What's up with the support for porn and prostitution?

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by katya

Well, saying that girls who were brought up right wouldn't do this or that is an opinion, I think. I do think that there are girls who go into porn because they want to.

\

Katya, bella, there is no woman or man on this planet who dreams, when they are young, of growing up someday to be a porn star. Or whore. No girl or boy longs to be a porn actor/actress, or longs to be abused and used and portrayed and debased in this way. NO one. The influences and upbringings and pains and cruelties suffered by children make pornography work easier, more justifiable, and more attractive an idea than to those who were not molested/raped/beaten/ignored by their mothers/fathers/foster parents, but NOthing, nothing, compels a young person free of the burden of a wretcvhed or confusing, shame-filled childhood to willingly go into the business of being a porn actor/actress or stripper or callgirl. Pornography and satripping et alia may be "harmless" and entertaining and fun enough for the general, normal populace but I absolutely assure you, it is devastatingly harmful to those who are behind the camera/on the catwalk/in the motel room/on the street.

I agree with Gaffer & others here who brought up that a good thing would be to have it legalised and watched over by the gov't, rather than kept illegal so that the biggest and most vulnerable victims of the whole picture at least get SOME kind of protection and care, SOME kind of "Someone to watch over me" guardians, rather than continuously villifying the victims whilst the enjoyers of these girls/boys heartbreaking efforts, the enjoyers and consumers, all get off scot free and are allowed to mock, rape, jack off to, use, be entertained by, and then throw away, human beings.

[Valandil]

But one problem I have with "legalizing" some of these things is that it puts the government in the position of sanctioning all that kind of pain.

Don't we want our governments working toward a better society?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

\

Katya, bella, there is no woman or man on this planet who dreams, when they are young, of growing up someday to be a porn star. Or whore. No girl or boy longs to be a porn actor/actress, or longs to be abused and used and portrayed and debased in this way. NO one.

Well, it's possible that no girls do, but I can assure you that there are quite a few boys who do. Quite often in low budget pornos the men don't even get paid.
I've known male strippers (and come to think of it few female ones as well) who certainly enjoyed their jobs and seemed quite happy and contented as well.

I was also recently reading that the porn industry is seeing its profits dive from the huge amount of amateur porn flooding the Net; porn produced by people at home who aren't even getting paid for it, but are doing it for basically exhibitionist reasons.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Valandil

But one problem I have with "legalizing" some of these things is that it puts the government in the position of sanctioning all that kind of pain.

Don't we want our governments working toward a better society?

Totallly agree with you. However, the argument, from my POV, is that state regulation of prostitution results in a reduction of harm.

Back in my radical leftie days (heh - I'm such a fascist now) I voted to ban all porn, including The Sun (the UK's best-selling tabloid daily newspaper, which shows naked ladies on Page Three) from University shops, and opposed all porn on principle, based on the link with exploitation and objectification of women.

I still think that is true (i.e. of course there is a link), but what's changed for me is that where I've seen censorship attempted it has been counter-productive. Look at the Lady Chatterley's Lover obscenity case: first you have the completely ridiculous attempt to ban a work of art, then you have the work itself as a result gaining far greater exposure on account of the controversy.

The same thing has happened again and again: those who wish to ban stuff almost always choose the WRONG STUFF to attempt to ban!

Then you have the "totally none-of-your-business unless you have a pretty darn good justification" aspect of what I choose to read/listen to/look at.

And finally, there is a positive aspect to more openness about sex and less shame about our bodies. Porn reflects this change in attitudes, at the same time as reflecting attitudes of mysogyny and objectification.

Women rightly expect a gratifying sex life, as opposed to the "good old days" where they were just the societally approved, within-wedlock receptacle for a man's tadger. Whether (and whenever) he wants.

Anyone who thinks sexual exploitation started with the first scud picture has extremely rose-tinted spectacles on. I would argue it is less now, because women are less likely to tolerate abusive, one-sided relationships.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

I was also recently reading that the porn industry is seeing its profits dive from the huge amount of amateur porn flooding the Net; porn produced by people at home who aren't even getting paid for it, but are doing it for basically exhibitionist reasons.

Youve nailed something there. Even the great mighty Porn Industry cant control the net. People explore their particular fetishes online. Often thats the only place they can do that. I have a number of friends who fit into the category exhibitionist. They enjoy it. They do it for free and for fun and for themselves. Are they twisted and depraved? Maybe. But they are in control of doing what turns them on. Not some sleazy “producer” with a hand video cam in a basement office somewhere. And they sure seem awful into it to me…

You cant legally define porn really so Im not sure how you intend to apply legal restrictions to it more than you already have simply because in some cases it can be exploitive or harm can come from it. What IS porn exactly? Ask ten people you get ten definitions.

This discussion reminds me of the virtual porn discussion. Is virtual porn harmful? If it involves clearly illegal themes should it be illegal? We can depict whatever we want as long as we don’t break certain specific laws already on the books. So if virtual porn allows us to get around these restrictions is it ok?

[katya]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Katya, bella, there is no woman or man on this planet who dreams, when they are young, of growing up someday to be a porn star. Or whore. No girl or boy longs to be a porn actor/actress, or longs to be abused and used and portrayed and debased in this way. NO one. The influences and upbringings and pains and cruelties suffered by children make pornography work easier, more justifiable, and more attractive an idea than to those who were not molested/raped/beaten/ignored by their mothers/fathers/foster parents, but NOthing, nothing, compels a young person free of the burden of a wretcvhed or confusing, shame-filled childhood to willingly go into the business of being a porn actor/actress or stripper or callgirl. Pornography and satripping et alia may be "harmless" and entertaining and fun enough for the general, normal populace but I absolutely assure you, it is devastatingly harmful to those who are behind the camera/on the catwalk/in the motel room/on the street.

I've daydreamed about being in porn when I was young. And my upbringing was anything but abusive. I was raised to be a good girl. Hence the taboo factor. Of course, that was just idle daydreaming, but I can still see the attraction.

And of course, that's not taking into account the abuse and harmful aspects, which i find absolutely appalling.

Originally Posted by the gaffer

And finally, there is a positive aspect to more openness about sex and less shame about our bodies. Porn reflects this change in attitudes, at the same time as reflecting attitudes of mysogyny and objectification.

Word. I've been affected in either direction. I've felt inferior for not looking nearly as hot as Jenna Haze, felt objectified. I've also felt far more comfortable with myself and confident, to keep it pg-13, after seeing the wide variety or people on the internet.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I disagree. I thiunk we have seen a massive increase in crime, we just don't identify it that way.

I think the impact of porn on young men has been to decrease their ability to make sincere individual connections with women. I think the impact of porn on young women has been to increase their reliance on physical attributes as valuable (or in too many cases, not valuable) which has increased depression and anxiety, as well as things like eating disorders. I think it has added to a materialistic culture that is essentially valueless, which, in turn, increases the susceptibility of the population to simplistic demagogues, of various ideologies. And it extends further into childhood by way of popular culture, hurting our kids younger every year. Find jeans that cover the belly button of a 4 year old girl in a store near you.

But the damage to the participants is not occasional, or incidental. It is endemic to the process.

On crime... if you look into historical data for all kinds of violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) from present day to as far back as they have reliable data, the percentage of the population involved is more or less the same. I read a very indepth study of it, and maybe I will see if I can dig up the pages. It's also a relatively small percentage compared to the entire population.

Basing any argument on "all those violent criminals", which are a vast minority of the total population is just silly. For every porn reader and/or prostitute frequenter that turns into a rapist, there are probably twenty that do not.

On the rest, I think you are just expressing generational differences and defining one as good and another as bad. Women were expected to look and act a certain way in the 1920s, just like they are today, the "look" was just different.

And don't even tell me that people weren't materialistic in "the good old days". Humans have always been and always will be materialistic.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

On crime... For every porn reader and/or prostitute frequenter that turns into a rapist, there are probably twenty that do not.

Probably way, way more that do not, I mean one out of twenty is tremendously high, so I'd say more like one out of fifty. But that, I believe, isn't the point - the point is, the act of prostituting oneself either soft-core or hard-core, stripping or whoring, is destroying the person who's doing it, destroying them at their very core. To hell with morality, I am not talking about morals and "right" and "wrong" I am talking about the damage and destruction done to a human spirit, a life. but, I need to elucidate my point better and to do so means really sitting here at this computer and getting into it, so, anyway I just wanted to say that bit...

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

On the rest, I think you are just expressing generational differences and defining one as good and another as bad. Women were expected to look and act a certain way in the 1920s, just like they are today, the "look" was just different.

And don't even tell me that people weren't materialistic in "the good old days". Humans have always been and always will be materialistic.

Well, in the "good old days" porn and prostitution were exactly just as damaging and ruinous to the people doing it as it is today. Whenever, like thousands of years ago, there was porn then, too, of course, just they did it differently because DUH, it was different times. What's that old saying about prostitution being the oldest profession in the world? Everything increases exponentially as the human race evolves forward, the technology, the population, etc. - but the sales and distribution of human sexuality and human beings for sexual gratification is as old as the story of humanity itself...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Probably way, way more that do not, I mean one out of twenty is tremendously high, so I'd say more like one out of fifty. But that, I believe, isn't the point - the point is, the act of prostituting oneself either soft-core or hard-core, stripping or whoring, is destroying the person who's doing it, destroying them at their very core. To hell with morality, I am not talking about morals and "right" and "wrong" I am talking about the damage and destruction done to a human spirit, a life.

I agree with that, but I think it is more a matter of the human condition than porn. I'd have to think that a vast majority of women who turn to porn are doing it for the money. And the one's who aren't pretty enough or are morally against it, but are in economic desperation, end up having their lives just as destroyed in other ways such as working minimum wage jobs for 70+ hours a week.

It's easy to point out the moral ills of society, from porn to drinking to drug abuse to divorce and say that people shouldn't do it because it's wrong and destructive, but most people don't choose it because they think it is fun or harmless, they choose it because it's the only choice they have to escape the desparate realities of their own lives.

I'd say that it isn't so much that porn destroys them, but that they have already been destroyed, and thus turn to things like porn.

[Lief Erikson]

Which furthers the destruction.

I strongly agree with Lotesse that whoring and stripping create "damage and destruction done to a human spirit, a life." It devalues a person, turning a person into an object rather than a human being. When I glimpse scantily clad women at the beach, in magazines, on TV or wherever, I find myself looking at them as sex objects rather than as people. That is not looking at them as human beings with feelings and intrinsic dignity but rather is looking at them as far, far less than what they are. As my French teacher who took me to Paris once described it, it treats them as "less than dirt." Then such women will be often treated in unfair and demeaning ways by men, and they will frequently lose the respect of others and sometimes a significant amount of self-respect as well. Men are damaged if they come to see women as sexual objects rather than as people, and the women are damaged by being seen (and often consequently treated) as objects.

It's all intensely degrading to humanity. Poverty can damage people too, and I know that it can certainly cause a number of people to take up prostitution. And in my opinion, that is one more layer of damage that can be added to a person.

[The Gaffer]

And would banning porn stop "teenage" magazines aimed at under 13s running articles about dieting and how to give good head? Would it stop my 13 year-old son's joke website showing banner ads for scantily clad pop starlets? As IR says, banning it means defining it, and experience shows us, that means turning the law into an ass.

Some light relief:

Originally Posted by Viz Comic, Scud Through the Ages

In 1450 Johann Gutenberg revolutionised the world of art pamphletry with his invention of printing. Until then, each mucky book had to be hand drawn by monks. Half an hour after the first copy of Gutenberg's "Reader's Wives" rolled off the press in Germany, it was found torn to shreds under a hedge in Leeds.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

And would banning porn stop "teenage" magazines aimed at under 13s running articles about dieting and how to give good head? Would it stop my 13 year-old son's joke website showing banner ads for scantily clad pop starlets? As IR says, banning it means defining it, and experience shows us, that means turning the law into an ass.

If the best that the law can do right now is ban prostitution and full-scale nudity, I guess that's something. You're right in pointing out, of course, that that doesn't solve the problem. I personally would like to see a lot more "assinine" a law, as you know .

[The Gaffer]

Heh. Out of interest, would you still allow [insert barely-legal starlet name here] gyrating in a bikini?

Personally, I think millions dying from starvation and preventable disease, other millions dying in avoidable wars, the all-round glorification of violence and murder and, of course, the concomitant inuring of our population to the suffering of others is far more degrading to humanity.

But there you go. Call me a mentalist.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Heh. Out of interest, would you still allow [insert barely-legal starlet name here] gyrating in a bikini?

I expect not.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Personally, I think millions dying from starvation and preventable disease, other millions dying in avoidable wars, the all-round glorification of violence and murder and, of course, the concomitant inuring of our population to the suffering of others is far more degrading to humanity.

Far more serious an issue than the one you were comparing it with, anyway. I absolutely agree with you on that.

I disagree with you on some of those wars being "avoidable," and I'm not sure what you're referring to when you comment about the glorification of violence and murder. Is that horror movies or violent computer games you're talking about? I'd have a law against a fair number of those too .

I think that with the "inuring . . . to the suffering of others," you're probably referring to our government having banned the media from filming the coffins of the troops. I disagree with you strongly on that, if that is what you're talking about, because I think that this would play right into Al'Qaeda's hands and strengthen our enemy while weakening our own nation. Public opinion is where much of this war is taking place, and the public is not trained to cope with the demands of war. It is crucial that our nation's resolve to crumble. Though I think it already has, on the part of the general population .

I agree with you about the diseases and starvation.

All these issues you mentioned are completely out of the realm of one person in a bikini, of course. They're so far more important that comparing them is ridiculous. The sexualizing of women as a whole though, if one takes into account scanty dress they have in magazines, TV, the Internet and elsewhere, is a significant issue. It is very serious how women are perceived by men in our culture. I think you'll agree with me that it's a far better situation if men don't view women as sex objects but as human beings . . . Hey what's with this? I'm sounding like a feminist!

Is this as serious as millions of people dying of starvation and diseases? No. But that doesn't mean we can't work on fixing both issues at the same time, of course .

I agree with you about your general points and half of the specifics you're probably talking about.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

But there you go. Call me a mentalist.

Maybe I'm a mentalist quack too, because I agree with you .



I want to watch the Bourne Ultimatum tomorrow. And I can't.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I expect not.

So you'd be consistent, then. So how about if she's wearing jeans and a t-shirt?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think that with the "inuring . . . to the suffering of others," you're probably referring to our government having banned the media from filming the coffins of the troops.

No, that wasn't what I was thinking about. That's just plain propaganda (not to mention having utter contempt for your own populace). I was meaning how we just don't seem to care when foreigners are killed. Or rather, there is a sliding scale of caring: here, it's Brits first, then Anglophones (especially white ones), then Europeans, then Caucasians, then everyone else. I guess you could probably work out a ratio of value: one Brit life is probably worth approximately 2,000 Iraqis or something like that.

(Based on the "unacceptable" loss of approx 250 British troops, compared with 600,000+ Iraqis)

That's distinct from the depiction of violence issue, which is weird in itself, in that it's illegal to murder someone, and it's not illegal to have an erection, yet you can depict the former all you like but not the latter.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

They're so far more important that comparing them is ridiculous.

Not so sure about that. This is about censorship, and the manipulation of our perceptions. I think that if people were more directly confronted with the consequences of poverty and disease via the media, they would be less tolerant of the status quo, and spend less time looking at pictures of naked ladies.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think you'll agree with me that it's a far better situation if men don't view women as sex objects but as human beings . . . Hey what's with this? I'm sounding like a feminist!.

Trust me, you are not sounding like a feminist! The sorts of steps you would have to take to enforce these regulations would set back women's rights about 150 years.

I think if we look at situations in which these sorts of regulations exist/ed, there isn't exactly a good track record of not treating women like objects.

The problem is with men's attitudes, not women's behaviour. Which takes us back to sis's original issue. I would say that banning porn/scud/barenakedladies is going to make that situation worse.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It devalues a person, turning a person into an object rather than a human being. When I glimpse scantily clad women at the beach, in magazines, on TV or wherever, I find myself looking at them as sex objects rather than as people. That is not looking at them as human beings with feelings and intrinsic dignity but rather is looking at them as far, far less than what they are. As my French teacher who took me to Paris once described it, it treats them as "less than dirt." Then such women will be often treated in unfair and demeaning ways by men, and they will frequently lose the respect of others and sometimes a significant amount of self-respect as well. Men are damaged if they come to see women as sexual objects rather than as people, and the women are damaged by being seen (and often consequently treated) as objects.

I think the devaluing is being done by the viewer, not the viewed. A woman in a full burka and head-dress can be seen as little more than an object, rather than an individual, as can an adult male in a $1,000 Armani suit.

On the flipside, I remember girls in highschool who would dress in sexual ways, but didn't translate that over to their behavior at all. ( Trust me. I tried. ).

Respect for fellow humans comes from within. If you can only respect a woman when she is properly dressed, and she somehow becomes nothing more than an object of desire just because she has on shorts and a tubetop, than I say it is your problem.

People dress certain ways because they like to look attractive. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is if people assume it is an open invitation to make unwanted sexual advances.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So you'd be consistent, then. So how about if she's wearing jeans and a t-shirt?

Then fine, provided it's not a very suggestive T-shirt or jeans. When I see ordinary T-Shirts and jeans, I don't think "sex."

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

No, that wasn't what I was thinking about. That's just plain propaganda (not to mention having utter contempt for your own populace).

I don't think it's "contempt" to say that they don't have military training and so can't be expected to behave with military discipline.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I was meaning how we just don't seem to care when foreigners are killed. Or rather, there is a sliding scale of caring: here, it's Brits first, then Anglophones (especially white ones), then Europeans, then Caucasians, then everyone else. I guess you could probably work out a ratio of value: one Brit life is probably worth approximately 2,000 Iraqis or something like that.

(Based on the "unacceptable" loss of approx 250 British troops, compared with 600,000+ Iraqis)

Oh, okay. In that case I absolutely agree. I can't put my agreement here more emphatically.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

That's distinct from the depiction of violence issue, which is weird in itself, in that it's illegal to murder someone, and it's not illegal to have an erection, yet you can depict the former all you like but not the latter.

Well, to me that's not so odd. Depict an erection and the resulting feeling from the desired audience might be lust. There isn't a very positive message or result from portraying that.

A film that depicts a murder, on the other hand, usually presents that murder as evil and so presents a moral message. Those films often present messages praising those who clash with villains to protect society, whether they be cops, detectives or other. Messages of heroism dominate, so one comes out of that with something wholesome.

To me the message in a film or book is very important.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Not so sure about that. This is about censorship, and the manipulation of our perceptions. I think that if people were more directly confronted with the consequences of poverty and disease via the media, they would be less tolerant of the status quo, and spend less time looking at pictures of naked ladies.

Maybe. I personally feel that that's too optimistic a portrayal of human nature. I agree that more portrayal of international poverty and disease in the media would be a good thing. The media knows that doesn't interest most people that much and so doesn't try to present it very often. Which is sad.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Trust me, you are not sounding like a feminist! The sorts of steps you would have to take to enforce these regulations would set back women's rights about 150 years.

I meant in my railing against the sexualization of women. I agree that I have precious little in common with them, in general. I was being a bit silly .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I think if we look at situations in which these sorts of regulations exist/ed, there isn't exactly a good track record of not treating women like objects.

Of course this has always been a problem with humanity in varying degrees. I think that modern freedoms are making it significantly worse than it used to be, though.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The problem is with men's attitudes, not women's behaviour. Which takes us back to sis's original issue. I would say that banning porn/scud/barenakedladies is going to make that situation worse.

Men's attitudes more than a little come from women's behavior, and then women's behavior in turn creates more and more of that attitude in men. The two fuel one another.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I agree the problem is with men's attitudes, and also with poverty, and the access people have to work. Of course it's about those things.

But when you're telling yourself that defense of pornography (and establishing the boundaries of pornography is another issue) is defense of civil liberities, I'll tell you frankly... I do not believe there is an innate right to viewing or making pictures of people being intimate with ...do you really want the list here? The minute someone says, "OK, Darlene. In this scene, you'll be... bring in the duct tape(etc. etc)" I think they're engaged in behavior that damages everyone involved.

And, factually, the difference between people who fantasize about the cool life as a porn star, and people who collect those paychecks is abuse. I don't go to rodeos...why would I think it's okay to do worse to women and children? What constitutes "consent" to being branded? If the wide distribution of pictures of poor Britney exposing herself causes children to think it's "normal" (and I think it does,) then parents should get off their lazy duffs and STOP their children from viewing those sites on the net, reading those magazines, and watching the television. For heaven's sake, the government doesn't need to do that job if parents will!!!

And this goes equally for men as for women. People have to develop some individual responsibility for giving their environment some standards. Don't say, 'Well, it's wrong for the government, so I'm hands off.' That's absurd.

As far as porn goes, when I was a liberal young person I thought anti-porn activism was uninformed. "Sex-negative", in the jargon of the era. @@ I apologise to every person who was hurt by my ignorance. You don't have to spend much time with first person testimony to see this business is broken beyond repair. And contagious.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think the devaluing is being done by the viewer, not the viewed. A woman in a full burka and head-dress can be seen as little more than an object, rather than an individual, as can an adult male in a $1,000 Armani suit.

That is a heck of a lot less likely. Humans have strong sexual urges. We are designed in such a way that seeing people dressed in scanty ways will naturally evoke sexual desire. That's the whole reason designers make clothes in that way!

So it is very natural to look on someone dressed that way with sexual desire. And it's something that we should resist doing, because it makes those people like desireable objects to us. To you too- you said yourself that you made advances on women dressed that way. You saw them as sexually desireable objects rather than as human beings.

We are likely to see people and think about their sexual desireability when they wear those clothes and it can be an effort to look at them instead as real people with thoughts and feelings and immense layers of depth and personality. We dehumanize women in our minds when we look at them as sex objects. If we don't fight that, then that kind of thinking must logically slip out in various ways in our actions. If we don't fight it, then you're right, that is our fault. But it is not our fault alone. There is definitely a problem with the culture that says that those kinds of garments are fashionable and women should seek to be seen as objects rather than as people. That is what our modern culture does.

[Insidious Rex]

I dont really see a problem with looking at women as sex objects to some extent. Lord knows my girlfriend doesnt mind me doing that to her. Its natural after all. We are supposed to be attracted to certain physical aspects of our mates right? So no I dont think its abhorant to think a girl looks good in a thong or some tight jeans or something. Thats how the game works. The problem is when the media and corporate America takes it to the point of packaging sex for their own profits. And 10 year olds learn that being Paris Hilton is the cool thing. And yes THATS where the parents come in. Not the courts...