclear and extended. basically everything that happens in a (non-patriarchal, well functioning) Family is communistic.
Get rid of the Family and what you're left With is contract, i.e. marketized relationships. I personally think the idea that two People covenant together (excuse the theological Language) rather than merely contract is a good thing, I think relationships that are not mere contingencies but rather stable covenental bonds are good.
Communism should be 'sexually economical'. Better education, awareness and more honesty/openness (as well as not working 40+ hours a week, stressing about rent/mortgage/bills, etc.), greater acceptance of the fact that traditional forms of relationship (heterosexual monogamy - "the norm") might not suit everybody and a greater acceptance of non-traditional relationships, all these ought to enable people to have better relationship/sex lives. And this ought to reduce the demand for substitutes.
Left out the most important element in the reduction in repression-- and that is the withering away, or abolition, of the (thermo)nuclear family.
I didn't leave it out - I consider this covered by the bit in bold.
‘Ultimately what capitalism does is corrupt what is good in life, "candifies it", and alients people, capitalism wants atomized consumers, and desperate workers; thats it. What it doesn't want Is people who are in relationship with one another, who love one another and who care about one another. They want to turn sex into a commodity consumption.’
I agree with much in your post, however I’d take issue with you on at least two matters that I think you oversimplify.
Capitalism exploits sex to maximise profit particularly through advertising. However all states, past and present, wish to exert as much control as possible over sexual matters. The UK was forced to legalise some forms of porn only due to its inability to control the internet. The ruling class is not one entity, rather it is waring competitors that require regulation by the state. In a liberal democracy the benefits to capitalism of the internet, outweighs the freedom of all forms of ‘undesirable’ expression, including porn (which the state does its best to tax).
I feel capitalism only wishes to profitably exploit people’s feelings, and it is largely irrelevant what form their relationship takes (this is uneven, as in the case of homosexuality in Russia). In the UK you may buy a card for any occasion. People spend thousands of pounds getting married - the more the better!
Love has always been problematic. Platonic love is relatively simple. Sexual love is another matter. Unfortunately I cannot see this changing even with free communism.
As Samuel Butler wrote: ‘God is Love, I dare say. But what a mischievous devil Love is.’
I feel capitalism only wishes to profitably exploit people’s feelings, and it is largely irrelevant what form their relationship takes (this is uneven, as in the case of homosexuality in Russia). In the UK you may buy a card for any occasion. People spend thousands of pounds getting married - the more the better!
I completely agree ... Capitalism commodifies everything, Even marriages, divorces everything.
With porn however it goes up to the most intimate relationship and distorts it. I agree sexual love is "problematic" in that it's risky and self-emptying, but; at least for me, it is a big part of what makes us human; the ability to truely love.
Love has always been problematic. Platonic love is relatively simple. Sexual love is another matter. Unfortunately I cannot see this changing even with free communism.
As Samuel Butler wrote:
‘God is Love, I dare say. But what a mischievous devil Love is.’
From a theological perspective Platonic love is not Christian love, Chrisitan love is inherently self-empyting and giving.
Platonic love can be sexual, only in that you are masturbating With someone else, Real sexual love is self-giving, it's risky; that's what I am for.
This short video explains the various addiction related brain changes that watching porn causes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmpTB-IxNyo
[youtube]YmpTB-IxNyo[/youtube]
The problem with this subject is that it is impossible to have this conversation without it being infused with people's own personal morality, something which is obvious in this thread. afaic my anarchist position now, not after any theoretical revolution, is to support workers in any industry, not just this one, in struggles for pay and conditions etc, not to moralize on how people should be getting off or to decide what sex should or should not be like. People are exploited, injured, endangered in all industries under capitalism but it's this idustry which seems to get singled out more often than not.
The above video is describing one of the biochemical processes of addiction. DeltaFosB is a trigger for all types of addictions and compulsive behaviours, cocaine, alcohol, exercise. It's not something specific to pornography addiction. Some people get addictions, some don't. Some people can enjoy a pint or going for a run, others become alcoholics or develop orthorexia. Addiction is a problem, raising your dopamine levels is not. Incidentally, without a regular supply of DeltaFosB you get depression.
Every position is a moral position, Anarchism is a moral position, Socialism is a moral position, the fight against exploitation and oppression are all moral positions.
The "selling point" and the selling point to the "target market" involves pretty much consistent, persistent, insistent degradation of women
Except for the target market which isn't even sexually interested in women, ya know.
Or the target market which is sexually interested in representations of anthropomorphic animals, or depictions of men being swallowed whole, or giantesses. A huge part of pornography is the representation of desires which can't be acted out in real life. Witness how popular incest porn is.
Or when the target market market is women, or couples. Which is increasingly the case. Or when the porn is explicitly produced, filmed and distributed by women.
Craftwork
And this ought to reduce the demand for substitutes.
The assumption here is that porn is used as a substitute for real relationships. But I know guys in long term relationships that still watch porn every day, some even with their partners (Women also watch porn, again).
Rommon
Sex is an extremely intimate act between two people
Except when it isn't.
As for the rest of your post: "...true socialism, which is no longer concerned with real human beings but with “Man”, has lost all revolutionary enthusiasm and proclaims instead the universal love of mankind. It turns as a result not to the Proletarians but to the two most numerous classes of men in Germany, to the petty bourgeoisie with its philanthropic illusions and to the ideologists of this very same petty bourgeoisie: the philosophers and their disciples;"
Rommon
There's a reason why modern late Capitalism is A-OK With getting rid of the traditional Family
Again, no. 'Family values' is the watchword of social conservatives everywhere.
Capitalism destroying immediate, natural relations of dependence was a positive element in it's history.
As for the rest of your post: "...true socialism, which is no longer concerned with real human beings but with “Man”, has lost all revolutionary enthusiasm and proclaims instead the universal love of mankind. It turns as a result not to the Proletarians but to the two most numerous classes of men in Germany, to the petty bourgeoisie with its philanthropic illusions and to the ideologists of this very same petty bourgeoisie: the philosophers and their disciples;"
I believe it is, by nature, intimate.
As for the rest of Your post, the quote, I'm not sure of it's relevancy.
Again, no. 'Family values' is the watchword of social conservatives everywhere.
Capitalism destroying immediate, natural relations of dependence was a positive element in it's history.
I disagree, I think Family is a positive thing.
if what you want is alienation, but just based on something else other than market and Capital, I'm not With that, I think Natural relations of mutual dependence is a good thing, we depend on others anyway, there is no way around that, actually having real grounded communities, such as families is a good thing.
I finally tracked down that Yugoslav director who made erotic propaganda, there were a lot of directors in the Black Wave movement. Dušan Makavejev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du%C5%A1an_Makavejev
As far as I know he did two films that tried to use sex to push a message, WR the mysteries of the Organism and (Produced in exile) Sweet Movie. If you want to track them down I'd just like to warn you Black Wave is basically the stereotype of Euro indie art cinema come to life.
As for the rest of your post: "...true socialism, which is no longer concerned with real human beings but with “Man”, has lost all revolutionary enthusiasm and proclaims instead the universal love of mankind. It turns as a result not to the Proletarians but to the two most numerous classes of men in Germany, to the petty bourgeoisie with its philanthropic illusions and to the ideologists of this very same petty bourgeoisie: the philosophers and their disciples;"
I believe it is, by nature, intimate.
As for the rest of Your post, the quote, I'm not sure of it's relevancy.
Again, no. 'Family values' is the watchword of social conservatives everywhere.
Capitalism destroying immediate, natural relations of dependence was a positive element in it's history.
I disagree, I think Family is a positive thing.
if what you want is alienation, but just based on something else other than market and Capital, I'm not With that, I think Natural relations of mutual dependence is a good thing, we depend on others anyway, there is no way around that, actually having real grounded communities, such as families is a good thing.
It depends on what sort of family it is and whether you actually have much in common with your family.
Well, go look up some videos of animals having sex with each other on National Geographic and then come back and report whether they seemed peturbed by being filmed.
'By nature', sex is something done out in the open, not for sentimental reasons, but because of a seasonal biological drive to reproduce. Humans are the ones that, in the course of social development, have ascribed it with mysterious, emotional and spiritual significance and made it more and more a private affair.
Rommon
if what you want is alienation
Ok, so in the first place, you need to define what you mean by alienation. Because alienation in Marx refers to the fact that the productive powers and products of of social labour appear to the producers as something external and alien to them, because they are owned and appropriated by capital.
"Since, before he enters the process, his own labour has already been alienated from him, appropriated by the capitalist, and incorporated with capital, it now, in the course of the process, constantly objectifies itself so that it becomes a product alien to him... Therefore the worker himself constantly produces objective wealth, in the form of capital, an alien power that dominates and exploits him." (Capital Volume 1, pp. 716)
What I want is the end of the specifically capitalist mode of production, it's replacement by "an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." This means by definition, the end of alienation, at least in it's specifically Marxist sense.
What you have in mind is some alternate conception of alienation, but I'll let you elaborate on that instead of making guesses as to your intention.
Well, go look up some videos of animals having sex with each other on National Geographic and then come back and report whether they seemed peturbed by being filmed.
'By nature', sex is something done out in the open, not for sentimental reasons, but because of a seasonal biological drive to reproduce. Humans are the ones that, in the course of social development, have ascribed it with mysterious, emotional and spiritual significance and made it more and more a private affair.
There are quite a few differences between animals and humans ... there's a reason why rape is a discusting crime among human societies, worse than Assault, and not in the animal Kingdom.
As for the second paragraph, I have a Christian view of human nature, i.e. Imagio Dei ... so we're definately going to not see eye to eye there, so I suppose we'd have to agree to dissagree.
Ok, so in the first place, you need to define what you mean by alienation. Because alienation in Marx refers to the fact that the productive powers and products of of social labour appear to the producers as something external and alien to them, because they are owned and appropriated by capital.
I use it more broadly, social relationships in a Family are not alienated, you are part of the the Family (at least many families) and the work you do in that relationship is Your own, and directly relational; in the market Place Your work is alienated, it isn't Yours, it's value has nothing to do With you, and its distribution has nothing to do With you.
a home cooked meal and a meal sold in a restaurant are fundamentally different, in the former it matters who makes the meal who eats the meal and the result is a relationship, the latter by definition throws all those Things out and the relationship is over once the transaction is over.
Sex in a relationship has a different Logic than sex that a trick has With a prostitute, in the latter scenario sex is an alienated commodity.
As for the second paragraph, I have a Christian view of human nature, i.e. Imagio Dei
I don't think we can really get anywhere with this discussion then.
I use it more broadly, social relationships in a Family are not alienated, you are part of the the Family (at least many families) and the work you do in that relationship is Your own, and directly relational; in the market Place Your work is alienated, it isn't Yours, it's value has nothing to do With you, and its distribution has nothing to do With you.
It seems like if we push this through to it's logical conclusion, the only way to live without 'alienation' in this sense would be to revert to living in small local communities where everyone knows everyone else directly. With the current division of labour being a global one, I don't see how that's possible without reversing the progress of technology a couple of centuries.
Of course the 'value' and 'distribution' of commodities does have everything to do with the agency of the individuals who constitute the market, the marketplace, commodity exchange and capitalism aren't 'things' which control the human actors, they are social relationships that mediate their activity and give human agency the appearance of being the property of things.
Sex in a relationship has a different Logic than sex that a trick has With a prostitute, in the latter scenario sex is an alienated commodity.
If the only two options you can conceive of are sex in a committed monogamous relationship and prostitution, you might just need to develop a better imagination.
It seems like if we push this through to it's logical conclusion, the only way to live without 'alienation' in this sense would be to revert to living in small local communities where everyone knows everyone else directly. With the current division of labour being a global one, I don't see how that's possible without reversing the progress of technology a couple of centuries.
I want more of community and less alienation (state, markets and so on), Capitalism demands that markets continously expand and take over every aspect of life ... I dont' think everything can be run by community, but I would like more of it.
By the way it's not just face to face, you can have non.market interactions without face to face knowledge of People, through moral norms, social norms and so on.
If the only two options you can conceive of are sex in a committed monogamous relationship and prostitution, you might just need to develop a better imagination.
That wasn't my point, I'm opposed to porn for similar reasons that I am opposed to prostitution.
Interesting to see Christian views here. I thinkk that capitalism can harm relationships like this. It perverts human relationships and this is nothing to boast about and display. Still, pornography is motivation for people to have sex love, so it will possibly stay as long as that does. Pornographic stuff was central in many cultures...
I am not sure how I feel about porn. Its hard to say because its not all the same, a lot of it is misogynist and sexist either explicitly so, or it promotes misogynist and sexist views (worth noting that even gay porn and transgender porn does so). Not necessarily always though and I don't think its inevitable that porn should promote these views.
In general I don't have a problem with sex between consenting adults being filmed and available for others to view. I think that can be a good thing, it can be a way for people to safely explore their sexuality or sexual desires, and I think that being accepted is a good thing. I think it still does have potential to cause harm to those who engage in it though, like them deeply regretting and being embarrassed or ashamed of it in the future.
I think in a free society, where people aren't hung up about sex and pleasure, and where we aren't compelled to lead 'professional' life's and abide by a work ethic, then there is reason to think porn would still be made. It is just sex after all, it's not really a big deal, and I can sort of see why a couple might find it fun or sexy to film themselves doing it, and I would think in an anarchist society sex (all kinds of sex between consenting adults, straight, gay, monogamous, polygamous, romantic or one night stand etc.) would be much more accepted than today, not viewed as taboo or 'dirty'.
I totally reject Rommon (and anyone else's) ridiculous, reactionary views on the family under capitalism, porn and sexual relationships:
1) Porn has existed for centuries. 2) The internet has simply increased its accessibility and enabled its rapid diffusion on an enormous scale. 3) The fact that it's so popular - that at any given moment, a considerable proportion of people that are online will be viewing it - tells us more about society than it does about porn.
4) There were no "good old days" of "pure, loving relationships" before commodification or capitalism undermined the family. If you scratch beneath the surface of that quasi-sacred, patriarchal/ideological construct, "the family", upheld as a source or bastion of values and stability, you'll find that it's the site of some of the worst abuses and atrocities (e.g. committed against children or women) - far worse than anything you'll see in porn.
I sometimes wonder whether men's complaints about sex being commodified or capitalised is related to the fact that, for centuries, they've effectively had free access to women (with or without consent), and this therefore represents a diminishing of their power.
5) The fact that capitalism, in the course of its development, has (to some extent) dissolved familial bonds in favour of a society of singular individuals confronting each other in a system of universal competition is not something to simply be lamented. It represents alienation, but it also represents a form of freedom.
Sure, those large factories in Asia are sites of extreme alienation/exploitation, but better to be a woman proletarian with a wage, with a chance to learn more about the world, than a woman in rural Bangladesh or China whose prospects are otherwise to simply be married young, and live a life of domestic servitude - from being the property of her parents to the property of her husband.
Craftwork #69 ‘I totally reject Rommon (and anyone else's) ridiculous, reactionary views on the family under capitalism, porn and sexual relationships:’
Your ridicule is based on a series of assertions and strawmen. I hope to show your views are not as ‘progressive’ as you claim.
‘1) Porn has existed for centuries.’
I am not sure what you mean by porn. Please point me to the evidence that it has existed for centuries. My understanding is that as part of the Victorian’s obsession with classification, the word was invented to describe items of a sexual nature they considered an affront to public decency. Is this also your definition? (I define it as material meant to sexually stimulate or titillate and it comes in many forms. It may help satisfy the curiosity most people have to see the otherwise un-see able.)
‘2) The internet has simply increased its accessibility and enabled its rapid diffusion on an enormous scale.’
I fully agree with this point.
‘3) The fact that it's so popular - that at any given moment, a considerable proportion of people that are online will be viewing it - tells us more about society than it does about porn.’
Yes, though you fail to explain what it tells us. Your ‘point’ is simply word-play.
‘4) There were no "good old days" of "pure, loving relationships" before commodification or capitalism undermined the family. If you scratch beneath the surface of that quasi-sacred, patriarchal/ideological construct, "the family", upheld as a source or bastion of values and stability, you'll find that it's the site of some of the worst abuses and atrocities (e.g. committed against children or women) - far worse than anything you'll see in porn.
I sometimes wonder whether men's complaints about sex being commodified or capitalised is related to the fact that, for centuries, they've effectively had free access to women (with or without consent), and this therefore represents a diminishing of their power.’
I can find no reference to the ‘good old days’.
Rommon can defend his own ideas about ‘pure and loving relationships’, though my reading of history suggests to me these things still exist into the present day. Your theoretical idea of ‘the family’ suggests a lopsided view of human relationships. Yes, the family is the site of incest and some paedophilia, etc., though that is far from the whole story. My main objection to your construct is that it ignores the bond between parents and their children. The centre of a family unit is the children. If you cannot see the validity of these bonds, then you must find the present grief on display to London an unfathomable mystery.
Your point about men having ‘free access to women’ is fantastical. In capitalism only the rich are free. Women are/were strictly ‘private property’, as men are/were paranoid about their offspring. The discovery of DNA has partially removed this fear. The other day I read something about a woman being prosecuted for faking a DNA test. Men’s diminishing power is I fear wishful thinking.
5) The fact that capitalism, in the course of its development, has (to some extent) dissolved familial bonds in favour of a society of singular individuals confronting each other in a system of universal competition is not something to simply be lamented. It represents alienation, but it also represents a form of freedom.
Sure, those large factories in Asia are sites of extreme alienation/exploitation, but better to be a woman proletarian with a wage, with a chance to learn more about the world, than a woman in rural Bangladesh or China whose prospects are otherwise to simply be married young, and live a life of domestic servitude - from being the property of her parents to the property of her husband.'
Your first paragraph I think turns reality on its head.
Alienation is a form of freedom? Freedom to top yourself, etc.
Several times I’ve heard Judge Judy tell mothers, “Get out and work, stop being a burden on the taxpayers”.
Unfortunately no one has dared answer her back (or it was edited out). So to hell with your mothering instincts - get out and work and stop being a parasite.
Your last point regarding the situation of large numbers of women in Asia and elsewhere is partially valid. I write ‘partially’ because as a westerner my knowledge is limited and the notion that one form of exploitation is preferable to another is problematical. We will never know how many Chinese people, men and women, having been forcibly removed from their land, now exist in some Dickensian type of hell-hole.
I totally reject Rommon (and anyone else's) ridiculous, reactionary views on the family under capitalism, porn and sexual relationships:
1) Porn has existed for centuries. 2) The internet has simply increased its accessibility and enabled its rapid diffusion on an enormous scale. 3) The fact that it's so popular - that at any given moment, a considerable proportion of people that are online will be viewing it - tells us more about society than it does about porn.
4) There were no "good old days" of "pure, loving relationships" before commodification or capitalism undermined the family. If you scratch beneath the surface of that quasi-sacred, patriarchal/ideological construct, "the family", upheld as a source or bastion of values and stability, you'll find that it's the site of some of the worst abuses and atrocities (e.g. committed against children or women) - far worse than anything you'll see in porn.
1. So what? I mean rape has existed for centuries, that isn't an argument for it.
2. Yes, and it's a sad state of affairs.
3. You can say that about any consumption, except it isn't just a one way thing, when you consume and act in the world you change the world but also the world changes you.
4. Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that healthy relationships are impossible or that porn isn't detrimental to them. You're argument here is like saying "before the war in Iraq, it's not like Iraq was some hunky dory Utopia" ... so what? the war made it worse and added MORE problems to the old ones. It's not like pornography stopped domestic abuse.
I sometimes wonder whether men's complaints about sex being commodified or capitalised is related to the fact that, for centuries, they've effectively had free access to women (with or without consent), and this therefore represents a diminishing of their power.
What does that even mean? "free Access" to women ... are you claiming that there was no such thing as rape before then? Are you claiming that womens bodies becoming commodities actually empowers them?
You don't have to "Wonder", you can ask. No, all men haven't had "free Access" to women, and no one that I know proposes that. It's not like the only two options are womens sexualities being bought and sold OR rape is legal ... that's competely stupid.
The other option is actual human relationships involving intimacy and love ... you know that is a real thing. And it isn't "free" or "at a price" ... it's not part of the market. The fact that you seem to think those are the two options really makes you look like a neo-liberal idologue who can't see the world outside of the market.
5) The fact that capitalism, in the course of its development, has (to some extent) dissolved familial bonds in favour of a society of singular individuals confronting each other in a system of universal competition is not something to simply be lamented. It represents alienation, but it also represents a form of freedom.
Yeah, freedom in a sense, but I don't think that "freedom" that capitalism sells is a good freedom, or even an actual freedom. My view on freedom is the ancient greek philosophical view; man is free when he is living life well.
But anyway, a prostitute is technically more free than a woman in a loving relationship, the woman in a loving relationship has moral responsibilities to her parter, to her Family to her community; the prostitute does not, her sexual encounters are contractual ... I don't think the prostitute is more free, I don't think she has a better life.
Sure, those large factories in Asia are sites of extreme alienation/exploitation, but better to be a woman proletarian with a wage, with a chance to learn more about the world, than a woman in rural Bangladesh or China whose prospects are otherwise to simply be married young, and live a life of domestic servitude - from being the property of her parents to the property of her husband.
It Depends on the rural community. There are plenty of rural communities where women are respected, and where they are valued as much as men.
I think the crux is two different worldviews:
You seem to have a rather neo-liberal world viwe of the individual. Human beings are atomized, they are most free when they are free of any non-contractural obligations and relationships, and human beings can make their own identities. So a prostitute who doesn't have to answer to anyone, but is dirt poor, alienated, alone and so on, is really more free than a woman in a Family situation who is cared for, has obligations and in community.
I think that human beings are social animals, and they can only thrive in community, and I think that a person being turned into a commodity, especially their sexuality, is one of the worst Things that can happen to them.
Are there other "bad" Things in the world of sexual relationships? Yeah sure, but doesn't make pornography a good thing.
...
Are there other "bad" Things in the world of sexual relationships? Yeah sure, but doesn't make pornography a good thing.
I don't really look upon marriage and static relationships as some ideal. I think there was something to what Wilde said about 'divorces being made in heaven.' People should be free to be with whomever they wish, and I don't see anything wrong with that. In a post-capitalist world there shouldn't be the dependence on the 'breadwinner', forcing people to stay in relationships they otherwise hate. And again, I don't see what's wrong with pornography, which has existed for centuries, in its non-commodity, non-exploitative forms.
But anyway, a prostitute is technically more free than a woman in a loving relationship, the woman in a loving relationship has moral responsibilities to her parter, to her Family to her community; the prostitute does not, her sexual encounters are contractual ... I don't think the prostitute is more free, I don't think she has a better life.
So a prostitute who doesn't have to answer to anyone, but is dirt poor, alienated, alone and so on, is really more free than a woman in a Family situation who is cared for, has obligations and in community.
For someone who dismissed feminism as identity politics in another thread, you sure have a lot of things about how women should make their living or what their relationships should be like. And the words you are looking for are sex worker.
For someone who dismissed feminism as identity politics in another thread, you sure have a lot of things about how women should make their living or what their relationships should be like. And the words you are looking for are sex worker.
Yeah, I have opinions about what is healthy for a man, woman, or child to do ... I don't think it's healthy for anyone to be a prostitute or sex worker, I don't think anyone should join the military, I don't think People should drink soda ... yes I do have opinions about what are good and bad decisions and good and bad ways society organizes and so on.
Yes, indeed I have noticed you have a lot of opinions on telling other people what to do with their bodies, how to conduct their own relationships, how to express their sexualities, what to do to make money how to interpret historical documents and a bunch of other things, opinions predicated upon your personal morality. What is your position of expertise which allows you to be so certain than you can tell other people what to do with their own bodies and lives?
Fleur, are you trying to make this thread about Rommon’s opinions?
Having a pop at the Christian may please the libcom gallery, but it appears to be a sad attempt to divert attention from Craftwork’s half-baked post #69.
Rommon’s post #71 contained political content, but it’s so much easier to address something in his past posts or his choice of words. Post 69 is much admired, anyone care to explain?
Post 71 contains mostly Rommon's half-baked personal opinions on how other people should conduct their lives, some tired tropes about who he thinks sex workers are (pathetic women without the capacity to maintain good relationships,) that their sexualities - rather than their labour- are being bought and sold.
I pretty much agree with Crafttwork's post but there again it is possible that I may have known more sex workers than Rommon, as well as not a few Christians who don't feel the need to hector other people about how they should be living, so my opinions may be somewhat biased.
I don't know what your actual problem is with what I said? Yes I have opinions about what is good and healthy behavior and a good and healthy life and a good and healthy society and what is not ... who doesn't? Everyone does.
I think that just because we are talking about sex it's different. What is being bought and sold is sex, not only labor, which is why how a sex worker looks matters. I'm not "hectoring" anyone, this is a thread about pornography ... presumably it would be appropriate to talk about the ethics of pornography in a thread about pornography.
I haven't "judged" anyone, unless you equate me saying some kinds of behavior, some kinds of social institutions, some cultrual phenomenon is unhealthy and bad with "judging" People .... Would it be "judging" if someone said that overweight People should eat healthier and workout? Is it "judging" to say that no-hour contracts are wrong as an institution?
ALL ethical opinions are based on people's personal morality ... literally all of them.
As far as interpreting documents ... Yeah, there are better and worse interpretations, i.e. interpretations that make more or less sense of the text in it's context ....
I don't know what you expect, no opinions for anyone? What's the point of this thread then? Why are you even here?
Thanks Fleur, you made more sense out to the post than I did. I still have no idea that Craftwork was talking about:
‘I sometimes wonder whether men's complaints about sex being commodified or capitalised is related to the fact that, for centuries, they've effectively had free access to women (with or without consent), and this therefore represents a diminishing of their power.’
The world’s oldest profession has been around long before capitalism. Capitalism has only modified the exchange. The part about men effectively having free access to women before capitalism is fantasy. What does he mean? Is he still referring the sex work? And why does it diminish men’s power?
I have only heard of the term having ‘free access to women’ once, and that was in relation to the first dust-up inside the ORA in the early nineteen seventies. Some comrades arranged to share a house, mainly to assemble and print ‘Libertarian Struggle’ our monthly paper. It quickly became clear that this ‘collective’ was not going to include ‘collectivizing’ the women. One male left in the huff, claiming the others were been selfish and not good communists. My memory is that the others formed ‘pairs’ (who knows - it was their affair).
I think that just because we are talking about sex it's different. What is being bought and sold is sex, not only labor, which is why how a sex worker looks matters.
But in this instance, sex is labor. Most types of labor in one context are activities done for pleasure or satisfaction in another. And in all types of wage labor the use of your body (or at least your bodily power) is being exchanged as a commodity. Sex work is no different in either of these aspects.
I think people are taking issue with your argument because a communist analysis of sex work views sex work as work. To say "sex is different" is adding a layer of moralism to your argument that, whether you intend it to or not, paints sex workers as victims - whether worthy victims or otherwise.
The fact that capitalism, in the course of its development, has (to some extent) dissolved familial bonds in favour of a society of singular individuals confronting each other in a system of universal competition is not something to simply be lamented. It represents alienation, but it also represents a form of freedom.
I also just wanted to say that I agree with this and find it a fairly straightforward Marxist position.
The family, historically, has existed as a patriarchal institution in which women and children were considered the property of the male head of household. And while being "freed" onto the labour market does, on one hand, open your labor to direct relations of capital, it also gives women an amount of agency that didn't exist within traditional familial structure.
It's no huge surprise that when women enter the workforce in large numbers, female demands for easier divorce laws soon follow.
Freddom to consume is not freedom. I just drank a beer that I enjoyed, doesn't mean that the shitty day of work I just had was liberating and it doesn't make me free in any real sense.
Prostitutes sell labour, looks are a part of it but that is part of labour. People hire more attractive sales and wait staff, good-looking people tend to get more job offers, this doesn't make them prostitutes. Other physical attributes can help, for example being taller helps get management positions, having big muscles would probably help you with a labouring job, this doesn't make these jobs prostitution. If none of those jobs are prostitution simply because a physical attribute(s) is added to the job description then that probably means that the specificity of prostitution, sex sork, is due to the fact that it involves sex. I do admit that there is something that makes me a touch squeamish about sex work and it is specifically sex, because if a care worker wipes granny's arse we don't fele that the family intimacy of caring has been irredeemably tarnished. I think it is down to morality and I don't think that is a good thing. I don't think anyone should have to pay for sex and I don't think anyone should have to sell sex, but I think that about everything.
The whole unfettered access to women has some logic to it, but that depends very much on the society and usually theere was a barrier before this access was granted and not every man could gain this access. In modern timpes this is still true. I ws pretty disgusted by the relentless groping of women that happened when I was on holiday, but we were in a country where access was strictly controlled, so the unwed men we saw had in general no real access to women, so while the society was misogynistic and so were these men they weren't exactly living it up in sexist paradise, they were angry and frustrated because the only real chance they had was groping a tourist at night, and even then most didn't. To see sex workers and their clients as victims and exploiters or some similar formulation is a disregarding everything.
My main beef about prostitution is that due to societal pressures it is often a last resort that people are forced into and prostitutes are terribly mistreated, but one could say the same about rubbish tip scavengers or a lot of other jobs. I dislike the idea that prostitution can be this clean and antiseptic choice, "oh she just did it for a few years to pay for grad school, she had a few regulars and she screened out the crazy guys and made good money" Like most jobs what you have affects what you get out of it. If you have the capital (including cultural physical etc) it is a very different job to if you don't. IT's the difference between wyneth Paltrow selling stuff on goop and a working class woman trying to make money with herbalife.
In itself porn is commodification, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, pretty much all books, TV, cinema is about packaging emotion up in some way for our consumption. So Lizzie Bennet sparring with Mr Darcy, Bruce Willis shouting yippie kyay and a porn scene are in that sense similar and each has a time, a place and an audience, all of which can overlap or not.
Do you support sex workers in their struggles, Rommon?
100%, I think sex workers ought to have ready access to healthcare, protection, screenings, workers rights and everything else.
I would say the same thing about veterans and soldiers, I don't think anyone should join the military; I think it's a dehumanizing and horrible institution (just as the sex trade is), but I also think it's disgusting how veterans are treated, and I think they should get ready access to healthcare, training programs, welfare and so on.
But in this instance, sex is labor. Most types of labor in one context are activities done for pleasure or satisfaction in another. And in all types of wage labor the use of your body (or at least your bodily power) is being exchanged as a commodity. Sex work is no different in either of these aspects.
I think people are taking issue with your argument because a communist analysis of sex work views sex work as work. To say "sex is different" is adding a layer of moralism to your argument that, whether you intend it to or not, paints sex workers as victims - whether worthy victims or otherwise.
The difference is the nature of sex ... sex is extremely intimate. This is why rape is so much worse than crimes like theft or assault.
EVERY analysis is going to end up being "moralistic" ... even the communist analysis is moralistic because it makes value judgements.
I know the issues in one industry are not the same as those in another, but if sex work is work, what then is the objection to being a customer? I'm confused.
I find myself disagreeing with much of what Rommon has to say but I'm with him on these two
The difference is the nature of sex ... sex is extremely intimate. This is why rape is so much worse than crimes like theft or assault.
EVERY analysis is going to end up being "moralistic" ... even the communist analysis is moralistic because it makes value judgements.
I'm particularly glad to hear someone make the second point as despite the popular view being to the contrary, it underpins pretty much my entire position in politics.
Furthermore, I surprised but heartened to hear Miss Elizabeth Bennet being mentioned on Libcom, it's good to know I'm not the only one that appreciates a bit of "sparring".
Perhaps I'm missing some nuance in what you're saying, in part due to your idiosyncratic posting technique. Generally in internet usage capitalizing whole words for emphasis is shouting and shouting your opinions is hectoring.
Yes I have opinions about what is good and healthy behavior and a good and healthy life and a good and healthy society and what is not ... who doesn't?
Yes, you have opinions. You seem to imbue sex with some kind of quasi-spiritual sanctity, which is only healthy when practiced by people in long-term, committed relationships. I'm glad that's working out for you - tbh it's pretty good for me too - but not everybody has the same opinion, not everybody is looking for or wants to pair bond, a lot of people have no problems or hang-ups about enjoying intimacy with someone who is not a life-partner and when you are strident in expressing that your version of sex is the only one which "good and healthy" then you are by default judging other people for not doing it the same way as you.
Would it be "judging" if someone said that overweight People should eat healthier and workout?
Yes, it absolutely would be. Firstly, something, something, something about walking in other people's shoes before you start laying down the law about how they should live their lives. Also, gross generalizations much. Overweight people may be overweight for all sorts of reasons. they may have contributory health problems. A former Kung Fu teacher friend of mine who is very heavy, having had a catastrophic injury, which means he cannot exercise very much just loves it when people regularly tells him he should eat better ( he eats very well btw) and work out more (he can't.) People may have eating disorders - fantastic helpful advise there, way to go with contributing to people's complicated food issues. They could have mental health issues, they may live in food deserts and work three jobs and are just waiting for some smartarse to sort their lives out for themselves. Or else, they may just love themselves the way they are and have every right to tell interfering body shamers where to stick their opinions. Generally anybody's opinions on somebody else's body is a whole barrel of none of your fucking business.
You are expressing your opinion about what you think is natural for human beings, what is "good and healthy" for everyone and what constitutes a healthy society, disregarding that fact that humans are individuals, with different needs, desires, aptitudes and abilities and by very implication whatever falls outside your very narrow parameters of this is bad and unhealthy. That is pretty judgemental if you want my opinion.
Why are you even here?
Good question. I've been asking myself that one myself.
I know the issues in one industry are not the same as those in another, but if sex work is work, what then is the objection to being a customer? I'm confused.
To be honest with you Woj, I think you're slightly conflating two issues here. One is which particular way - moral or class or some combination of the two - to understand sex work and people who work in the industry.
The other is why anarchists or communists might have ideological (and, yes, even moral issues) with purchasing sexual services. For me, I'd say the main issue is consent. If sex is reduced to a financial transaction - complete with all the pressures of bosses, the market, paying rent - then consent can't taken as a given.
But I think those are two different arguments and allowing one to bleed into the other can move us away from a class understanding of sex work to moralistic conclusions regarding the industry and those who work in it.
Chilli Sauce #82 ‘Quote: The fact that capitalism, in the course of its development, has (to some extent) dissolved familial bonds in favour of a society of singular individuals confronting each other in a system of universal competition is not something to simply be lamented. It represents alienation, but it also represents a form of freedom.
I also just wanted to say that I agree with this and find it a fairly straightforward Marxist position.
The family, historically, has existed as a patriarchal institution in which women and children were considered the property of the male head of household. And while being "freed" onto the labour market does, on one hand, open your labor to direct relations of capital, it also gives women an amount of agency that didn't exist within traditional familial structure.
It's no huge surprise that when women enter the workforce in large numbers, female demands for easier divorce laws soon follow.’
Yes, I agree that Marx was describing the present capitalist reality.
However in the context in the post, it was used as a rejection of Rommon’s criticism of capitalist alienation. My understanding of Marx, is not that he approved of the current situation, rather he believed in the need to change the status quo through revolution. To somehow imply Marx was defending capitalism is a political sleight of hand.
Alienation is a blight on the working class plain and simple. Some of the posts defending Craftwork are simply pathetic.
Yes, you have opinions. You seem to imbue sex with some kind of quasi-spiritual sanctity, which is only healthy when practiced by people in long-term, committed relationships. I'm glad that's working out for you - tbh it's pretty good for me too - but not everybody has the same opinion, not everybody is looking for or wants to pair bond, a lot of people have no problems or hang-ups about enjoying intimacy with someone who is not a life-partner and when you are strident in expressing that your version of sex is the only one which "good and healthy" then you are by default judging other people for not doing it the same way as you.
Yeah, I do think sex is something sacred, I'm a Christian and there are theological reasons to view sex as sacred. But I don't think it's just me, I think many People, InFact society as a Whole views sex the same way ... which is why, as I said before rape is considered such a horrific crime.
I'm sure People as individuals have no problems With many different kinds of Things, that doesn't make it healthy or good.
Let me put it this way, if I knew someone who was going to join the army, I would strongly advise him against it, even if he personally had no problem With what he was doing, I would conclude that he was just simply wrong, or confused, or morally stupid.
I'm not judging anyone in the sense that I am not saying someone who makes an unhealthy or wrong Choice or is put in an unhealthy or bad position is morally a bad person, or deserving of scorn, I AM saying their Choice, or the position they have been put in is unhealthy and wrong.
Everyone does this, it's impossible to not .... if you say ANYTHING is unhealthy, wrong or anything else you are making a moral judgement.
That's different than what Jesus was talking about, what Jesus was talking about was condemnation of People ... althroughout his ministry he made judgements on behavior and ideology, even the idea that compassion is better than condemnation is a judgement.
Yes, it absolutely would be. Firstly, something, something, something about walking in other people's shoes before you start laying down the law about how they should live their lives. Also, gross generalizations much. Overweight people may be overweight for all sorts of reasons. they may have contributory health problems. A former Kung Fu teacher friend of mine who is very heavy, having had a catastrophic injury, which means he cannot exercise very much just loves it when people regularly tells him he should eat better ( he eats very well btw) and work out more (he can't.) People may have eating disorders - fantastic helpful advise there, way to go with contributing to people's complicated food issues. They could have mental health issues, they may live in food deserts and work three jobs and are just waiting for some smartarse to sort their lives out for themselves. Or else, they may just love themselves the way they are and have every right to tell interfering body shamers where to stick their opinions. Generally anybody's opinions on somebody else's body is a whole barrel of none of your fucking business.
You are expressing your opinion about what you think is natural for human beings, what is "good and healthy" for everyone and what constitutes a healthy society, disregarding that fact that humans are individuals, with different needs, desires, aptitudes and abilities and by very implication whatever falls outside your very narrow parameters of this is bad and unhealthy. That is pretty judgemental if you want my opinion.
You're absolutely right ... I'm talking about a friend, someone I know. I would never go up to an overweight person on the street and just make assumptions about that person.
But again, your objection isn't against judging it healtheir to be fit rather than overweight, it's just coming to conclusions without having enough data.
By the way ... ALL of your examples are People who CANNOT workout or eat healthy due to mental or physical illness .... That implies that it would be better if they didn't have those problems and thus COULD workout and eat healthy .. why? Because it would be better and healtheir if they did.
Being overweight puts you at greater risk of all kinds of illnesses, it puts more strain on your bodily systems, you are less physically capable, you may have a more difficult time in the dating game due to what People generally find attractive. These are facts.
If someone is overweight, and cannot do anything about it, and thus has decided to live With the body they have and learn to love it and make the best out of it, that's wonderful ... but it would be healthier if they were able to do something about it and did do something about it.
If you saw someone you cared for doing Things like starting to smoke, eating tons of junk Food, not getting any excercise, drinking too much and so on .... I seriously hope you would approach them and tell them they are on a bad course, that wouldn't be judgemental, it would be loving.
Being an ethical person means making other people's ills, their problems, their suffering, their condition YOUR business ...
Good question. I've been asking myself that one myself.
Hopefully it's to hear different Points of view and try and refine your own.
As for sex workers rights, it's common in these types of discussion to completely disregard what sex workers themselves have to say about, well, sex work (although it's more common in feminist discussion because, you know, anarchists are usually supposed to stand up for workers rights and oppose oppression). Seeing how this discussion seems to start moving towards sex work in general, here is a link to what sex workers themselves have to say about it: http://www.iusw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/SexWorkAndHumanRightsIUSWMar14.pdf
The other is why anarchists or communists might have ideological (and, yes, even moral issues) with purchasing sexual services. For me, I'd say the main issue is consent. If sex is reduced to a financial transaction - complete with all the pressures of bosses, the market, paying rent - then consent can't taken as a given.
The notion of "consent" in capitalism is really twisted in my opinion ... take a woman who immigrated to another country out of desperation, and now finds herself in a brothel, she has no Family, no real community.
Even if there is no one putting a gun to her head telling her to sleep With a disgusting old man who is paying the brothel, is she really "consenting" to it? Technically she is, she says yes to get a payment, but really what option does she have? She's been ripped out of any community, she's alone, and entirely dependant on the brothel to live.
This is why I feel actual community, relationship, and the christian concept of "koinonia" (fellowship) are vital. The context in which "consent" is given is almost as important as the actual subjective decision.
I'm sure People as individuals have no problems With many different kinds of Things, that doesn't make it healthy or good.
Everyone does this, it's impossible to not .... if you say ANYTHING is unhealthy, wrong or anything else you are making a moral judgement.
Isn't health outside the realm of moral judgments? Those aren't really synonymous terms. We know from evidence that cigarettes are unhealthy; we don't know that 'long-term intimate relationships' are necessarily the 'healthiest' kind of sexual relationship for everyone.
The notion of "consent" in capitalism is really twisted in my opinion ... take a woman who immigrated to another country out of desperation, and now finds herself in a brothel, she has no Family, no real community.
Even if there is no one putting a gun to her head telling her to sleep With a disgusting old man who is paying the brothel, is she really "consenting" to it? Technically she is, she says yes to get a payment, but really what option does she have? She's been ripped out of any community, she's alone, and entirely dependant on the brothel to live.
This is why I feel actual community, relationship, and the christian concept of "koinonia" (fellowship) are vital. The context in which "consent" is given is almost as important as the actual subjective decision.
Please don't say that sex workers are allowing themselves to be raped. We all have morals when it comes to sex. The difference here is that you are pushing your own morals about sex on other people.
Please don't say that sex workers are allowing themselves to be raped. We all have morals when it comes to sex. The difference here is that you are pushing your own morals about sex on other people.
That isn't what I said ... read all of what I said, and please don't missrepresent me.
Left out the most important element in the reduction in repression-- and that is the withering away, or abolition, of the (thermo)nuclear family.
I completely dissagree here; There's a reason why modern late Capitalism is A-OK With getting rid of the traditional Family, becuase the more People rely on the market for their needs, the more they are socailly atomized, the more they view themselves as individual consumers rather than anything else (fathers, mothers, daughters, neighbors, comrades, brothers, and so on) the better for Capitalism.
When I (as I often do) speak to market-fundamentalists or just People who still trust Capitalism about the possiblity of communism; one of the first examples I give is the Family, both Nuclear and extended. basically everything that happens in a (non-patriarchal, well functioning) Family is communistic.
Get rid of the Family and what you're left With is contract, i.e. marketized relationships. I personally think the idea that two People covenant together (excuse the theological Language) rather than merely contract is a good thing, I think relationships that are not mere contingencies but rather stable covenental bonds are good.
Families are only tolerable and only really work when all people in the family are friends, therefore a group of friends is just as good as any family (or should be). From my own experience it is a good idea to see family members more as friends, if that is possible, and it should be possible because if you don't get on with a member of your family and don't have much in common with them and can't be yourself around them then theres not really any point in having anything to do with them. The idea of suffering someone you have nothing in common with just because they are biologically related to you is is an old fashioned idea that doesn't really make sense. There are huge problems with the traditional family though for obvious reasons, which is why it is best not to have a traditional family or be part of one.
Isn't that a Cure album?
Isn't that a Cure album? Haven't heard it before. Not the biggest Cure fan.
depends doesn't it? i mean,
depends doesn't it? i mean, its kind of like saying "films what do you think?"
Well, I think the selling of
Well, I think the selling of yourself in order to survive whether it's in the sex industry or anywhere should be done away with.
radicalgraffiti
radicalgraffiti
If you like porn yes. Kinda.
Most porn is generally very
Most porn is generally very poor: yer lowest common denominator, staid, hetro-normative rubbish. Occasionally though one can find something half decent among the heap of "hard core" flicks. These days though, I really can't be arsed with it all and tend to just crack one off without any multimedia assistance.
Well this is rather
Well this is rather disappointing. So far only one of you has stated that you are anti.
potrokin
potrokin
i wouldn't have though you needed to like porn to know there was a difference between pornographic writings, drawings, animations, photos, video recordings, live performances, porn produced by corporations, by workers cooperatives, individuals etc
potrokin wrote: Well this is
potrokin
Potrokin, the AF's Organise! magazine, issue 59 from 2002 might be worth a read:
anarchism and sex
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
Organise is always a great read, cheers. I might have to buy a copy or subscribe actually.
radicalgraffiti
radicalgraffiti
I don't have a problem with erotica, as long it doesn't promote any kind of abusive behaviour in any way. I think porn films and magazines are very exploitative though and open to abuse. People do it to make money and end up with STD's. I think the figure is something like 1 in 4 porn performers have an STD, and they continue to work in the business to carry on making money. I would say that anti-female attitudes are prevalent in the industry and in the films and magazines too. Something I found really sinister that I was reading about recently was cases of women being blackmailed into it. The women thought it was just modelling and signed contracts and then were threatened with violence and rape to comply. Because they had signed a contract, they were threatened with legal action aswell.Then you hear stories about porn actresses being assaulted on set aswell, I believe there was one such case in the media recently. Other than that I think it's something that exploits lonely, probably depressed people to make profit. And an individual and even a worker's co-op can be exploitative. So thats why I'm anti.
potrokin
potrokin
most of that is capitalism + misogyny though, its not something unique to porn and i can find you loads of examples of workers in other industries being abused and tricked too.
and you last point is just wrong, you appear to be conflating exploitation with alienation, exploitation is when some makes money from the labour of others, alienation is what happens when you are doing something not because you want to, or because you desire the result of what you are doing but because its a way of obtains something else you need, usually money, although i guess other things like having to read a book for school also alienates people from it
Serge wrote: These days
Serge
Good to see the old traditions being kept alive.
You got to hand it to Serge,
You got to hand it to Serge, an old awristocrat like him, he's not gonna let tradition just slip through his fingers.
radicalgraffiti
radicalgraffiti
I'd say most industries don't harm or exploit people in the same way that porn does. Most industries (and porn is only an industry because of capitalism) don't spread STDs amongst it's workers. As for your second point as I'd say that the people buying or relying on porn are being conned and used to use a product- the fact that it is made into a product and sold on the market is the only reason it is legal. It exploits people who pay for it (I realise that alot of it is available free online) but also it effects people's psychology and their brain chemistry- there have been some interesting groundbreaking studies on that in recent times.
Quote: I'd say most
How do you know? Does porn harm or exploit people any worse than say, textile workers in Bangladesh? Or e-waste recycling plants in Ghana or China? It seems to be that you're arguing from a moral point of view more than anything else (which is fine, but people who do not share those morals will disagree)
Sure, most industries don't, but trucking for example have, at least in developing countries, been one of the main causes for spreading HIV/AIDS not just among its own workers, but also to communities where it wasn't prevalent. Of course, for this the trucking industry is closely tied to prostitution.
This is poor argumentation. There are plenty of commodities that are sold on the market that is illegal; there is no difference between so-called "legal" and "illegal" commodities from a purely economic point of view (yes, I recognize the benefits and drawbacks of being legal/illegal).
This is important in these days when kids get access to the internet at a very young age; I wonder what these studies will look like in a few years when more people have grown up digital.
potrokin wrote: Well this is
potrokin
Yeah, I think that it's messed up when anyone feels themselves compelled to sell their bodies in order to put bread on the table but that's basically the nature of labor under capitalist social relations. When the day comes that workers are able to fulfill their basic needs (shelter, nutrition, medical, etc.) without being compelled to service the whims of others for remuneration then commercial erotica will inevitably face a steep decline, as will others service industries, but that's not going to happen until capitalism is entirely replaced with a more equitable system of economics.
tane_mahuta
tane_mahuta
@tane_mahuta
What's with the sexist quote? It looks like something that some alt-right arsehole would print out and turn into a poster that he could hang up on his bedroom wall.
To be precise, they are not
To be precise, they are not "selling their bodies", they are selling a service.
Sike wrote: tane_mahuta
Sike
That's the joke
Porn is grim.
Porn is grim.
Craftwork wrote: To be
Craftwork
Yeah, that's better way of putting it. One could also say that they are selling their time.
tane_mahuta wrote: Sike
tane_mahuta
I see.
While not disagreeing with
While not disagreeing with the article, ‘Anarchism and sex’, in Organise #59, nowhere does it actually state what is meant by ‘pornography’. The examples in the article imply a multitude of meanings.
According to a TV series broadcast some years ago, I think on Channel 4, the word only arose in the Victorian era with the invention of cheap printing and photography. This meant that the lower classes could get access to the erotic material previously only viewed by the ‘educated’ elite.
As stated in other posts, porn - I mean material meant to sexually stimulate or titillate, comes in many forms. In my opinion the ‘erotic’ work of Jeff Koons is dire, while Gustav Klimt’s, particularly his sketch books are both beautiful and sexually charged.
The same thing applies to literature and movies. It serves no purpose to be for or against ‘pornography’, as sexuality will express itself, and the multitude of forms it takes reflects our society.
The Victorian were very against ‘porn’ and chose to chisel off the genitalia from many ancient statues. Channel 4 showed a museum room full of trestle tables displaying the offending items. Sexual hypocrisy has always been a preoccupation of the British ruling class.
Porn in itself is not
Porn in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, I think if we can get past the current hang-ups about sex then I don't see why porn couldn't be produced in a communist society, not sure we'd need it though.
Porn isn't by it's nature exploitative but it is commodification and it is alienating.
In practise it's a pretty horrible business in many ways, but I think that our notions of sex mean that it seems worse to have sex for money on camera rather than all the other things we do for money.
Quote: I don't see why porn
There will always be some exhibitionists and voyeurs.
Quote: I don't see why porn
Well, that means the "porn" would be able to exist as porn without its commercial status. I think that is highly problematic; pornography without commercialism is, IMO, an oxymoron. Associated with its commercial status, of course, is its treatment of women (leaving aside, for the moment, homosexual porn, transgender porn-- the permutations are almost endless; boggles the mind, really). The "selling point" and the selling point to the "target market" involves pretty much consistent, persistent, insistent degradation of women (yeah, yeah, I know-- not always "What about BDSM porn with dominant women?" Short answer-- put that with the other stuff for future review).
Not for nothing that the money shot is called the money shot, you know?
K
Yeah, but is there always going to be a market; a commercial conversion of need, or use, into exchange and value?
Porn's a commercial endeavor, top to bottom, front to back, you should pardon the puns, and I don't know if it can ever be separated from that commercial basis.
As for its treatment of its workers-- I'm sure they are exploited, and treated like meat, with probably the very same wage differentials that prevail in other industries-- where men make more than women, etc. etc. But as far as risk to workers-- sure, mining coal or working for a railroad doesn't put you in an environment where STD's are easily communicable, but there are these other risks... like black lung, like losing a limb in a derailment, or getting coupled up between cars.
Quote: Yeah, but is there
If we're talking about a communist society,then of course not. Some folks will film themselves having sex and will share it on commie YouTube.
Khawaga wrote: Quote: Yeah,
Khawaga
And that won't be pornography
S. Artesian wrote: Khawaga
S. Artesian
so you saying that porn is exactly what it needs to be to support the argument that porn is bad, and anything that doesn't support the porn is bad argument isn't porn even if everyone calls it porn and uses it the same why they'd use porn
S. Artesian wrote: Quote: I
S. Artesian
There's already non-commercial pornography, i.e. free of charge/no paying involved, just like there's non-commercial software. I don't really need to list all the services for that.
The selling of your labor (in this case sexual) or entering into a contract with some pornographic company, if that's what you mean, I don't believe is some requirement for pornography to exist, which encompasses a lot of different things as already pointed out (images, drawings, audio, literature, video games, etc.)
Quality
Quality
Quality from ChilliSauce
Quality from ChilliSauce Re;Fingers lol
Khawaga wrote: Quote: I
Khawaga
Well there was that communist exile from Yugoslavia who made films with explicit sex scenes about the nature of capitalism, and the benefits of communism.
In general terms I think its important to look at what Sex workers themselves have to say. I do find it weird how these discussion tend to look at every other angle but the Sex worker point of view.
All organizations for sex workers I've come across have been clear that its a form of work like any other and most of the extra dangers and difficulties like STI's are a result of illegality and social stigma.
An objection to the sex industry as an industry seems perfectly uncontroversial, so long as we understand that it won't be abolished without also abolishing the others.
First off, I never said "porn
First off, I never said "porn is bad." I said porn is intrinsically connected with commercialization, and the commercialization is deeply connected with the subjugation of women.
A couple making a film of themselves having sex is not necessarily pornography.. Think about it-- a big challenge, I know, but give it a try. Is every depiction of sexual intercourse pornographic?
Yes, no? If no, then what distinguishes the pornographic depictions?
Just because a fee is not charged for an individual or individuals does not mean it's not a commercial endeavor. Ever get "free" samples of anything? Two-fers? Comps? Teasers?
The adage about heroin dealing? "First taste is free."
When we talk about pornography, we're talking about an industry that produces pornography.
Again it's not for nothing that the climax (!) of a porn film is called the "money shot."
Quote: And that won't be
I'd agree with that in the sense that porn can be understood as something inherently capitalist that is based on all sorts of misogyny, racism etc. The, erm, "narrative" and "aesthetics" would change.I'd presume. Then again, people might still call it pornography even though it's completely different from what we have today.
Well, there are people who upload photo and video of themselves for free and don't care to charge for it later either. But it's usually uploaded to some commercial platform (that doesn't have to be about porn), which typically is all about gaining as many users as possible prior to some IPO.
Free porn is kinda like piracy. You may download or stream what you want, but those sites may make bank from the advertisement it presents to you.
S. Artesian #36 I think your
S. Artesian #36
I think your definition of what constitutes ‘porn’ suggests you disapprove of the industry. From what I know I tend to agree with you. However, I think your ‘we’re talking about an industry that produces pornography’ is far too restrictive and instead ‘the industry’ should be seen as a large sub-set inside a larger set of pornography.
I think explicit material relating to sexual relations with children pornographic, even if freely shared between individuals.
You ask in your post, if a couple making a film of themselves having sex could be considered porn. Well if it is made available for viewing (consumption) then my answer is yes. A sub-set of enthusiastic amateurs is not I think, too dissimilar to wage earning professionals – in content and desired reaction of the audience. Presumably the amateurs may be less predictable, than the porn machine (?).
Is every act of sexual intercourse porn? No. Nor is the depiction of sexual intercourse necessarily pornographic. Hindu temples being an example. The ‘eye of the beholder’ plays a large part in our attitudes, therefore the context is important – both class and cultural. Recently on ‘Time Team’ a large Neolithic stone penis was discovered – and was described as a phallus. Presumably it was hoped the uneducated would fail to realise they were handling a cock! I could only laugh.
S. Artesian
S. Artesian
No, I mean completely non-commercial. I'm not one to usually quote Wiki, and this is all very smutty for my tastes, but:
And this is not to mention all the other pornographic forms like drawings, video games and so on that are not commercial. I don't think pornography is really a problem as far as communism goes, pornography galore.
kind of related i saw this
kind of related i saw this earlier today
https://www.swarmcollective.org/
admin note: comment from
admin note: comment from tane_mahuta removed as it wasn't clear what was meant by it and it didn't add to the discussion
Wilhelm Reich wrote: in a
Wilhelm Reich wrote:
Communism should be 'sexually economical'. Better education, awareness and more honesty/openness (as well as not working 40+ hours a week, stressing about rent/mortgage/bills, etc.), greater acceptance of the fact that traditional forms of relationship (heterosexual monogamy - "the norm") might not suit everybody and a greater acceptance of non-traditional relationships, all these ought to enable people to have better relationship/sex lives. And this ought to reduce the demand for substitutes.
Quote: Communism should be
Left out the most important element in the reduction in repression-- and that is the withering away, or abolition, of the (thermo)nuclear family.
Any know if there is any
Any know if there is any particular reason why the term "sex workers" rather then "sex industry workers" seems to be the commonly accepted nomenclature to define workers employed in the providing of sexually related services? Could it be said that workers employed in providing sexually related services are basically service sector workers?
Quote: Any know if there is
Probably because it's shorter, in the same way that fast food workers is commonly used instead of fast food industry workers or where I live which is dominated by the aerospace industry, aerospace workers as opposed to aerospace industry workers.
This is revolutionary porn.
This is revolutionary porn. DEATH TO THE FASCIST INSECT!
https://youtu.be/_E2cJ9gbWnQ
Fleur wrote: Probably because
Fleur
Thank you for your answer, Fleur.
I just want to add my two
I just want to add my two cents.
Sex is an extremely intimate act between two people, it's a very intimate and emotional way one can relate to another, this is one reasons rape is much worse than assault. What porn does is commodify sex, it does what capitalism always does. Porn is to sex what candy is to fruit, fruit has sugar, but it also has many nutrients that you need; candy is just sugar with nutrients, candy takes something good, and makes it damaging and, for some people, addictive.
Porn offers the instant pleasure of sex without the intimacy, it offers the pleasure but without the relationship. I think this is a problem for the same reason I think candy is bad for you, except moreso because of the intensity and emotional depth of sex.
Ultimately what capitalism does is corrupt what is good in life, "candifies it", and alients people, capitalism wants atomized consumers, and desperate workers; thats it. What it doesn't want Is people who are in relationship with one another, who love one another and who care about one another. They want to turn sex into a commodity consumption.
Not only that but much of porn basically teaches (especially Young boys) to have a very sick view of women, that women are something to be used, I don't know if there has been any social impact from the onset of internet porn, but I suspect there will be.
I think Alain Badiou was right when he talked about "love" being at risk in capitalism, I am pro love, pro sex, against porn.
Of course porn has always existed (in one form or another) and probably always will, but what capitalism has done with it is something I'm completely against. If any one asked me I would recommend to stay away from porn, go out and fall in love and have sex.
Rommon wrote: I just want to
Rommon
We may have our differences about religion but I agree with you 100% on this. Well said.
S. Artesian wrote: Left out
S. Artesian
I completely dissagree here; There's a reason why modern late Capitalism is A-OK With getting rid of the traditional Family, becuase the more People rely on the market for their needs, the more they are socailly atomized, the more they view themselves as individual consumers rather than anything else (fathers, mothers, daughters, neighbors, comrades, brothers, and so on) the better for Capitalism.
When I (as I often do) speak to market-fundamentalists or just People who still trust Capitalism about the possiblity of communism; one of the first examples I give is the Family, both Nuclear and extended. basically everything that happens in a (non-patriarchal, well functioning) Family is communistic.
Get rid of the Family and what you're left With is contract, i.e. marketized relationships. I personally think the idea that two People covenant together (excuse the theological Language) rather than merely contract is a good thing, I think relationships that are not mere contingencies but rather stable covenental bonds are good.
S. Artesian
S. Artesian
I didn't leave it out - I consider this covered by the bit in bold.
Rommon #47 ‘Ultimately what
Rommon #47
‘Ultimately what capitalism does is corrupt what is good in life, "candifies it", and alients people, capitalism wants atomized consumers, and desperate workers; thats it. What it doesn't want Is people who are in relationship with one another, who love one another and who care about one another. They want to turn sex into a commodity consumption.’
I agree with much in your post, however I’d take issue with you on at least two matters that I think you oversimplify.
Capitalism exploits sex to maximise profit particularly through advertising. However all states, past and present, wish to exert as much control as possible over sexual matters. The UK was forced to legalise some forms of porn only due to its inability to control the internet. The ruling class is not one entity, rather it is waring competitors that require regulation by the state. In a liberal democracy the benefits to capitalism of the internet, outweighs the freedom of all forms of ‘undesirable’ expression, including porn (which the state does its best to tax).
I feel capitalism only wishes to profitably exploit people’s feelings, and it is largely irrelevant what form their relationship takes (this is uneven, as in the case of homosexuality in Russia). In the UK you may buy a card for any occasion. People spend thousands of pounds getting married - the more the better!
Love has always been problematic. Platonic love is relatively simple. Sexual love is another matter. Unfortunately I cannot see this changing even with free communism.
As Samuel Butler wrote:
‘God is Love, I dare say. But what a mischievous devil Love is.’
Quote: I feel capitalism only
I completely agree ... Capitalism commodifies everything, Even marriages, divorces everything.
With porn however it goes up to the most intimate relationship and distorts it. I agree sexual love is "problematic" in that it's risky and self-emptying, but; at least for me, it is a big part of what makes us human; the ability to truely love.
From a theological perspective Platonic love is not Christian love, Chrisitan love is inherently self-empyting and giving.
Platonic love can be sexual, only in that you are masturbating With someone else, Real sexual love is self-giving, it's risky; that's what I am for.
This short video explains the
This short video explains the various addiction related brain changes that watching porn causes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmpTB-IxNyo
[youtube]YmpTB-IxNyo[/youtube]
The problem with this subject
The problem with this subject is that it is impossible to have this conversation without it being infused with people's own personal morality, something which is obvious in this thread. afaic my anarchist position now, not after any theoretical revolution, is to support workers in any industry, not just this one, in struggles for pay and conditions etc, not to moralize on how people should be getting off or to decide what sex should or should not be like. People are exploited, injured, endangered in all industries under capitalism but it's this idustry which seems to get singled out more often than not.
The above video is describing one of the biochemical processes of addiction. DeltaFosB is a trigger for all types of addictions and compulsive behaviours, cocaine, alcohol, exercise. It's not something specific to pornography addiction. Some people get addictions, some don't. Some people can enjoy a pint or going for a run, others become alcoholics or develop orthorexia. Addiction is a problem, raising your dopamine levels is not. Incidentally, without a regular supply of DeltaFosB you get depression.
Every position is a moral
Every position is a moral position, Anarchism is a moral position, Socialism is a moral position, the fight against exploitation and oppression are all moral positions.
S.Artesian wrote: The
S.Artesian
Except for the target market which isn't even sexually interested in women, ya know.
Or the target market which is sexually interested in representations of anthropomorphic animals, or depictions of men being swallowed whole, or giantesses. A huge part of pornography is the representation of desires which can't be acted out in real life. Witness how popular incest porn is.
Or when the target market market is women, or couples. Which is increasingly the case. Or when the porn is explicitly produced, filmed and distributed by women.
Craftwork
The assumption here is that porn is used as a substitute for real relationships. But I know guys in long term relationships that still watch porn every day, some even with their partners (Women also watch porn, again).
Rommon
Except when it isn't.
As for the rest of your post: "...true socialism, which is no longer concerned with real human beings but with “Man”, has lost all revolutionary enthusiasm and proclaims instead the universal love of mankind. It turns as a result not to the Proletarians but to the two most numerous classes of men in Germany, to the petty bourgeoisie with its philanthropic illusions and to the ideologists of this very same petty bourgeoisie: the philosophers and their disciples;"
Rommon
Again, no. 'Family values' is the watchword of social conservatives everywhere.
Capitalism destroying immediate, natural relations of dependence was a positive element in it's history.
Zanthorus wrote: Except when
Zanthorus
I believe it is, by nature, intimate.
As for the rest of Your post, the quote, I'm not sure of it's relevancy.
I disagree, I think Family is a positive thing.
if what you want is alienation, but just based on something else other than market and Capital, I'm not With that, I think Natural relations of mutual dependence is a good thing, we depend on others anyway, there is no way around that, actually having real grounded communities, such as families is a good thing.
I finally tracked down that
I finally tracked down that Yugoslav director who made erotic propaganda, there were a lot of directors in the Black Wave movement. Dušan Makavejev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du%C5%A1an_Makavejev
As far as I know he did two films that tried to use sex to push a message, WR the mysteries of the Organism and (Produced in exile) Sweet Movie. If you want to track them down I'd just like to warn you Black Wave is basically the stereotype of Euro indie art cinema come to life.
Rommon wrote: Zanthorus
Rommon
It depends on what sort of family it is and whether you actually have much in common with your family.
Rommon wrote: I believe it
Rommon
Well, go look up some videos of animals having sex with each other on National Geographic and then come back and report whether they seemed peturbed by being filmed.
'By nature', sex is something done out in the open, not for sentimental reasons, but because of a seasonal biological drive to reproduce. Humans are the ones that, in the course of social development, have ascribed it with mysterious, emotional and spiritual significance and made it more and more a private affair.
Rommon
Ok, so in the first place, you need to define what you mean by alienation. Because alienation in Marx refers to the fact that the productive powers and products of of social labour appear to the producers as something external and alien to them, because they are owned and appropriated by capital.
"Since, before he enters the process, his own labour has already been alienated from him, appropriated by the capitalist, and incorporated with capital, it now, in the course of the process, constantly objectifies itself so that it becomes a product alien to him... Therefore the worker himself constantly produces objective wealth, in the form of capital, an alien power that dominates and exploits him." (Capital Volume 1, pp. 716)
What I want is the end of the specifically capitalist mode of production, it's replacement by "an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." This means by definition, the end of alienation, at least in it's specifically Marxist sense.
What you have in mind is some alternate conception of alienation, but I'll let you elaborate on that instead of making guesses as to your intention.
Zanthorus wrote: Well, go
Zanthorus
There are quite a few differences between animals and humans ... there's a reason why rape is a discusting crime among human societies, worse than Assault, and not in the animal Kingdom.
As for the second paragraph, I have a Christian view of human nature, i.e. Imagio Dei ... so we're definately going to not see eye to eye there, so I suppose we'd have to agree to dissagree.
I use it more broadly, social relationships in a Family are not alienated, you are part of the the Family (at least many families) and the work you do in that relationship is Your own, and directly relational; in the market Place Your work is alienated, it isn't Yours, it's value has nothing to do With you, and its distribution has nothing to do With you.
a home cooked meal and a meal sold in a restaurant are fundamentally different, in the former it matters who makes the meal who eats the meal and the result is a relationship, the latter by definition throws all those Things out and the relationship is over once the transaction is over.
Sex in a relationship has a different Logic than sex that a trick has With a prostitute, in the latter scenario sex is an alienated commodity.
Rommon wrote: As for the
Rommon
I don't think we can really get anywhere with this discussion then.
It seems like if we push this through to it's logical conclusion, the only way to live without 'alienation' in this sense would be to revert to living in small local communities where everyone knows everyone else directly. With the current division of labour being a global one, I don't see how that's possible without reversing the progress of technology a couple of centuries.
Of course the 'value' and 'distribution' of commodities does have everything to do with the agency of the individuals who constitute the market, the marketplace, commodity exchange and capitalism aren't 'things' which control the human actors, they are social relationships that mediate their activity and give human agency the appearance of being the property of things.
If the only two options you can conceive of are sex in a committed monogamous relationship and prostitution, you might just need to develop a better imagination.
Zanthorus wrote: It seems
Zanthorus
I want more of community and less alienation (state, markets and so on), Capitalism demands that markets continously expand and take over every aspect of life ... I dont' think everything can be run by community, but I would like more of it.
By the way it's not just face to face, you can have non.market interactions without face to face knowledge of People, through moral norms, social norms and so on.
That wasn't my point, I'm opposed to porn for similar reasons that I am opposed to prostitution.
Rommon wrote: . If any one
Rommon
Yeah, and stay away from masturbation or you'll go blind.
Quote: If any one asked me I
Can we not go out and have sex, watch some porn, have more sex, then maybe at some point later if it all works out, fall in love?
Interesting to see Christian
Interesting to see Christian views here. I thinkk that capitalism can harm relationships like this. It perverts human relationships and this is nothing to boast about and display. Still, pornography is motivation for people to have sex love, so it will possibly stay as long as that does. Pornographic stuff was central in many cultures...
I am not a huge fun but I
I am not a huge fun but I understand why that's a huge turn-on. He who is without sin can cast the first stone. ;)
I am not sure how I feel
I am not sure how I feel about porn. Its hard to say because its not all the same, a lot of it is misogynist and sexist either explicitly so, or it promotes misogynist and sexist views (worth noting that even gay porn and transgender porn does so). Not necessarily always though and I don't think its inevitable that porn should promote these views.
In general I don't have a problem with sex between consenting adults being filmed and available for others to view. I think that can be a good thing, it can be a way for people to safely explore their sexuality or sexual desires, and I think that being accepted is a good thing. I think it still does have potential to cause harm to those who engage in it though, like them deeply regretting and being embarrassed or ashamed of it in the future.
I think in a free society, where people aren't hung up about sex and pleasure, and where we aren't compelled to lead 'professional' life's and abide by a work ethic, then there is reason to think porn would still be made. It is just sex after all, it's not really a big deal, and I can sort of see why a couple might find it fun or sexy to film themselves doing it, and I would think in an anarchist society sex (all kinds of sex between consenting adults, straight, gay, monogamous, polygamous, romantic or one night stand etc.) would be much more accepted than today, not viewed as taboo or 'dirty'.
I totally reject Rommon (and
I totally reject Rommon (and anyone else's) ridiculous, reactionary views on the family under capitalism, porn and sexual relationships:
1) Porn has existed for centuries.
2) The internet has simply increased its accessibility and enabled its rapid diffusion on an enormous scale.
3) The fact that it's so popular - that at any given moment, a considerable proportion of people that are online will be viewing it - tells us more about society than it does about porn.
4) There were no "good old days" of "pure, loving relationships" before commodification or capitalism undermined the family. If you scratch beneath the surface of that quasi-sacred, patriarchal/ideological construct, "the family", upheld as a source or bastion of values and stability, you'll find that it's the site of some of the worst abuses and atrocities (e.g. committed against children or women) - far worse than anything you'll see in porn.
I sometimes wonder whether men's complaints about sex being commodified or capitalised is related to the fact that, for centuries, they've effectively had free access to women (with or without consent), and this therefore represents a diminishing of their power.
5) The fact that capitalism, in the course of its development, has (to some extent) dissolved familial bonds in favour of a society of singular individuals confronting each other in a system of universal competition is not something to simply be lamented. It represents alienation, but it also represents a form of freedom.
Sure, those large factories in Asia are sites of extreme alienation/exploitation, but better to be a woman proletarian with a wage, with a chance to learn more about the world, than a woman in rural Bangladesh or China whose prospects are otherwise to simply be married young, and live a life of domestic servitude - from being the property of her parents to the property of her husband.
Craftwork #69 ‘I totally
Craftwork #69
‘I totally reject Rommon (and anyone else's) ridiculous, reactionary views on the family under capitalism, porn and sexual relationships:’
Your ridicule is based on a series of assertions and strawmen. I hope to show your views are not as ‘progressive’ as you claim.
‘1) Porn has existed for centuries.’
I am not sure what you mean by porn. Please point me to the evidence that it has existed for centuries. My understanding is that as part of the Victorian’s obsession with classification, the word was invented to describe items of a sexual nature they considered an affront to public decency. Is this also your definition? (I define it as material meant to sexually stimulate or titillate and it comes in many forms. It may help satisfy the curiosity most people have to see the otherwise un-see able.)
‘2) The internet has simply increased its accessibility and enabled its rapid diffusion on an enormous scale.’
I fully agree with this point.
‘3) The fact that it's so popular - that at any given moment, a considerable proportion of people that are online will be viewing it - tells us more about society than it does about porn.’
Yes, though you fail to explain what it tells us. Your ‘point’ is simply word-play.
‘4) There were no "good old days" of "pure, loving relationships" before commodification or capitalism undermined the family. If you scratch beneath the surface of that quasi-sacred, patriarchal/ideological construct, "the family", upheld as a source or bastion of values and stability, you'll find that it's the site of some of the worst abuses and atrocities (e.g. committed against children or women) - far worse than anything you'll see in porn.
I sometimes wonder whether men's complaints about sex being commodified or capitalised is related to the fact that, for centuries, they've effectively had free access to women (with or without consent), and this therefore represents a diminishing of their power.’
I can find no reference to the ‘good old days’.
Rommon can defend his own ideas about ‘pure and loving relationships’, though my reading of history suggests to me these things still exist into the present day. Your theoretical idea of ‘the family’ suggests a lopsided view of human relationships. Yes, the family is the site of incest and some paedophilia, etc., though that is far from the whole story. My main objection to your construct is that it ignores the bond between parents and their children. The centre of a family unit is the children. If you cannot see the validity of these bonds, then you must find the present grief on display to London an unfathomable mystery.
Your point about men having ‘free access to women’ is fantastical. In capitalism only the rich are free. Women are/were strictly ‘private property’, as men are/were paranoid about their offspring. The discovery of DNA has partially removed this fear. The other day I read something about a woman being prosecuted for faking a DNA test. Men’s diminishing power is I fear wishful thinking.
5) The fact that capitalism, in the course of its development, has (to some extent) dissolved familial bonds in favour of a society of singular individuals confronting each other in a system of universal competition is not something to simply be lamented. It represents alienation, but it also represents a form of freedom.
Sure, those large factories in Asia are sites of extreme alienation/exploitation, but better to be a woman proletarian with a wage, with a chance to learn more about the world, than a woman in rural Bangladesh or China whose prospects are otherwise to simply be married young, and live a life of domestic servitude - from being the property of her parents to the property of her husband.'
Your first paragraph I think turns reality on its head.
Alienation is a form of freedom? Freedom to top yourself, etc.
Several times I’ve heard Judge Judy tell mothers, “Get out and work, stop being a burden on the taxpayers”.
Unfortunately no one has dared answer her back (or it was edited out). So to hell with your mothering instincts - get out and work and stop being a parasite.
Your last point regarding the situation of large numbers of women in Asia and elsewhere is partially valid. I write ‘partially’ because as a westerner my knowledge is limited and the notion that one form of exploitation is preferable to another is problematical. We will never know how many Chinese people, men and women, having been forcibly removed from their land, now exist in some Dickensian type of hell-hole.
Craftwork wrote: I totally
Craftwork
1. So what? I mean rape has existed for centuries, that isn't an argument for it.
2. Yes, and it's a sad state of affairs.
3. You can say that about any consumption, except it isn't just a one way thing, when you consume and act in the world you change the world but also the world changes you.
4. Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that healthy relationships are impossible or that porn isn't detrimental to them. You're argument here is like saying "before the war in Iraq, it's not like Iraq was some hunky dory Utopia" ... so what? the war made it worse and added MORE problems to the old ones. It's not like pornography stopped domestic abuse.
What does that even mean? "free Access" to women ... are you claiming that there was no such thing as rape before then? Are you claiming that womens bodies becoming commodities actually empowers them?
You don't have to "Wonder", you can ask. No, all men haven't had "free Access" to women, and no one that I know proposes that. It's not like the only two options are womens sexualities being bought and sold OR rape is legal ... that's competely stupid.
The other option is actual human relationships involving intimacy and love ... you know that is a real thing. And it isn't "free" or "at a price" ... it's not part of the market. The fact that you seem to think those are the two options really makes you look like a neo-liberal idologue who can't see the world outside of the market.
Yeah, freedom in a sense, but I don't think that "freedom" that capitalism sells is a good freedom, or even an actual freedom. My view on freedom is the ancient greek philosophical view; man is free when he is living life well.
But anyway, a prostitute is technically more free than a woman in a loving relationship, the woman in a loving relationship has moral responsibilities to her parter, to her Family to her community; the prostitute does not, her sexual encounters are contractual ... I don't think the prostitute is more free, I don't think she has a better life.
It Depends on the rural community. There are plenty of rural communities where women are respected, and where they are valued as much as men.
I think the crux is two different worldviews:
You seem to have a rather neo-liberal world viwe of the individual. Human beings are atomized, they are most free when they are free of any non-contractural obligations and relationships, and human beings can make their own identities. So a prostitute who doesn't have to answer to anyone, but is dirt poor, alienated, alone and so on, is really more free than a woman in a Family situation who is cared for, has obligations and in community.
I think that human beings are social animals, and they can only thrive in community, and I think that a person being turned into a commodity, especially their sexuality, is one of the worst Things that can happen to them.
Are there other "bad" Things in the world of sexual relationships? Yeah sure, but doesn't make pornography a good thing.
Rommon wrote: ... Are there
Rommon
I don't really look upon marriage and static relationships as some ideal. I think there was something to what Wilde said about 'divorces being made in heaven.' People should be free to be with whomever they wish, and I don't see anything wrong with that. In a post-capitalist world there shouldn't be the dependence on the 'breadwinner', forcing people to stay in relationships they otherwise hate. And again, I don't see what's wrong with pornography, which has existed for centuries, in its non-commodity, non-exploitative forms.
Quote: But anyway, a
For someone who dismissed feminism as identity politics in another thread, you sure have a lot of things about how women should make their living or what their relationships should be like. And the words you are looking for are sex worker.
Fleur wrote: For someone who
Fleur
Yeah, I have opinions about what is healthy for a man, woman, or child to do ... I don't think it's healthy for anyone to be a prostitute or sex worker, I don't think anyone should join the military, I don't think People should drink soda ... yes I do have opinions about what are good and bad decisions and good and bad ways society organizes and so on.
Yes, indeed I have noticed
Yes, indeed I have noticed you have a lot of opinions on telling other people what to do with their bodies, how to conduct their own relationships, how to express their sexualities, what to do to make money how to interpret historical documents and a bunch of other things, opinions predicated upon your personal morality. What is your position of expertise which allows you to be so certain than you can tell other people what to do with their own bodies and lives?
Also fwiw, Matthew chapter 7, verses 1-3.
Fleur, are you trying to make
Fleur, are you trying to make this thread about Rommon’s opinions?
Having a pop at the Christian may please the libcom gallery, but it appears to be a sad attempt to divert attention from Craftwork’s half-baked post #69.
Rommon’s post #71 contained political content, but it’s so much easier to address something in his past posts or his choice of words. Post 69 is much admired, anyone care to explain?
Post 71 contains mostly
Post 71 contains mostly Rommon's half-baked personal opinions on how other people should conduct their lives, some tired tropes about who he thinks sex workers are (pathetic women without the capacity to maintain good relationships,) that their sexualities - rather than their labour- are being bought and sold.
I pretty much agree with Crafttwork's post but there again it is possible that I may have known more sex workers than Rommon, as well as not a few Christians who don't feel the need to hector other people about how they should be living, so my opinions may be somewhat biased.
I don't know what your actual
I don't know what your actual problem is with what I said? Yes I have opinions about what is good and healthy behavior and a good and healthy life and a good and healthy society and what is not ... who doesn't? Everyone does.
I think that just because we are talking about sex it's different. What is being bought and sold is sex, not only labor, which is why how a sex worker looks matters. I'm not "hectoring" anyone, this is a thread about pornography ... presumably it would be appropriate to talk about the ethics of pornography in a thread about pornography.
I haven't "judged" anyone, unless you equate me saying some kinds of behavior, some kinds of social institutions, some cultrual phenomenon is unhealthy and bad with "judging" People .... Would it be "judging" if someone said that overweight People should eat healthier and workout? Is it "judging" to say that no-hour contracts are wrong as an institution?
ALL ethical opinions are based on people's personal morality ... literally all of them.
As far as interpreting documents ... Yeah, there are better and worse interpretations, i.e. interpretations that make more or less sense of the text in it's context ....
I don't know what you expect, no opinions for anyone? What's the point of this thread then? Why are you even here?
Do you support sex workers in
Do you support sex workers in their struggles, Rommon?
Thanks Fleur, you made more
Thanks Fleur, you made more sense out to the post than I did. I still have no idea that Craftwork was talking about:
‘I sometimes wonder whether men's complaints about sex being commodified or capitalised is related to the fact that, for centuries, they've effectively had free access to women (with or without consent), and this therefore represents a diminishing of their power.’
The world’s oldest profession has been around long before capitalism. Capitalism has only modified the exchange. The part about men effectively having free access to women before capitalism is fantasy. What does he mean? Is he still referring the sex work? And why does it diminish men’s power?
I have only heard of the term having ‘free access to women’ once, and that was in relation to the first dust-up inside the ORA in the early nineteen seventies. Some comrades arranged to share a house, mainly to assemble and print ‘Libertarian Struggle’ our monthly paper. It quickly became clear that this ‘collective’ was not going to include ‘collectivizing’ the women. One male left in the huff, claiming the others were been selfish and not good communists. My memory is that the others formed ‘pairs’ (who knows - it was their affair).
Quote: I think that just
But in this instance, sex is labor. Most types of labor in one context are activities done for pleasure or satisfaction in another. And in all types of wage labor the use of your body (or at least your bodily power) is being exchanged as a commodity. Sex work is no different in either of these aspects.
I think people are taking issue with your argument because a communist analysis of sex work views sex work as work. To say "sex is different" is adding a layer of moralism to your argument that, whether you intend it to or not, paints sex workers as victims - whether worthy victims or otherwise.
Quote: The fact that
I also just wanted to say that I agree with this and find it a fairly straightforward Marxist position.
The family, historically, has existed as a patriarchal institution in which women and children were considered the property of the male head of household. And while being "freed" onto the labour market does, on one hand, open your labor to direct relations of capital, it also gives women an amount of agency that didn't exist within traditional familial structure.
It's no huge surprise that when women enter the workforce in large numbers, female demands for easier divorce laws soon follow.
I am not even sure who is
I am not even sure who is wrong here.
Freddom to consume is not freedom. I just drank a beer that I enjoyed, doesn't mean that the shitty day of work I just had was liberating and it doesn't make me free in any real sense.
Prostitutes sell labour, looks are a part of it but that is part of labour. People hire more attractive sales and wait staff, good-looking people tend to get more job offers, this doesn't make them prostitutes. Other physical attributes can help, for example being taller helps get management positions, having big muscles would probably help you with a labouring job, this doesn't make these jobs prostitution. If none of those jobs are prostitution simply because a physical attribute(s) is added to the job description then that probably means that the specificity of prostitution, sex sork, is due to the fact that it involves sex. I do admit that there is something that makes me a touch squeamish about sex work and it is specifically sex, because if a care worker wipes granny's arse we don't fele that the family intimacy of caring has been irredeemably tarnished. I think it is down to morality and I don't think that is a good thing. I don't think anyone should have to pay for sex and I don't think anyone should have to sell sex, but I think that about everything.
The whole unfettered access to women has some logic to it, but that depends very much on the society and usually theere was a barrier before this access was granted and not every man could gain this access. In modern timpes this is still true. I ws pretty disgusted by the relentless groping of women that happened when I was on holiday, but we were in a country where access was strictly controlled, so the unwed men we saw had in general no real access to women, so while the society was misogynistic and so were these men they weren't exactly living it up in sexist paradise, they were angry and frustrated because the only real chance they had was groping a tourist at night, and even then most didn't. To see sex workers and their clients as victims and exploiters or some similar formulation is a disregarding everything.
My main beef about prostitution is that due to societal pressures it is often a last resort that people are forced into and prostitutes are terribly mistreated, but one could say the same about rubbish tip scavengers or a lot of other jobs. I dislike the idea that prostitution can be this clean and antiseptic choice, "oh she just did it for a few years to pay for grad school, she had a few regulars and she screened out the crazy guys and made good money" Like most jobs what you have affects what you get out of it. If you have the capital (including cultural physical etc) it is a very different job to if you don't. IT's the difference between wyneth Paltrow selling stuff on goop and a working class woman trying to make money with herbalife.
In itself porn is commodification, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, pretty much all books, TV, cinema is about packaging emotion up in some way for our consumption. So Lizzie Bennet sparring with Mr Darcy, Bruce Willis shouting yippie kyay and a porn scene are in that sense similar and each has a time, a place and an audience, all of which can overlap or not.
Khawaga wrote: Do you support
Khawaga
100%, I think sex workers ought to have ready access to healthcare, protection, screenings, workers rights and everything else.
I would say the same thing about veterans and soldiers, I don't think anyone should join the military; I think it's a dehumanizing and horrible institution (just as the sex trade is), but I also think it's disgusting how veterans are treated, and I think they should get ready access to healthcare, training programs, welfare and so on.
Chilli Sauce wrote: But in
Chilli Sauce
The difference is the nature of sex ... sex is extremely intimate. This is why rape is so much worse than crimes like theft or assault.
EVERY analysis is going to end up being "moralistic" ... even the communist analysis is moralistic because it makes value judgements.
I know the issues in one
I know the issues in one industry are not the same as those in another, but if sex work is work, what then is the objection to being a customer? I'm confused.
I find myself disagreeing
I find myself disagreeing with much of what Rommon has to say but I'm with him on these two
I'm particularly glad to hear someone make the second point as despite the popular view being to the contrary, it underpins pretty much my entire position in politics.
Furthermore, I surprised but heartened to hear Miss Elizabeth Bennet being mentioned on Libcom, it's good to know I'm not the only one that appreciates a bit of "sparring".
Rommon: Perhaps I'm missing
Rommon:
Perhaps I'm missing some nuance in what you're saying, in part due to your idiosyncratic posting technique. Generally in internet usage capitalizing whole words for emphasis is shouting and shouting your opinions is hectoring.
Yes, you have opinions. You seem to imbue sex with some kind of quasi-spiritual sanctity, which is only healthy when practiced by people in long-term, committed relationships. I'm glad that's working out for you - tbh it's pretty good for me too - but not everybody has the same opinion, not everybody is looking for or wants to pair bond, a lot of people have no problems or hang-ups about enjoying intimacy with someone who is not a life-partner and when you are strident in expressing that your version of sex is the only one which "good and healthy" then you are by default judging other people for not doing it the same way as you.
Yes, it absolutely would be. Firstly, something, something, something about walking in other people's shoes before you start laying down the law about how they should live their lives. Also, gross generalizations much. Overweight people may be overweight for all sorts of reasons. they may have contributory health problems. A former Kung Fu teacher friend of mine who is very heavy, having had a catastrophic injury, which means he cannot exercise very much just loves it when people regularly tells him he should eat better ( he eats very well btw) and work out more (he can't.) People may have eating disorders - fantastic helpful advise there, way to go with contributing to people's complicated food issues. They could have mental health issues, they may live in food deserts and work three jobs and are just waiting for some smartarse to sort their lives out for themselves. Or else, they may just love themselves the way they are and have every right to tell interfering body shamers where to stick their opinions. Generally anybody's opinions on somebody else's body is a whole barrel of none of your fucking business.
You are expressing your opinion about what you think is natural for human beings, what is "good and healthy" for everyone and what constitutes a healthy society, disregarding that fact that humans are individuals, with different needs, desires, aptitudes and abilities and by very implication whatever falls outside your very narrow parameters of this is bad and unhealthy. That is pretty judgemental if you want my opinion.
Good question. I've been asking myself that one myself.
wojtek wrote: I know the
wojtek
To be honest with you Woj, I think you're slightly conflating two issues here. One is which particular way - moral or class or some combination of the two - to understand sex work and people who work in the industry.
The other is why anarchists or communists might have ideological (and, yes, even moral issues) with purchasing sexual services. For me, I'd say the main issue is consent. If sex is reduced to a financial transaction - complete with all the pressures of bosses, the market, paying rent - then consent can't taken as a given.
But I think those are two different arguments and allowing one to bleed into the other can move us away from a class understanding of sex work to moralistic conclusions regarding the industry and those who work in it.
Chilli Sauce #82 ‘Quote: The
Chilli Sauce #82
‘Quote:
The fact that capitalism, in the course of its development, has (to some extent) dissolved familial bonds in favour of a society of singular individuals confronting each other in a system of universal competition is not something to simply be lamented. It represents alienation, but it also represents a form of freedom.
I also just wanted to say that I agree with this and find it a fairly straightforward Marxist position.
The family, historically, has existed as a patriarchal institution in which women and children were considered the property of the male head of household. And while being "freed" onto the labour market does, on one hand, open your labor to direct relations of capital, it also gives women an amount of agency that didn't exist within traditional familial structure.
It's no huge surprise that when women enter the workforce in large numbers, female demands for easier divorce laws soon follow.’
Yes, I agree that Marx was describing the present capitalist reality.
However in the context in the post, it was used as a rejection of Rommon’s criticism of capitalist alienation. My understanding of Marx, is not that he approved of the current situation, rather he believed in the need to change the status quo through revolution. To somehow imply Marx was defending capitalism is a political sleight of hand.
Alienation is a blight on the working class plain and simple. Some of the posts defending Craftwork are simply pathetic.
Fleur wrote: Yes, you have
Fleur
Yeah, I do think sex is something sacred, I'm a Christian and there are theological reasons to view sex as sacred. But I don't think it's just me, I think many People, InFact society as a Whole views sex the same way ... which is why, as I said before rape is considered such a horrific crime.
I'm sure People as individuals have no problems With many different kinds of Things, that doesn't make it healthy or good.
Let me put it this way, if I knew someone who was going to join the army, I would strongly advise him against it, even if he personally had no problem With what he was doing, I would conclude that he was just simply wrong, or confused, or morally stupid.
I'm not judging anyone in the sense that I am not saying someone who makes an unhealthy or wrong Choice or is put in an unhealthy or bad position is morally a bad person, or deserving of scorn, I AM saying their Choice, or the position they have been put in is unhealthy and wrong.
Everyone does this, it's impossible to not .... if you say ANYTHING is unhealthy, wrong or anything else you are making a moral judgement.
That's different than what Jesus was talking about, what Jesus was talking about was condemnation of People ... althroughout his ministry he made judgements on behavior and ideology, even the idea that compassion is better than condemnation is a judgement.
You're absolutely right ... I'm talking about a friend, someone I know. I would never go up to an overweight person on the street and just make assumptions about that person.
But again, your objection isn't against judging it healtheir to be fit rather than overweight, it's just coming to conclusions without having enough data.
By the way ... ALL of your examples are People who CANNOT workout or eat healthy due to mental or physical illness .... That implies that it would be better if they didn't have those problems and thus COULD workout and eat healthy .. why? Because it would be better and healtheir if they did.
Being overweight puts you at greater risk of all kinds of illnesses, it puts more strain on your bodily systems, you are less physically capable, you may have a more difficult time in the dating game due to what People generally find attractive. These are facts.
If someone is overweight, and cannot do anything about it, and thus has decided to live With the body they have and learn to love it and make the best out of it, that's wonderful ... but it would be healthier if they were able to do something about it and did do something about it.
If you saw someone you cared for doing Things like starting to smoke, eating tons of junk Food, not getting any excercise, drinking too much and so on .... I seriously hope you would approach them and tell them they are on a bad course, that wouldn't be judgemental, it would be loving.
Being an ethical person means making other people's ills, their problems, their suffering, their condition YOUR business ...
Hopefully it's to hear different Points of view and try and refine your own.
Could people stop using the
Could people stop using the term prostitute? It's a pejorative word used to diminish sex workers rights.
As for sex workers rights, it's common in these types of discussion to completely disregard what sex workers themselves have to say about, well, sex work (although it's more common in feminist discussion because, you know, anarchists are usually supposed to stand up for workers rights and oppose oppression). Seeing how this discussion seems to start moving towards sex work in general, here is a link to what sex workers themselves have to say about it: http://www.iusw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/SexWorkAndHumanRightsIUSWMar14.pdf
Chilli Sauce wrote: The
Chilli Sauce
The notion of "consent" in capitalism is really twisted in my opinion ... take a woman who immigrated to another country out of desperation, and now finds herself in a brothel, she has no Family, no real community.
Even if there is no one putting a gun to her head telling her to sleep With a disgusting old man who is paying the brothel, is she really "consenting" to it? Technically she is, she says yes to get a payment, but really what option does she have? She's been ripped out of any community, she's alone, and entirely dependant on the brothel to live.
This is why I feel actual community, relationship, and the christian concept of "koinonia" (fellowship) are vital. The context in which "consent" is given is almost as important as the actual subjective decision.
Quote: I'm sure People as
Isn't health outside the realm of moral judgments? Those aren't really synonymous terms. We know from evidence that cigarettes are unhealthy; we don't know that 'long-term intimate relationships' are necessarily the 'healthiest' kind of sexual relationship for everyone.
Rommon wrote: The notion of
Rommon
Please don't say that sex workers are allowing themselves to be raped. We all have morals when it comes to sex. The difference here is that you are pushing your own morals about sex on other people.
sam bauer wrote: Please
sam bauer
That isn't what I said ... read all of what I said, and please don't missrepresent me.
Thanks for the clarification
Thanks for the clarification Chilli.
This is worth a watch, it
This is worth a watch, it explains everything:
Rommon wrote: S. Artesian
Rommon
Families are only tolerable and only really work when all people in the family are friends, therefore a group of friends is just as good as any family (or should be). From my own experience it is a good idea to see family members more as friends, if that is possible, and it should be possible because if you don't get on with a member of your family and don't have much in common with them and can't be yourself around them then theres not really any point in having anything to do with them. The idea of suffering someone you have nothing in common with just because they are biologically related to you is is an old fashioned idea that doesn't really make sense. There are huge problems with the traditional family though for obvious reasons, which is why it is best not to have a traditional family or be part of one.