Best Of
Recent comments
- Ummm, no.
The rightness or
2 weeks 17 hours ago - I recently saw the re-trial
2 weeks 19 hours ago - I am a conservative who did
2 weeks 20 hours ago - Amen.
We're called to serve
2 weeks 3 days ago - I have to disagree with your
2 weeks 6 days ago - To break up the monotony of
3 weeks 3 days ago - Although I am a conservative
3 weeks 4 days ago - Been reading your blogs,
3 weeks 6 days ago - Excellent post, Will.
3 weeks 6 days ago - Thanks for the reminder,
3 weeks 6 days ago
Friends of GWH
Subscribe
Recent blog posts
- Evangelicals and the Future of Politics: Wise Words from Joel Hunter
- Election 2008: The Day After
- The 2008 Good Will Hinton Voting Guide
- Dumb Reasons To Not Vote For Barack Obama
- The Immorality of the Housing Bailout
- Random Non-Partisan Thought of the Day
- Good: Bad on the Election and Voting
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Eric Metaxas
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Bridget Kibbey
- More On Obama and the Ayers Non-Story
Recommended Blogs
Who's online
Online users
User login
About Expat Teacher
Bio
A teacher that spent 5 years in Europe, but I've been back in DC for the last few months. I lean left and generally support Democrats, but I like a good conversation. I've been known to change my mind.
Porn deadens sex, not improves it
Naomi Wolf in an effort to document the world around us, has an excellent article about the harmful effects of pornography on America's sexual health. The headline is "The Porn Myth - In the end, porn doesn’t whet men’s appetites—it turns them off the real thing."
It is worth your time to read it fully. The highlights include:
"But 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.
After all, pornography works in the most basic of ways on the brain: It is Pavlovian. An orgasm is one of the biggest reinforcers imaginable. If you associate orgasm with your wife, a kiss, a scent, a body, that is what, over time, will turn you on; if you open your focus to an endless stream of ever-more-transgressive images of cybersex slaves, that is what it will take to turn you on. The ubiquity of sexual images does not free eros but dilutes it."
Christians have been making the moral argument against porn for the last 50 years or more. The argument hasn't been very successful because Christians haven't been able to make the case that the delayed gratification will eventually pay off. The fear of an eternal reckoning rarely motivates people to avoid sin.
However, Wolf has made the discussion much clearer. Avoid porn, not because it is morally bad, but because in the long run it hurts. The same very effective reasoning for avoiding binge drinking, smoking, drugs, etc.
I'd like to see Christians acknowledge the ubiquitous of porn and the real pull of that temptation, while offering a positive alternative. Sex with a little mystery and discovery is a lot more fun and interesting than a clinical rut in the hay.
<!-- technorati tags start -->
Technorati Tags: Christianity, Current Events
<!-- technorati tags end -->
Comments
Amen to that
I can't tell you what a wrecking ball pornography has been to trust and self esteem in my marriage. The healing process is quite slow and in some ways you never fully mend. Thanks for the post. It needs to be heard again and again.
When all else fails, blame the porn
Her argument is based on anecdotes, and like so many others is oversimplified and makes no distinction between compulsive porn use and casual porn use. Compulsive porn use (or compulsive drug use or compulsive granola bar use) is rarely the problem itself, but rather the symptom of a much deeper problem. To blame the symptom is to deny there's a problem.
What the hec?
Casual porn? I'm sorry but you have know idea what you're talking about. Drug use, like porn is progressive. You are obviously coming from a male point of view and somehow wish to justify porn. You are however right that chronic porn viewing is a symptom of a deeper problem. But the problem wasn't mine and it pre-existed my marriage, unbeknownst to me. Again you have no idea what you are talking about.
jcl, I wasn't commenting on
jcl,
I wasn't commenting on your specific situation. I was commenting on the author's premise, which is flawed.
What the hack (cont)
Okay Rusty, sorry for ranting. I sent my message without much thought. This ropic is upsetting for many women. But there is no such thing as casual porn. There just isn't, just like there's no such thing as benign HIV. It permeates you. And there's a name to the "problem". It's called sin. It is, in the end, a choice one makes and must live with the consequences.
OKay, you brought up sin,
OKay, you brought up sin, that's it, I tune out.
By all means, speak YOUR TRUTH about how porn affects YOU. This is one of the most powerful abilities we as individuals have - speaking our truth. But do not make the mistake of telling ME how porn affects ME. I won't do the same for you, because I don't know you and I'm NOT you.
JCL is right
Rusty: Saying that casual porn use isn't a big deal is like saying casual meth use isn't a big deal.
Not so
Will, I thought rational discourse was supposed to be the M.O. here? That statement is at least as hyperbolic as something I'd expect to read on Peach Pundit.
I loves me some porn, and guess what? I still have plenty of steamy sex with my girlfriend.
You don't get it.
If your girlfriend got really honest, you might be surprised to find out she doen't exactly like the idea of sharing you with other images or fantasies, and may even feel secretly a little diminished by them. I dare you to ask her what she seriously thinks of the porn you watch.
Oooooh, you DARE him to ask
Oooooh, you DARE him to ask his girlfriend!!!
Well, I'm his girlfriend. I think the pr0n he watches is just fine and dandy. Well, some of it I think is kind of boring, but then I'm a het woman instead of a het man. So there you go.
I can hardly wrap my head around all the assumptions you are making about women and sex. The number of stereotypes you're operating off of is mind-boggling.
You want to hear about MY fantasies or would that squick you out too much?
JCL - This all smacks of a
JCL - This all smacks of a very Victorian attitude. Same shit, new package. You appear to be operating under the old assumption: men want sex, women tolerate it. Where is the acknowledgment in this discussion of women as indviduals with free agency, who might be - gasp! - porn consumers themselves?
Btw, saying that Rusty has no idea what he's talking about just makes you look like an idiot. Who do you think you are?
Who I am
MOst likely I've been in a committed relationship much longer than you have and have a little more real life (marriage, kids, ect) experience under my belt.
You know what happens when
You know what happens when you assume, right?
This isn't a pissing contest, dude.
Unfortunately this discussion is going nowhere
Well, I didn't write the original post, but this discussion has gone off the rails.
First, my apologies to Rusty for my flip comment comparing porn to meth. I actually do stand by the intent of the remark but I could have said it in a much more reasoned manner.
I know Rusty and Amber and have great respect for them both. While I disagree with you guys on many things, I do want to try to understand where you are coming from and treat you charitably. And I would ask the same of you as it relates to others here.
I can also appreciate that this is an emotional issue for jcl. I have seen the effects of casual porn use on others and it is terrible. And these are not people with "Victorian attitudes" towards sex.
I'm wondering if it is possible to continue this discussion in a more reasonable manner.
Casting pearls
You know what they say about this, don't you. It's a waste of time.
Why does it always seem to
Why does it always seem to happen this way - the person/people who appear to be "defending" porn (which is a gross over-simplification, but that's wht it always gets painted as) are asked to be civil, be nice, show respect, etc...
Even if the whole thing started out with someone be blatantly UNCIVIL to one of US.
I understand that this can be an emotional issue for many people. That is completely understandable, and I respect people's need to speak the truth about their own lives. But when people move into the territory of "Hey, you, put on a sweater, I'm cold," AND make ridiculous statements about how much life experience I have and other out of left field personal attacks - well, I just don't have much patience for it, at the end of the day.
I've written extensively about porn, sexuality, etc. at my own blog and at others. I'm a little worn out with the whole thing, but I'd be happy to have that conversation here IF (big "if") people don't jump to a bunch of conclusions and resort to personal attacks. Which is how this appears to have gone from the beginning.
Everyone
Amber: sorry I didn't make it clear that I would hope to see civility and respect from everyone on this issue, regardless of their position. I didn't mean to single out yourself or Rusty as "defenders of porn".
I would like to better understand your position as I readily and humbly admit that I do not now.
No time for a long reply, but...
Will:
No time at the moment to write a long, detailed reply, but here are some things I've written on my blog that you may be interested in reading.
Posts from my blog:
It's teh pr0n! (Commence hand-wringing)
You can either love it or hate it
"Most people!" Yes, them!
Example #4,592,1875 of people needing to own their shit
The archive of my 'Sex' category
See also: Bitch | Lab, I Shame the Matriarchy, Fetch Me My Axe, The Fine Art of Free Speech and Discontent
- they all are much more eloquent that I am these days.
The issue...
The "flip" presentation of the comment isn't the issue. The issue is an implication that there's something inherently and universally wrong with porn, which there isn't. Maybe it doesn't jive with your religious beliefs, and you're entitled to that viewpoint, but that hardly makes it inherently or universally wrong.
Additionally, just talking
Additionally, just talking about "PORN" as a monolith is a serious mistake, not to mention downright non-instructive. The porn industry is huge and diverse. In discussions such as these, one of the FIRST things we need is a clarification of what type of porn is being discussed. Mainstream, male-oriented, het porn? Gay porn? Lesbian porn? Altporn? Amateur porn? Homemade porn? Gonzo porn? BDSM porn? Some combination of the above? And the medium: internet? DVD? Magazine? Still photographs? Is written erotica included? Etc...
(Also, Will: this image verification does not work half the time)
Dress an ideology in a different sweater, it's the same ideology
Regardless of the porn, it all reinforces male dominance; even the rare forms of porn that aim to subvert that power structure (tranny porn, for instance) do so through the mediation of that power structure. Look at drag queens, for example: they aim to subvert typical gender roles, but can only do so by deploying the most vulgar gender assumptions (drag queens are hyperfeminine).
IMHO, the subversion of gender roles is an incomplete negation; the subversive moment is eclipsed by even greater reinforcement of the dominant power structure (and I'll go on record saying that that's exactly why there has been such rancor in the past between male and female gay populations: the allegedly subversive "flips" of gender reinforce the inferiority of the other gender).
Eh. I'd rather leave it to
Eh. I'd rather leave it to actual queer and trans folk to talk about such issues. Unless you are either of those, I think I'll just move right along for now. To, for example, what Belledame had to say. None of us likes being spoken for, after all.
Epistemic Priority is so '80s, isn't it?
I can't get down with notion that no one is entitled to discuss something unless one is within the group being discussed. For one, it just doesn't fit with common sense: I'm no less able to summarize attitudes within community X simply because I'm not a member of that community. They have no private language to which I'm not privy.
Similarly, the whole attitude rapidly breaks down into absurdity: consistency would require that we ipso facto ignore virtually all of your posts that make use of the positions of the anti-porn folks here, because you yourself are not a member of that subset of people.
Dworkin fan here
The point isn't that there's an internal link between porn and unethical sex (that's an awkward & misleading phrase - I mean it to capture the range of immorality stemming from sex, from Dworkin's concerns about misogyny to the above concern about deadening effects), but that there's a statistical and external, but no less important, connection.
I think it's absolutely clear that porn leads to progressive qualitative increase in transgressive desire. And because porn almost always reinforces subject:object::man:woman structural couplings (ie, the woman is an object on which the male gaze & power operate), the transgressions tend to work in one direction, toward greater misogyny. The question, though, that divides pro- and anti-porn feminists on porn is whether that's necessarily a bad thing. Can there be a space within porn's male gaze reinforcement when the male gaze is flipped back on itself; put differently, can the female subservience of transgressive sex be a form of play that is liberatory.
That question, again, is an empirical one, and turns on the ideologies of the participants. Given that our dominant ideology is patriarchal, it should be completely non-controversial to posit that porn will generally have negative effects across the social body.
Odd, I'm female (and queer,
Odd, I'm female (and queer, which is a whole 'nother rant i just finished: yes straight people, please, tell us more about the Mystery! because some of us have just had such a deluge of relevant, accurate information about our sexuality in our lives! thank you for the ETERNAL fixation on what is and isn't good for Men!) and I "use" pr0n quite casually, same as i do booze. That's been pretty consistent over the last..oh, a good long while, i'd say. I don't think i'm a special snowflake in this, either; not everyone has the same propensity toward addiction, nor do even those who do have it toward the same objects.
Where's Carry Nation with her ax when you need her?
This dovetailing of Protestant moralizing with leftish causes is hardly new, you know. google the history of Temperance and suffrage sometime. and then you might want to look up -just how well- Prohibition worked.
Blame the pr0n; don't blame your relationship skills, or the millenias' worth of hopelessly fucked-up attitudes toward sexuality and gender roles, or whatever else it is in your life and/or psychophysiology that drives you toward this particular "escape;" never think about what it is you're escaping FROM; it's so much easier this way. Bad magazines! Bad DVD's! Throw 'em on the fire; abstain, abstain; that feels better; that feels like -doing something- with immediate results.
And we're so used to giving things up, aren't we. Both for "health" -and- "morality" reasons (and those two always get so hopelessly mixed up anyway...)
i will temper the rantiness
i will temper the rantiness a modicum by clarifying: that was a general "you," there.
i just get so tired at the insisting over and over again that this has -nothing to do with- Victorian morality. Of course it does. Yes, Klein's observation that actually it doesn't lead to men becoming wild beasts, a la Dworkin (and a la the very Victorian notion that women are the moralizing agents and men are led by their bestial urges without their guidance) is going away from it a tad; but the immediate conclusion drawn here: okay, here's a better justification for what we already believe! pr0n Bad!...sigh.
The real thing. Okay.
But this is -only- pr0n, this oh let's call it the "alienation effect;" this is not merely one more part of the -vast- trend toward alienation in general due to corporatization and breakneck technological advances and the general breakdown of the commons, of -community-; no, sex is special and must needs be singled out. because the "real thing" is two people snugly ensconced in a private room behind a closed door. Which is terrific, unless you happen to be one of the people who has the 'wrong" type of sex and thus isn't entitled to a closed door (sodomy laws only repealed three years ago), or can't afford a private room; or for whatever reason gee golly don't have maybe don't even -want- One True Other, with whom to shelter from the storm.
and of course, people never watch porn together...no.
funny, i know a lot of people for whom that works in completely the opposite way, particularly gay men, couples; but well, life's rich tapestry.
pr0n is a lot of things. yeah, the bulk of it is soul-deadening crap; but as far as i'm concerned that is because of the -form- it takes in the mainstream, which in turn is due to all the other, more complicated factors alluded to, which i really wish i had time to go into at more length.
it's also, sometimes, a reminder that "oh, okay, other people actually do think about and even do these things; i'm not sick or dirty or perverted; i'm not alone." i'm REAL, too.
anyway, you'll forgive me if i'm not primarily concerned with the wellbeing of hetero relationships, all things considered.
Oh yeah, and: if by
Oh yeah, and:
if by "mystery" you mean "ignorance," then i'm afraid i'm not down with it. but then i'm not real keen on abstinence-only education; i will admit that the combination of that sort of deliberate misinformation campaign combined with overly commercialzed pr0n is absolutely deadly; i can't say my first concern is to get rid of the pr0n, however, all things considered.
and frankly life, even eroticism, has enough mysteries without deliberate obfuscation of what really ought to be pretty damn straightforward.
Comment
There's a lot of hostility on this thread. I would suggest everyone go back and read their own comments (not those of others) and see where they might have been rude, indulged in stereotyping, and/or name-calling.
Sure this issue hits close to home, but that isn't any reason to discuss it with anything other than civility and respect.
I think Will would agree that all view points are welcome here as long as you present them rationally, listen to what others have to say, and don't try to squelch the conversation with "trump cards".
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
Technically speaking, Naomi
Technically speaking, Naomi Wolf rather than Naomi Klien authored the article under discussion. Also it's three years old (for instance she speaks of having seen Andrea Dworkin "the other night" when Dworkin passed away in 2005.)
As for Wolf's claims, I dunno. It seems at least as plausible as claims that watching professional sports makes viewers more or less satisfied with their own ability to, say, shoot hoops.
The big difference might be that if schools had no gym/health/athletics programs such that kids learned about sports *only* from, say, ESPN, then they might develop extremely unrealistic impressions there too.
figleaf
Oops...you are right. My bad. Will fix it
Well spotted figleaf. My co-worker who sent me the article said Klein and it get stuck in my head.
However, if I actually read the byline, I'd have seen it was Wolf. Thanks for the closer inspection.
It is a game of expectations....
Thanks everyone for sharing. Clearly porn is not something that people just want to gloss over like my other posts on educational reform or minimum wage.
First let me point out a few things, which I believe became part of the discussion, which I didn't intend or believe.
I don't believe porn should be outlawed.
I don't have any personal opinion about homosexual sex or sexuality. I certainly don't believe it is a place for the government.
I don't have anything against casual porn use by consenting adults in a committed relationship.
I believe in a age-appropriate comprehensive sexual education program from an early age for all students.
I agree with jcl that porn use is progressive. (I believe most studies also bare that out, but don't have the time to find the links right now. Will do so, if that becomes a sticking point.)
That is what makes porn use dissimilar to "compulsive granola bar use" and closer to compulsive drug use. Maybe not hardcore drugs, but something similar to nicotine or alcohol. Fine in moderation, but due to chemical changes in the body, moderation is a tough place to find.
My real concerns are two fold. The first is the massive exposure, both in terms of images and length of time, young people have to sex today. It is almost impossible to retrieve your e-mail without offers of sex. Any inquisitive teen can get around filters and firewalls to see any number of sexual acts.
When the 14 year olds I teach know what a DP is, that concerns me.
It concerns me because the 14 year old girl who is very unsure of her body and her sexuality now believes that "normal" sex involves multiple partners and all her orifices. It may be years before she is sexually active, but will she be continually trying to live up to the porn world standards? What happens when she fails? Sex is more than the mechanical movements toward reaching orgasm. It involves emotions, self-esteem, security, etc. Porn leaves all that out. That is some of mystery I alluded to in the original post. To a generation raised on porn, will they, as the Northwestern student in the original essay, say, "Sex has no mystery.”
The second is the lack of discussion surrounding the effects of porn on men and relationships. The Church has a strong moral argument against porn use because it makes God's creation an object of desire (idol). However, not everyone subscribes to the same morals, so the Church needs to make an additional argument against porn use. I might be slow on the uptake, but this relational health angle that Wolf takes appears to be an additional talking point.
How many relationships have been damaged because men have been watching the porn equivalent of ESPN and wondering why their partner isn't Dwyane Wade? The man is frustrated and his partner feels a failure. The higher expectations doomed the sex from the beginning and it didn't need to be.
I guess I see it like this. Sex and debating are about expectations. Politicians try to downplay their expectations prior to a debate. They say they are just an idiot who can't string two sentences together, so that during the debate, as long as they don't drool on themselves, they can declare themselves a winner.
Sex is similar. How is an average woman going to compare with Jenna Jameson's acting performance? The bar is simply set too high. A little clumsy discovery rather than expecting the moans, shouts and money shot would be a lot easier on the couple.
Is it too much to ask that men have realistic expectations of women?
A few quick things
Expat Teacher,
Just a few quick things; I will respond in greater detail later.
That's fine; but, you should have noted that from the start. This goes back to what I was saying about speaking of porn as a monolith. If you had specified, then at least the heteronormative argument presented herein would've been stated upfront.
So for future reference, you might consider that.
Interesting that you felt it necessary to specify "in a committed relationship." Why is that? Consenting adults can do what they want, yes?
As for your argument about the "massive exposure" to sex - not buying it. Same old, same old. First of all, the type of exposure we see most often in our society is hardly sex-positive, by any stretch of the imagination. It most often resembles adolescent style acting-out, complete with the giggling and insulting and all. I want to see sex and sexuality become topics that are not surrounded by shame, embarrassment, or "mystery." They should be open for discussion. What would you prefer? "Mystery" sounds like another word for shaming. Don't talk about it! It's dirty! Don't ask questions! Don't learn about your own body, your own desires!
I have absolutely no use for that whatsoever.
Appropriate, because there has just recently been a big blow-up in the feminist blogosphere over the issue of DP; specifically, over an article written by Robert Jensen. (You might be familiar with his anti-porn crusades, in which he paints himself as a liberal male feminist, but actually ends up just speaking for women. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.) So, I'll ask straight out: why does it bother you when the 14 year olds you teach know what DP is? This is yet another example of why such things should be open for discussion - for the reasons figleaf already pointed out.
More later.
Nitpicking
It's not ExPat that's heteronormative; his argument is that porn is heteronormative. And, per my above comments, he's absolutely right.
Porn is heteronormative?
Porn is heteronormative? Really? All of it? What about gay porn? Lesbian porn? See, there's the problem, yet again, with that argument of "PORN" as a monolith.
Yep. Really. All of it.*
Watch gay porn and note the gender roles involved. It plays off of traditional gender roles. Per Judith Butler, that "play" can be subversive, but at a minimum it's an open question whether that play of gender can ever fully shake the traditional gender roles that it pivots off of.
* With the possible exception of radical 70s porn, which is so boring it's unwatchable.
Common Sex
The argument is that by making sex commonplace, you also make sex trivial. "Mystery" in this sense doesn't mean shame, it means "holy". If sex is truly one of the greatest things in the world, why would we treat it the same way we treat everything else? If sex is really so special, then we should treat it with reverence and not trivialize it. The way you elevate something is to treat it special, not to treat the same way you treat computers, tv, fast food, stock trading, etc. Porn treats sex not as something special, but as a commodity to be bought and sold. Porn makes sex as an industry. It's one thing to want to get away from the "shame" aspect of sex (a legitimate concern in my opinion), but that's not what is going on here. Anyone who reads Naomi Wolf knows that she doesn't attach any shame to sex. It's not fair to paint all pornography critics as hung up on the shame aspect. Some of those critics genuinly see porn as damaging to sexual relationships.
As for the argument that sex is not portrayed positively - not buying it. TV, movies, books, music, news, magazines, newspapers, ALL of popular culture portrays sex in a positive light. I can't think of a single media that portrays sex as anything other than in a positive light.
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
Philosophical Note
ON a purely philosophical note, I find it fascinating that someone not looking for sex (or even seeking to avoid it) sees it everywhere, but someone looking for sex can't find enough of it.
It as though the harder we look for something, the hard it is to find it, and the more we seek to avoid something, the more we find of it. In order to find what we are looking for, we have to stop looking for it, and in order to avoid what we don't want to find, we have to look for it.
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
I don't understand that
I don't understand that comment at all. Are you insinuating that I'm "looking for sex?" Funny, 'cause you don't know me beyond what you've read here, and perhaps my blog if you ventured over there. Secondly, if that IS what you're insinuating, is it supposed to be an insult? If so, why? I don't find the suggestion insulting. I'm a very sexual person, and I embrace my sexuality. As for "looking for sex," well, I get plenty of it on a daily basis; not that that's either here nor there, of course. Finally, I would suggest that instead of insinuating something, you just come right out and say it. (And I assure you, I've heard it all before.)
Amber - you didn't
Amber - you didn't understand the comment because you thought it was directed at you. It wasn't. It was simply an observation. Methinks you doth protest too much. The more you write about how much you "embrace your sexuality" the less credible the claim sounds. The more you talk about how much you get it, the more it sounds like maybe there's an issue.
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
Hi, armchair pyschologist.
Hi, armchair pyschologist. Do you charge by the hour? Do you charge extra when you speak in faux middle English? 'Cause I don't recall hiring you.
K thx bye.
Interesting response.
Interesting response.
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
It's not fair to paint all
Please show me where anyone on this thread has painted all pornography critis as hung up on shame.
And while we're talking about painting things with a broad brush...
Huh! Okay then! Thanks for sharing!
(I guess in this particular example, then, porn is not part of "popular culture?" Since it apparently is SOOOOO horrible in its portrayal of sex. Yes, all of it!!)
*sigh*... Look, I've said this in much more detail in other places, don't have time to rehash Sex Positive 101 here, but... Cliff Notes version: Cosmo, GGW, and network sitcom toilet humor is not the pinnacle of a sex positive society. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Amber - you brought up the
Amber - you brought up the shame issue and it seemed to me that you were trying to paint with a broad brush. I'll take your word that this was not your intent and that you recognize there are other, legitimate reasons for criticizing porn and the porn issue.
You wrote: "Huh! Okay then! Thanks for sharing!" - I'm not sure what your point is with this comment, other than to come off as rude and dismissive. Care to elaborate?
You wrote: "(I guess in this particular example, then, porn is not part of "popular culture?" Since it apparently is SOOOOO horrible in its portrayal of sex. Yes, all of it!!)" - Again, I think I missed your point. In my opinion porn IS part of the "popular culture" and it tries to portray sex as positive. So this reinforceed my point that sex is portrayed postively in popular culture.
"Cosmo, GGW, and network sitcom toilet humor is not the pinnacle of a sex positive society." - So what would your ideal "sex positive society" look like. NO cosmo or sitcom television but lots of porn?
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
A response to Amber
First off, I'd like to thank jpe for his excellent insight and discussion of this point. His philosophical background is clearly a positive in this argument.
I'd like to reiterate his point (although without the knowledge of 70s radical porn) that all porn is heteronormative. Even gay porn plays to the dominant gender roles of modern society. Males dominate the females. Females are simple play things for men without consideration of feelings, emotions or consequences.
Now, back to Amber's specific questions...
It isn't so interesting, as is an important point. The reason that being committed is key is to help ensure that the partners aren't using the other simply as a means, but also as an end.
The second is that as someone with a political view on almost all things, I see the subject of porn as it relates to society and "the people" and not to individual rights or permissibility. From a sociological perspective, sexual promiscuity has limited upside and lots of downside - Sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted or unsupported children, destructive relationships, etc. So yes, consenting adults can do as they please, but only as long as they don't impose upon society for their choices. When they do so, society should have a say in their behavior. This is the same way we treat alcohol, smoking, obesity, etc.
I find this part of your post most interesting...
You aren't buying that today's generation has a more frequent exposure to more graphic pornography than ever before? Do you have any facts to back up that assertion? I would certainly back up my claim with the proliferation of the internet and the increasing cyber-life that today's generation has. I know that prior to the internet, my buddies and I had seen a few porno mags and one porn movie. Afterwards, we were visiting nakedchicks.com on a near daily basis or clicking through the sex spam that arrived in our Hotmail inboxes. I don't think I'm uncommon with that experience.
Here you also acknowledge, that porn as it is now produced is not sex-positive. In fact, it is "adolescent". Where do we disagree? Why are we arguing? If porn sets up unreal expectations or isn't sex-positive, why should anyone watch it?
Then you ask,
I don't think I've ever suggested we not talk about sex. I don't believe it is dirty and certainly want people to know their own bodies and desire. My own sex life has spiced up considerably after my wife and I both had some self-discovery. I do want to have a two-sided conversation about it. Sex can be wonderful, but it can be incredibly harmful. It can literally bring both life and death. It can make two people feel as one, but can also rip your heart in two. To not acknowledge both sides is not fair to the conversation.
Finally, you say
I spelled that out after I addressed my concern. I said "It concerns me because the 14 year old girl who is very unsure of her body and her sexuality now believes that "normal" sex involves multiple partners and all her orifices. It may be years before she is sexually active, but will she be continually trying to live up to the porn world standards? What happens when she fails?"
Sure, discuss DPs, but to a young woman without firm views on sex and sexuality, it may not occur to her to question it. Think I'm nuts? How many woman sub-40 now shave their pubic region? That is clearly a porn influence. Done originally for hygiene purposes by porn actresses, it is now so mainstream that waxing was a scene in the PG-13 movie "The Break-Up". What 14-year old is going to question it? Jennifer Aniston has her pubic hair removed, so why shouldn't I? In another movie, Jenna Jameson takes on two men at once, why shouldn't I? Even if the girl questions it, I promise that few 14-year-old boys are going to. It is that sort of expectation from a massive exposure to sex-unpositive porn that worries me for the next generation.
Indeed.
This bothers me, too. It's one thing if a woman just wants to do that, feels empowered to do so, etc. But the effects of porn are nothing if not ambiguous. The same stuff that some people take as empowering others (and most people, IMHO) take as pressure.
There is simply no way that a 14 year old is shaving her pubic hair out of a sense of empowerment. The notion is preposterous on its face. And this is what bothers me about third wave sex positive feminism: it's possible for certain porn to be taken as empowering, but the ambiguity inherent in porn more often than not cuts the other direction, toward a creepy & patriarchal world in which women are vessels of male pleasure.
Porn, alcohol, The Super
Porn, alcohol, The Super Bowl, excess salt in the diet, golf clubs, The Old Testament, the New Testament, too much education, not enough education, hanging out with guys named "Cooter", heavy metal music, Yanni, Duke Nukem, Mario Bros. It's easy to find a scapegoat for bad behavior, but ultimately it all boils down to personal choice, choosing to behave a certain way. There may be triggers, or temptations, but (say it with me) ultimately it all boils down to personal choice.
I don't like porn. I won't have it in the house. I do like alcohol, even though people are led to all sorts of perditious acts by it, I keep it in my house. I will not assume that everyone should feel the same way about porn that I do. I am not responsible for someone elses behavior, and I am not going to censor someone elses activities because they offend me, I will simply choose not to engage in them, or to associate with the people who are behaving offensively. To assume that ALL people should feel the same way about something that you do is childish, because it fails to recognize that not everyone thinks the same way you do. For you to assume that you know better about my life, and presume to make moral determinations for me is condescending, and demeans us both.
Dogmatism
I think that this conversation is a bit more substantive than it began, so I thank you all.
I did want to comment on one particular thing, not specifically about porn, but about an underlying assumption. There seems to be an assumption being made by those "defending port" that those opposed to porn are dogmatic in their opposition. Could it not be that those that fine porn perfectly acceptable are just as dogmatic in their insistence that their take is the "TRUTH"?
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems as though those who are saying "How dare you say that what I find acceptable is wrong?" are guilty of the same.
No
All us heathens/"porn defenders" have said is that "I'm cold, you put on a sweater" is an unacceptable way to interact with society, and that just because Porn™ doesn't jive with one person's morality doesn't make it inherently immoral/unethical/etc. And it doesn't. That hardly qualifies as dogmatism.
BTW, I signed up for an account yesterday, but my information never showed up by email.
Will, I with all due
Will, I with all due respect, I do think you are reading it wrong.
Here's the thing. I read and comment on a lot of feminist blogs - hence my references to the feminist blogosphere. This discussion is nothing new. And one thing that really peeves me, and others who have similar opinions, is being painted as a "defender of porn." Whatever that's supposed to mean. Look, those of us who "defend porn" (your words) have, on many many occasions, in many many locations, said that YES, we acknowledge that there are LOTS of problems with the porn industry; YES, a lot of mainstream porn is shit; we would like to see reform within the sex industry, and most importantly, we would like to see a change in the economic conditions that lead to some women and men ending up in the porn industry against their will, and being used and exploited.
HOWEVER, we do NOT think there is anything at all wrong with consenting adults watching other consenting adults fuck on film.
But because of this simple fact, we get painted into a corner and labeled all sorts of nasty names. It gets real old, real fast.
Missing my point
Amber: I'm not sure why you are focusing on a non-issue. I only used the term "defenders of porn" because you had used it yourself in one of your first comments and I put it in quotes assuming that you would take it that way. Either way, I believe you understood what I was saying.
So let me make sure I understand what you are saying here. It seems that you are being dogmatic in the position that porn is perfectly acceptable. Do I have that correct?
Post new comment