Don Hazen (Alternet) on "Pornography and the End of Masculinity"

Rock on Don.

http://www.alternet.org/sex/62833/?page=1

I have always been part of the collective liberal progressive libertarian value system that accepts pornography as a legitimate expression of the First Amendment. Part of that thinking is that women participate in porn films of their own free will and that porn often represents fantasies -- though sometimes quasiviolent or degrading -- that people actually have. So as long as people are merely acting in porn films and there is no coercion, or law-breaking, it is acceptable.

But I've changed my mind. No, I'm not a prude, or anti-sex. Nor do I think there should be a national campaign to snuff out all porn. In fact, I sometimes watch certain kinds of porn. But what has become clear to me is that, under the guise of the First Amendment, a huge and powerful porn industrial complex has grown out of control. And a big part of its growth is fueled, not just by the internet, but by continually upping the ante, increasing the extremes of degradation for the women in tens of thousands of films made every year. I am convinced, although it is, of course, difficult to document, that the huge audiences for porn and the pervasiveness of the themes and behaviors of degradation are having a negative impact on the way men behave and the way society treats women.

More at link.

Shocking.

:)

Don Hazen is executive director of the Independent Media Institute and executive editor of AlterNet. The former publisher of Mother Jones magazine, he has edited several books, including, most recently, Start Making Sense: Turning the Lessons of Election 2004 into Winning Progressive Politics. Don conceived of and organized the two Media & Democracy Congresses that took place in San Francisco and New York City in 1997 and 1998, and has managed political campaigns in New York City for Ruth Messinger and David Dinkins. He holds an MA in counseling from the University of Massachusetts and a BA in politics from Princeton University.

that there is more violence today in our society directed against women? I'm not doubting; just asking. I've seen violent crime statistics that seem to correlate most clearly with economic trends. I've not seen any sort of consistently upward trajectory in the crime statistics I've seen.

Even if there is such an increase, his correlation between that and porn--as presented in the article--is subjective.

I don't know enough about porn and trends within porn to follow his thesis, but my recollection of my occasional exposure to porn over the last thirty years is that some flavors of it were always much like he described.

I also think there is confusion about which is cause and which is effect in his central thesis that porn is having an effect on masculinity.

:shrug:

I think other current social, cultural and economic factors are much more directly harmful to women than is porn.

in cultures where the women aren't even allowed to show their ankles, much less anything else.

How do we know if there's an uptick in domestic violence, in part because of increased socialized hatred toward women as spurred on by misogynist pornography, or just increased reporting of it, in part because increased candor in the social sphere is removing some of the taboos around reporting domestic violence.

Sadly, the stronger argument against pornography is the conservative one. Art depicting brutality against women should be regulated because it's a fundamental assault on community sensibilities.

I don't know if art has "an effect on masculinity" per se, but I do know that art has always existed specifically to shape and reinforce cultural norms. Art influences people as certainly as television promotes shorter attention spans. Art that casually depicts brutality against women makes brutality against women in real life less shocking. In the long run it may be as corrosive to public standards as say Rush Limbaugh is to public discourse.

I don't think you need to be labeled "pro-censorship" if you think the community has the right to control what nonpolitical art forms are deemed permissible in the public sphere. We all share a public life together; surely what the flavor of that community is doesn't have to be dictated by whoever is willing to be the most shocking, lurid, or spectacular.

just because you are pro-censorship.

I see.

Do you think pornography is the leading cause, or even in the top 5 causes, of brutality against women, which even you admit may not be increasing.

What about brutality against the planet as depicted in essentially every work of art that involves, for example, an automobile or a lightbulb. Or brutality against men, which is pretty much every action film or non-comedy TV show? Where do you draw the line?

I'm not comfortable drawing a censorship line at pornography because:

1. no non-subjective definition of "pornography" exists

2. it is not clear (and in fact appears not to be the case) that violence against women is increasing

3. no causal link has been shown between pornography and societal attitudes toward women, in fact the causality very well might work in the opposite direction

4. censorship is anathema to a progressive world

5. changes in "masculinity" (whatever the hell that actually is) have been linked clearly to environmental and dietary causes, not to "art" and, again, causality, if it exists, might well work in the opposite direction

6. one person's beef is another person's tofu--consensual rough or submissive sex is not evil and is nobody's concern except those who engage in it

7. existing laws cover children, coercive sex, non-consensual sex, murder, rape, etc. and censorship wouldn't stop it anyway

8. no one is forcing anyone to "consume" pornography

I could come up with even more reasons if I had more time.

The anti-porn crowd has looked and looked for associations like that for years and years. Nixon tried it- Meese tried it under Reagan- to no avail.

Yet that hasn't stopped people from the Dworkin school of thought from making the assertions- and if you think about it- it's really nothing new. It's probably been going on since humans first learned to draw.

Just another one of your anti-porn screeds. :sarcasm:

Making an obvious allusion to "military-industrial complex" pretty damned silly. The two ideas being almost completely unrelated, and all. But what the hell, right? They're both Bad Things (TM), so i guess that's close enough. Or so I'm told.

A home run. You know what I'm wondering? If a man writes about porn the way feminists--at least "radical" feminists have been writing about porn, Will Someone finally HEAR? I'm sick of the first amendment argument, it's not about that, it never was. Something is Really really wrong. Not hard to see, or notice. Not at all. It almost as though we have a sexually immature and sexually twisted nation sticking it's head in the sand, or sticking their fingers in their ears --La la la I can't HEAR you. Jesus. And it isn't about morality either. It never was. The Christian men who keep getting busted with porn are part of a broader picture. They just show up as bigger and more obvious hypocrites than the hard core porn consumer who will tell you they just LOVE women.

and so it produces cruel porn. So how is attacking porn radical? It's like trying to kill a tree by picking its most rotten fruit.

I will continue to focus my radicalism on education and the welfare safety net and the eradication of our cruel police state and the military-industrial complex. The sex industry is near the bottom of my list, hovering somewhere around noise pollution and identity theft.

I mean, there is and has always been a niche for violence fetishists, and that kind of merges with the rougher sides of The Scene, but I think Hazen is talking less about stuff like beatthebitch.com (yes, that's a real site, sadly) and more about how incredibly degrading and abusive "normal" porn is becoming. When I was 13 and sneaking occasional looks at porno movies, the "actors" seemed to genuinely enjoy the sex. But porn today has this really disturbing tendency for the man to berate and vilify the woman, or in gay porn for the top to do the same thing to the bottom. It's really troubling.

are pretty standard fare these days - in fact, that scene could have come from any pornographic movie I watched in college (just a few years ago).

Why are people scared of potrayals of strong, sexual women?

If you're anti-porn, you might as well just be anti-sex. I mean, how many women are "exploited" in bedrooms across the country every night?

But then, ten years ago you could still see strong, sexual women in pornography. The Internet allowed self-publishing, and in those days I think it did give a lot of women their first chance to sexually express themselves as strong, sexual beings in a safe way.

Something has changed.

The ones where the women are doing it entirely on their own hook without going through a big studio or anything? Those seem like portrayals of women doing what they want to do and enjoying it, and if melted candle wax floats their boat (I don't see how, that stuff hurts like a bitch) then ok but they're doing it.

It burns, but it doesn't burn burn.

Burns bring to mind me missing with a torch, grabbing hot metal a bit too early, or accidentally hitting hot glass in the shop, not something sexy.

I'm just saying how people do it without actually getting hurt. Some people find pain pleasurable and others don't. I don't judge either way.

It should keep the body fairly hairless.

are you kidding?
nothing at all to do about the strong dollars (mostly) men and big underground corps get from her holes being invaded.

good cripes. call me a prude, but how in Hell is some of this porn supposed to be good for anyone? who???
is this is considered 'sexual' and healthy?

would you use this kind of material to teach your Kids About Sex? anal, vag, mouth hands, sperm spewed all over and drunk up?

This Is not sex. it is degradation.

Why is it "unhealthy" for a woman (or a man) to express and engage in the primal desires they feel? "anal, vag, mouth hands, sperm spewed all over and drunk up" as you so eloquently describe it takes place every day in the privacy of homes across the world. Are those women, who engage with their husbands/boyfriends degrading themselves? Or is it only the ones who do it on camera?

"nothing at all to do about the strong dollars (mostly) men and big underground corps get from her holes being invaded."

Do you consider the NFL or MLB as "exploiting" the athletes? That's mostly men too.

This material is not designed for teaching children so it's a loaded (and ridiculous) question.

please......

whatever consenting adults decide to do in their own homes is None of My Business. I am not talking about that. and you know it.

Why is two consenting adults engaging in kinky sex in the privacy of their own bedroom just fine, but two consenting adults engaging in kinky sex ON FILM is suddenly degrading? I mean, the behaviour is either degrading or it's not.

after someone purchases it.

Re This material is not designed for teaching children so it's a loaded (and ridiculous) question.

OF COURSE it isn't designed for teaching children! But it could be the first or only "sex education" Junior gets, because Daddy carelessly forgot to put the DVD away. Does anyone really want that?

A Seven Year Old.

There are plenty of things out there in books, on TV, on the internet that are not suitable for children.

Does that mean we need to censor it for the sake of the children? No.

It means parents have to actually be parents.

Very well said.

It's a question that expresses the individual's distaste for porn and nothing more than that. If any child has ever been exposed to porn, especially of the type under discussion, that's a parenting issue, which is a totally different subject.

Porn is designed to arouse, not educate (though you can learn stuff). It's a disingenous argument because no one here is suggesting that porn should be used to educate children. Porn should be used by mature adults who wanna get their rocks off. What is the problem with consenting adults watching consenting adults have sex?

He tried to slip that one by, didn't he?

Porn and all sex are not the same thing. To claim they are is painfully simplistic and sad.

I said "If you're anti-porn, you might as well just be anti-sex."

I'm not comparing the two nor am I claiming they are one and the same. I simply said that if you are anti-porn then you might as well take the next step and be anti-sex. Because that's all porn is; sex.

Please, please read what I write before responding.

As a caveat, I host several websites including some "adult" ones (though it's curious to me that things labeled "adult" or "mature" are generally childish and juvenile). That said, the few "adult" sites I host are, as far as I can tell, unusual and maybe even niche in that they simply portray men and women in various states of undress and seemingly enjoying themselves. That's surprisingly hard to find, "out there". Hazen's point about degradation is well-made; the "final straw" for me was getting a spam for a port site that bragged "all our scenes were written by real convicted rapists". That's so sick I don't even know what to say about that. It could be self-interest or hypocrisy, but I just don't see the "watch me walk around in lingerie" stuff I host as even remotely in the same category; though I also think situations like that where the model produces, runs, and profits from the website is probably less open to abuse than how the big porn houses run things.

As an aside, anecdotally, male arousal just ain't what it used to be anymore, to here my straight female and gay male friends tell it. I think the saturation of porn is doing weird things to normal sex drives.

It's a good article. I really like the line, "Mirrors can be dangerous, and pornography is a kind of mirror."

Pornography in the face of sexual repression will always be messy. If two generations hadn't been raised on having missionary position sex through a hole in a sheet then a lot of this "extreme" porn would be considered passe simply due to the novelty of it.

Parents get fearful too, as their children approach puberty, and some parents make everything about sex..dirty, shameful, dangerous..you name it..

I must have been a liberated Mom.. I told my 3 sons, that I would NOT throw out their girlie magazines, as long as they did not leave them laying around outside their own rooms.. We assumed that they WOULD want to /need to look at those magazines, so we never made them a big deal..

basically argues that even though there is a paucity of documented evidence of harm that a first amendment right ought to be put in "control". Cool philosophy you got going there.

Which is vastly more than in most anti-porn screeds. Yes, the porn industry does continually up the ante on the variety of porn usually believed to be degrading. However, the women involved freely consent to appear in these films. If we proclaim they have no right to freely consent to appear, then we assume we know better than they do. If we proclaim that certain kinds of film can't be made, we are violating the first ammendment (trite, I know but still true).

Unfortunatly, the author seems to be relying largely on Jensen's anti-porn tirade which in itself, incorporated numerous assumptions and errors. For example, Jensen simply assumes that the popularity of anal sex or double penetration is because men feel women don't want to do such things which is firstly, a massive insult to the complexity of human sexuality and secondly, an assumption he provides no evidence whatsoever for. It is just as likely that such acts are popular because men believe women do secretly want such things.

As Jensen notes and the author quotes "we should listen to and respect those voices, we also know from the testimony of women who leave the sex industry that often they are desperate and unhappy in prostitution and pornography but feel the need to validate it as their choice to avoid thinking of themselves as victims". This is blatantly refusing to take the subject at their word but insisting that we (the researcher) know their motivations better than they do.

The idea that Jensen, as an anti-porn campaigner, qualifies as radical is simply laughable. Anti-porn crusades have existed for most of modern civilisation. Personally, I find the idea that Dworkin showed "love of men" to be even more laughable considering how often Dworkin's views (in contrast with, say, Greer) descended into gender-hatred.

Finally, Jensen (as is usual for this kind of screed) doesn't even attempt to tackle gay porn which shows similar approaches but must surely be relying on entirely different psychological processes. He also presents the advent of "extreme porn" as something new. It is not new. If one examines such things as the kama sutra or erotic portrayals from much of history, one can easily find such acts depicted. Times have not become more extreme, they've simply become more televised.

this part:

from the testimony of women who leave the sex industry that often they are desperate and unhappy in prostitution and pornography

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF WOMEN

how is this refusing to take the subject at her word? What you seem to be doing is only listening to the point of view you want to acknowledge.

I used to watch a lot of porn. I don't anymore. Porn degrades women both on camera and in real women's lives who have to now deal with men who have a very distorted view of women's sexuality from watching too much degrading porn.

Not all porn is degrading. I don't think porn should be outlawed, but we must look at what this porn culture is doing to our society.

You can't tell from my username, but I am female, in case you were wondering.

I wish people would choose on their own not to consume products that are so hurtful to half of the human race, but I don't ever see that happening.

This article is amazingly insightful and says a lot of what anti-porn activists have been saying for years, but porn consumers will shrug it off as an anti-sex piece, which it is not.

And everytime a man says porn is an empowering line of work for women and they make tons of money at it, my advice to them is to convince their mothers the MILF market is huge,) wives and of-age daughters to embark on it as a career. They should tell their young daughters and wives that porn is a GREAT career choice for them and encourage them. And I don't mean force them into it, which is not uncommon in the porn industry.

Yeah, kind of like the keyboard warriors who support the war but won't join the army.

"FROM THE TESTIMONY OF WOMEN

how is this refusing to take the subject at her word?"

Because he does not share the testimony or even quote it, he simply says "this is what it says". Any writer can tell you that if you phrase the question correctly, you'll get the response you want. When he says "we know from the testimony", what is he talking about? Scientific research, psychological theory, the conclusions of the (notoriously biased) Meece Commission? We don't know because he doesn't tell us. He simply takes the stated opinions of the subjects, places it against some "testimony" which he never bothers to define or share and throws out the former. If the evidence is so overwhelming (which it isn't< then show me the evidence.

"What you seem to be doing is only listening to the point of view you want to acknowledge."

This is one of those nonsense phrases thrown out to impure that one's disputant is biased without any evidence whatsoever so I'm not going to waste any more time with it.

"Porn degrades women both on camera and in real women's lives who have to now deal with men who have a very distorted view of women's sexuality from watching too much degrading porn."

Assumes facts not in evidence. The actual research into whether sexuality can be altered is throughly inconclusive and firther, the idea that it can be is counter-intuitive. If it was so easy to alter sexuality then the various "ex-gay" courses might actually work.

"Not all porn is degrading. I don't think porn should be outlawed, but we must look at what this porn culture is doing to our society."

Let me guess: The kind you like isn't degrading? No, don't bother to answer that. The fact is, virtually everyone sees their own tastes as acceptable and most people see the tastes of others, when they are at wide variance, as being unacceptable. Certainly, we should examine what effect the porn industry has but framing the question in terms of "what it is doing to our society" presumes a particular response.

"You can't tell from my username, but I am female, in case you were wondering."

I wasn't. Nor, to be blunt, do I care.

"I wish people would choose on their own not to consume products that are so hurtful to half of the human race, but I don't ever see that happening."

Firstly, you are assuming that it is hurtful. To you personally, perhaps, I don't know. To half the human race? The evidence simply isn't there to support that nor has it been for the entirety of recorded history. I say again, depictions of such sex acts are fairly common in artifacts from ancient cultures. The question must therefore be asked whether such things are "hurtful" or whether they are presumed to be hurtful because our society has such a throughly messed-up attitude toward sex.

"This article is amazingly insightful and says a lot of what anti-porn activists have been saying for years"

It says nothing but what anti-porn activists have been saying. That's the problem.

"but porn consumers will shrug it off as an anti-sex piece, which it is not"

This is known as the "poisoning the well" technique. it assumes an undesireable trait on one's disputant (always without evidence) as a way of saying their arguements should not be listened to.

"And everytime a man says porn is an empowering line of work for women and they make tons of money at it"

And a straw-man too. Are we going for the full set? I know a number of people (because as with most, you ignore the market for gay porn) who do porn. They don't make a fortune at it. Sometimes, they don't get paid at all (very few have argued that the porn business should not be regulated). Whether it is empowering or not depends entirely on the attitude of the person in question. If you take a woman who hates it (and kindly do not try and argue that all women do) then obviously she will not find it empowering.

"my advice to them is to convince their mothers, wives and of-age daughters to embark on it as a career"

An appeal to normalcy as well! The world is full of things which the majority of us may not do which some may nevertheless find empowering, liberating or simply a living. You or I may not find such things palatable but that does not, in itself, make them bad. Most of us do not choose to engage in homosexual acts (which is something different from actually being gay), that doesn't mean they are degrading or empowering and there's another point: Acts do not have to be either degrading or empowering. This is not an either/or question. Finally, I must point out once again that the reason most of us do not do so quite possibly has more to do with our cultural standards and patterns of morality than the act itself.

"And I don't mean force them into it, which is not uncommon in the porn industry."

Evidence? I'm not sure why I'm bothering to ask because I know for a fact that, for porn produced in the Westm this is a complete fiction. One or two isolated incidents does not make an epidemic. Also, it must be pointed out, this is a criminal act so what does it have to do with legally produced and distributed porn?

"Yeah, kind of like the keyboard warriors who support the war but won't join the army."

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

I got to this part- so the kind you like isn't degrading

I said, if you'd read it, that I don't watch it anymore.

Just another porn lover afraid his porn might get taken away. It's not going happen, so stop worrying you're little head and relax. But the inability, for you and others like you to admit porn is hurtful, comprises most of the problem.

You assume that I'm a "porn-lover" (whatever that is) without any evidence. The patronising "stop worrying your little head" would have worked better if you'd spelled "your" correctly. And you assume, yet again, that porn is "hurtful" without presenting any evidence. Since you assume that it is an "inability" to "accept" this, you obviously don't feel you need to present any evidence.

The fact that you refuse to present your evidence of an alleged harm has far more to do with the continued legality of porn than any amount of "refusal".

in this regard, so I'll just speak for myself. There are two things I've never done and never want to do either: Had anal sex or voted Republican.

I've never tried to rate these two acts in order of importance (or repulsiveness), but it seems to me that one is pretty much equivalent to the other.

Re ...Jensen simply assumes that the popularity of anal sex or double penetration is because men feel women don't want to do such things which is firstly, a massive insult to the complexity of human sexuality and secondly, an assumption he provides no evidence whatsoever for. It is just as likely that such acts are popular because men believe women do secretly want such things.

I'll take your word that you find anal sex unappealing and that's fine. However, your own experiances or preferences do not necessarily equate to a generalisation as I'm sure you realise. On a personal level, I know quite a few women who do find anal sex appealing (as an aside, I also know several men who find receiving it pleasurable).

Since there is (as far as I know) no research on the subject: Your view may be very common or it may be very uncommon. Human sexuality is extremely complex, it's insulting and usually pointless to try and apply generalisations to it.

In

I have seen surveys that suggest 50% of heterosexuals and 80% of homosexuals have had anal sex. Are they as repulsive as those who vote Republicans as you contend:

"I've never tried to rate these two acts in order of importance (or repulsiveness), but it seems to me that one is pretty much equivalent to the other."

I read it that the poster was referring purely to his/her personal opinion.

It seems like a distinction without a difference...


Let's say I have some of my gay friends over...(Now I know that not all gay men have anal sex) and I say "to me having anal sex is as repulsive as voting Republican."


How will that go over?

The way I read it was roughly "I find the idea of participating in anal sex myself to be repulsive".

Maybe I'm missing something, I don't know.

What a joker.

Let's say I have some of my gay friends over...(Now I know that not all gay men have anal sex) and I say " I find the idea of my having anal sex as repulsive as I would find voting Republican."

How would that go over?

I'd be pretty sure the first response would be something along the lines of "Don't knock it 'til you've tried it" (gay guys being guys first and foremost).

I dunno. I'm not gay (I'm bisexual) so maybe I'm just not seeing a problem here.

who are you to determine which sexual acts are repulsive? Is oral sex OK? How about woman superior?

Or should women just perform their "wifely duties" without acknowledging their own sexuality?

Sid

So the fact I like anal sex puts me on the same level as voting for Republicans, huh?

Hmmm.

If you knew about the rest of my sex life, you'd probably think I ate babies and put razors in apples, too.

If DVDA, etc, porn is to sex what NASCAR, Indy, et al, are to driving?

Does watching NASCAR make a man want to own a muscle car and go around in circles at unsafe speeds? I don't think it does, not necessarily.

Humans are a great deal more complex than "monkey-see, monkey-do" anecdotes proclaim. If it was really that simple to alter someone's sexuality, the "ex-gay" ministries would have a higher (i.e. any) success rate. Come to that, we'd all be gung-ho vigilantes.

it's too late for me tonight!

we now have an adequate supply of porn for all men who wish to be pigs.

Uh-huh........

That elephant in the room still isn't going away.......

so I think that the primary watchers are men...

the porn that is made to entertain men bores and baffles most women, even if there's an elephant in it :shrug:

....are now done up with storylines that feature romantic swashbuckling pirates, jilted women finding another man, etc. that clearly play on the same themes you see on the covers of the romance novels that women buy in droves. The big money outfits are now getting couples to watch.

And as I've said before, every time I've ever watched porn alone with a woman, the suggestion was made by them. Even the times in college when somebody got the idea to rent a porno and watch in a big group, it was always a girl who came up with the idea. Maybe they were trying to shock us timid "college boys" who wouldn't have the cajones to bring it up......I don't know.

deleted, wrong thread

There's plenty of porn made for women, wedding and bride magazines, romance and fantasy novels, soaps, just about every drama on TV with sissified or moronic fathers and so on.

And it's all just as corrosive to the female mind as vanilla hardcore porn is to the male.

Audience research for my clients hosting *ahem* mature stuff. Women do watch porn, at a rate higher than most people think, but watch it very differently from men (all of this is prefaced with the caveat, "in general"). Men "picture themselves" as, essentially, sitting wherever they are actually sitting and watching a scene going on in front of them. Women "picture themselves" as one of the participants. This is thought to be why women's magazines have as many or more naked women in them as men's magazines: women are not aroused by some latent lesbianism, but by the fact that they picture themselves as the attractive naked woman.

I'm not sure what this is a propos of in the context of this thread, it's just something very interesting I found out a while ago.

I don't know if you're familiar with this, Katherine.

It's not about "moralism," or prudishness. And I'll even leave out the fact that, as a woman, I DO find much heterosexual porn quite degrading and believe it is meant to intimidate, much like hanging a noose in a tree. No one defends that as free speech. ('Just waiting for some guy to invalidate my feelings and opinion about this. What do I know? I'm only a woman.)

However, I will limit myself to the issues Wolf addresses so well, which concern me equally since these issues speak to the effect porn is having on younger people and society at large.

My take:

-Porn is to sex as junk food is to a gourmet feast (my analogy).
-It dulls the senses. (Desensitizes.)
-It sets up impossible standards for both men and women.
-It further isolates people from each other and true intimacy.


Wolf's essay:

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/index1.html

"...the effect is not making men into raving beasts. On the contrary: The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as “porn-worthy.” Far from having to fend off porn-crazed young men, young women are worrying that as mere flesh and blood, they can scarcely get, let alone hold, their attention.

Here is what young women tell me on college campuses when the subject comes up: They can’t compete, and they know it. For how can a real woman—with pores and her own breasts and even sexual needs of her own (let alone with speech that goes beyond “More, more, you big stud!”)—possibly compete with a cybervision of perfection, downloadable and extinguishable at will, who comes, so to speak, utterly submissive and tailored to the consumer’s least specification?

The young women who talk to me .... speak of feeling that they can never measure up, that they can never ask for what they want; and that if they do not offer what porn offers, they cannot expect to hold a guy. The young men talk about what it is like to grow up learning about sex from porn, and how it is not helpful to them in trying to figure out how to be with a real woman. Mostly, when I ask about loneliness, a deep, sad silence descends on audiences of young men and young women alike. They know they are lonely together, even when conjoined, and that this imagery is a big part of that loneliness. What they don’t know is how to get out, how to find each other again erotically, face-to-face.

...does all this sexual imagery in the air mean that sex has been liberated—or is it the case that the relationship between the multi-billion-dollar porn industry, compulsiveness, and sexual appetite has become like the relationship between agribusiness, processed foods, supersize portions, and obesity? If your appetite is stimulated and fed by poor-quality material, it takes more junk to fill you up. People are not closer because of porn but further apart; people are not more turned on in their daily lives but less so.

So Dworkin was right that pornography is compulsive, but she was wrong in thinking it would make men more rapacious. A whole generation of men are less able to connect erotically to women—and ultimately less libidinous.

The reason to turn off the porn might become, to thoughtful people, not a moral one but, in a way, a physical- and emotional-health one; you might want to rethink your constant access to porn in the same way that, if you want to be an athlete, you rethink your smoking. The evidence is in: Greater supply of the stimulant equals diminished capacity."

and I agree. It's doing all of that, as well as influencing the direction of the entire culture, perpetuating all of the shit feminists have been trying to fight against for hundreds of years.

I do think it increases the sense of sexual entitlement of a lot of younger (like high school and college age) men though. Not necessarily making them more "rapacious" but definitely making them think that the shit they watch is what they should be getting from girls and young women, and this ends up screwing up the young women AND the young men, because the women feel like they can't measure up (or they try and suffer for it) and the men feel like they've been scammed out of something, when in fact none of this is reality.

You really do see a lot of disgusting behavior out there. I'm not an old guy, and I still see a notable difference from ten or fifteen years ago. Stuff that was sexually shocking then is positively yawn-inducing now, and women do bear the brunt of the degradation.

..are irrelevant. Conservative or liberal they can all go to hell.

Someday, we'll learn that the nanny state impulse to regulate private behavior is alway wrong.

We want you to try being a conscientious consumer, just like we all should be with anything that can be purchased.

If you choose to spend your money watching women being degraded, then fine, but don't think you are a hero of free speech.

that if you accept rides from strangers, then agree to have videotaped sex, that you'll lose some of your dignity in the process.

Clearly the woman is making a less than stellar choice in that situation, but it's the fuckwits on the bus that deserve the blame, not the woman left on the side of the road.

Taking money for sex usually means your pretty fucking desperate for that money.

I'll just go shoot myself in the face right now.

It's really just a review of the screed which was ripped apart for it's biases, assumptions and personal interjections a couple weeks back. As usual, if you object to the thesis, you're just a porn consumer who doesn't want to lose his porn because actual disagreement on the evidence is impossible. normal people will of course agree with the views of the poster.

...this man-bashing shit is getting tiresome...

or quit being hypersensitive.

I'M NOT, I'M NOT, I'M NOT!!!!!



:evilgrin:

is not to call for legal sanctions. Some things can't be solved by the law, but are still worthy of critique. I don't know what the OP's opinion is on legal sanctioning of porn, but it's dismaying that so many respondents automatically equate criticism with a call for prohibition and so try to evade the discussion altogether.

I think the quoted comments from Naomi Wolf in one of the responses above, about super-abundant porn as an alienating and deadening force, are closest to the truth.

...better late than never. Rock on Don! Well said, well written, well done.

and just I don't get it.

:shrug:

Maybe it's the whole male-dominated thing that doesn't work for me. Usually anything of that sort just turns me off rather than the opposite.

But DU's rules prohibit me from using the words to accurately describe the answer.

:shrug:

I don't.

because when women say the same things, no one takes it seriously or the women get attacked.

"I am convinced, although it is, of course, difficult to document, that the huge audiences for porn and the pervasiveness of the themes and behaviors of degradation are having a negative impact on the way men behave and the way society treats women."

Me, too.

TC

But I'll focus on this, since the rest seems to have been mentioned already:

It seems to me that younger generations of men are more able to view women as fellow humans. So if more porn & more degrading porn is supposed to = more sexist assholes... well then that falls apart.

I don't know of any surveys to back it up, but I find that younger men are far more forward-thinking when it comes to women's issues.

I know it's anedcotal... but until we get comprehensive studies, that's all we have to go by.

I have teenage granddaughters, and I have to tell you, the young men of today most certainly DO NOT see them more as equals than their predecessors did. They are just as bad, and all the "whore" this, and "bitch" that, and all that awful talk doesn't help. It's degrading.

See this thread:

Teen Girls Report Abusive Boyfriends Try To Get Them Pregnant
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1893046&mesg_id=1893046

Same as it ever was, my friend!

TC

And I know what you mean... my children are younger, but even in the 2nd - 4th grade, I've seen that kind of behavior among the boys in their schools.

It seems to me that it might be a perception issue because the boys who are the most hateful towards girls are the loudest... but the quiet ones are more sensitive than I remember them being when I was younger. I've noticed far more thoughtful young men (and by young I mean kids to mid/late twenties) than I knew when I was a teen and in my early twenties.

I guess for now it's just a matter of perspective...

Another Katherine Brengle porn thread. :eyes:

we DO need more threads from Katherine! you got a problem with that?

and for KB - kick!

that does NOT make it "propaganda"

Care to share the "facts" with all of us?

try reading the article.

That does NOT make it "facts."

the ever persuasive "i know you are but what am i?" argument

Let's try it again. :eyes:

which is why i made sure to post and say that i enjoy Katherine's posts, and we need more of them in GD.

the responses are so telling about some of DU's "progressive" menz :crazy:

question someones "progressive" credentials when they disagree with you. This is one of the OP's many posts on porn. It should be apparent to her by now that she isn't changing anyone's minds posting other peoples OPINIONS on porn. Do I believe women should be degraded or abused in porn? Of course I don't and I doubt anyone in this thread believes that. However the school marmish finger wagging becomes tired very quickly.

Enjoy her posts please. But when they become almost spammish you bet people are going to comment. And that has NOTHING to do with how good a progressive they are or aren't.

mmm, i Loves me some porn. :9

as with all the other porn threads, is that the theories being espoused about how porn affects the male mind have absolutely no basis in solid fact. It's *always* someone's beliefs, or feelings, thoughts on the matter, coupled with a personal distaste for a certain threshold of explicit sexuality, and topped off with a few anecdotes based much of the time on purely personal experience. In particular, the book reviewer seems pretty squeamish about what he quotes from the book, without acknowledging that it's apparently completely consensual, or the certain fact that there are probably lots of adults, men and women, who relish that stuff as fantasy.

I have to agree with the poster who said this is more about the fact that aspects of our entire culture are "cruel", and "degrading" pornography is merely a symptom of that. Although I think it's fair to say that many aspects of our culture are far LESS cruel than they were 100 years ago. So what does that mean, in this context?

This is the equivalent of the "I'm not a racist, but..." thing.

Every time somebody claims they're not a prude they go on to say something really prudish.

Is it ok to just say something "prudish" or is anything prudish "really prudish."


And what's prudish about this:

"But what has become clear to me is that, under the guise of the First Amendment, a huge and powerful porn industrial complex has grown out of control. And a big part of its growth is fueled, not just by the internet, but by continually upping the ante, increasing the extremes of degradation for the women in tens of thousands of films made every year."

"under the guise of the First Amendment"

Well there you've got disrespect for free speech. The first amendment is some sort of "disguise," some sort of loophole that pornographers can weasel through, as if pornography isn't as valid as any other form of speech.

Then there's this:

"by continually upping the ante, increasing the extremes of degradation for the women"

There's this notion that pornography is somehow getting worse. There's this mistaken idea that pornography, sexuality, what have you is somehow getting more extreme, the Dobson types say "we're losing the culture war." Same bullshit. Porn now is the same stuff that it was 100 years ago. Or 2000 years ago.

"Is it ok to just say something "prudish" or is anything prudish "really prudish.""

I'd say there's different degrees of prudery, and none of it does anybody any good.

I don't want to participate in, or watch acts that look extremely painful and will eventually prolapse or severely injure a rectum, a vagina, a bladder? Or require surgical removal? Interesting what shows up in ER's across the nation. Of course, I'm sure there is a site called nonprudeswithobjectsstuckuptheirass.com, for your viewing pleasure.

there isn't such a site. :hi:

Sid

With another guy who was saying the exact same things (even word for word)

Look, this is very simple. even if there is a vast evil porn industrial complex, it's still a business reacting to the market.

So ... don't buy the "bad porn". Porn isn't like a neccesity like water or gas or food. You can do without it or even make your own to your own standerds. And it's not even that hard to distribute. Making sure people have alternatives to a bad business model is the best way to fight said bad business model.

Not to mention that this guy's central theme , that "..the huge audiences for porn and the pervasiveness of the themes and behaviors of degradation are having a negative impact on the way men behave and the way society treats women." seems to have missed a lot of facts that contradict it.

If memory serves, men still treat women a lot better then they did before the sexual revolution when porn was a lot tamer and circumspect then it is now. Which leads me to be leive that porn isn't really the problem.

The article linked is simply a review of the same screed which we originally dissected. Most of us know that something untrue remains untrue regardless of who said it and vice versa but the OP seems to think that it somehow becomes truer if spoken by a liberal.

If there are men who degrade women with porn wouldn't they still degrade women without porn if it was taken away?

I don't think porn makes men what they are I think they already are the way they are and that's why porn is successful. Men who want to degrade women would buy porn that degrades women.

We need a more enlightened view of sex in this country I think. The prudes have made it so that we can't have an honest discussion about sex out in the open. If there were more positive depictions of sex on our society maybe there wouldn't be as many men who want to degrade women.

Sex is not dirty. It is a natural human function and deserves it's rightful respect in our society.

If you try to call them out they can allege they didn't say that. "No one is going to take away your porn" and other bullshit.

But if the OP isn't strongly in favor of outright outlawing porn, I am Larry Flynt.

Jesus will put an end to it soon, won't he?

I think I've seen that website.

= "I am bloviating with no evidence whatsoever to back up my claims."

Next...