Pornography is discriminating?

stormkeeper

solas wrote:

Vangelis, I was just wondering and I don't mean to be offensive I'm genuinely curious, are you aspergers or a.d.d?
<edit> I would have asked in the psychology forum but I know you can't respond there.

Where'd you get that impression from?


And seeing as I posted in here... I don't think pronography is discriminating to women. The way I figure it, the woman chooses to do it for the most part, so if she wants to do it, then it's her choice. Same goes for me.

Nevyn

David19 wrote:

I believe Vangelis is from another country and English may not be her first language. I think that might explain the usage of the word discriminating. I presume she meant degrading. I could be wrong though.

Well I was just asking for clarities sake not to have a go.

David19

Thaedydal wrote:

Well I was just asking for clarities sake not to have a go.

I know. I didn't mean to imply you were having a go A few people were wondering about it.

solas

kennett wrote:

Where'd you get that impression from?

she has a tendency to think outside the box, independant thinkers aren't very popular here at boards.ie.
That and her interest in psychology has made me curious, although

I believe Vangelis is from another country and English may not be her first language.

this might explain it.

stormkeeper

solas wrote:

she has a tendency to think outside the box, independant thinkers aren't very popular here at boards.ie.

I'd love to know why independent thinkers aren't very popular here...

That and her interest in psychology has made me curious, although this might explain it.

It could be both perhaps?

I wasn't aware that people with Asperger's Syndrome generally had an interest in psychology... kind of makes sense though, seeing as there's a lot of psychological aspects to the, er... disability.

Either way though, I should have been able to pick that up, seeing as I've got Asperger's myself, though I haven't seen very many of her posts, most likely because I stick to my little corner of the Paranormal boards.

I need to frequent more forums, methinks...

lazydaisy

Can we come to some agreement on what porn is?

I know that in the US what technically defines it in terms of film ratings is an erect penis.

Personally, I think this is a little silly.

A lecturer of mine defined it as sex without emotion or responsibility. I think that is a far more adult and mature perspective.

What do you guys think?

solas

<OT>

kennett wrote:

I'd love to know why independent thinkers aren't very popular here...

they pisss people off.

kennett wrote:

I wasn't aware that people with Asperger's Syndrome generally had an interest in psychology... kind of makes sense though, seeing as there's a lot of psychological aspects to the, er... disability.

I always thought of it as a condition.

kennett wrote:

most likely because I stick to my little corner of the Paranormal boards

safe with the rest of the weirdo's. :P<OT>

solas

laizydaisy wrote:

A lecturer of mine defined it as sex without emotion or responsibility. I think that is a far more adult and mature perspective.

What do you guys think?

I could go along with that.

Nevyn

lazydaisy wrote:

Can we come to some agreement on what porn is?

porn

n : creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire

stormkeeper

solas wrote:

<OT>
they pisss people off.

So much for intelligent debates then!

I always thought of it as a condition.

I was going to use that word, but then I remembered the uni's disability unit classes it as a "hidden disability". It didn't seem like the right word to use though. I've referred to it as a mental illness before as well. It's supposed that around 40% of those on the Autistic Spectrum have Dyslexia as well, so that could be another reason for the above?

safe with the rest of the weirdo's. :P<OT>

lol, yup

Anyway, on topic...


Laisydaisy: That seems like a good description of porn. An erect penis, in my opinion is nothing at the end of the day... it's when you start getting into the likes of sex, and all that other stuff where it becomes proper porn, though you do have softcore and hardcore, which further divides the issue...

Catsmokinpot

hmmm i would say its descriminating against women, but only because of some of the acts they commit, i mean ive seen some women who would have to suck on a dick thats been up her own ass and another womans ass, you dont see men having to lick womens assholes and come up with a brown nose, appart from that, they get payed a bucket load, its their decision, if you dont want to do something, that is your decision, in the end no-one makes you do it if you dont want to, that i would disagree with.

and as to wether or not its pure, i think there is worse stuff out there, child porn, snuff movies, faces of death videos. america, a bunch of adults having sex with eachother doesnt worry me at all.

Seraphina

i would consider it discrimminating in that its totally male-orientated and the women are just objects in it.
some women have to do disgusting things. i'm unsure if its entirely their own choice in some cases, with the amount of sex-slavery today its hard to tell.
not all of them make a bucket-load either, and tbh i reckon many of them are doing it because they cant find better work.
i dunno, i mean i am very much a sexually liberal kind of person, i enjoy it an awful lot, but i still dont get how women can 'enjoy' making porn. its difficult to imagine them physically enjoying being rammed every whichway by some butt-ugly guy.
i find it difficult to imagine why they do it, and i've come to the conclusion that most of them must be unhappy and seeking attention and affirmation that they are attractive.
i think its just the fact that the women are used that makes me uneasy sometimes, and how the websites proclaim their women as slutty and filthy as if it were a good thing. - i mean most guys wouldn't touch women like that with a 10ft barge pole in real life, why is it so attractive
but i cant deny that i enjoy it myself, i just wish there was less of the treating women like orifices and nothing more, i dont want bleedin romantic story lines though!!

tabatha

is it discrimminating for a woman to be beaten in a film or raped. no. she is acting. the same goes for porn. it is an actress playing a part and getting paid for it. nothing wrong with that. they arent been forced to do anything they dont want to. no real difference between jenna jameson and jodie foster if you ask me.

also, personally i dont see anything wrong with porn.

McGinty

I would agree that I don't like porn, but I also beleive that the women choose to do it, as it is easy money according to them, there are various programmes where the women state that they enjoy it and the luxury of money, however they end up debasing the emotional side of sex, as do their male counterparts. I don't believe that just women are objectified in porn, the men are as well. There is a huge increase in male strippers, and picture boys. Sex sells, even popstars (both male and female) are sexually objectified. One only has to look at the plethora of music videos with bits hanging out, and they border on the pornographic. I don't agree with bringing in laws against it, because it only makes it more titilating, if someone wants to do porn let them, however I refuse to watch it, and find I can't even watch MTV, etc any more because of this problem. I wouldn't care how skint or poor I was, I wouldn't do it, and I've been skint in my time.

simu

lazydaisy wrote:

A lecturer of mine defined it as sex without emotion or responsibility. I think that is a far more adult and mature perspective.

What do you guys think?

I don't think this works as a description of porn at all. Responsibility - some porn makers do ensure all participants are doing it voluntarily and that they practise safe sex etc - the end product is still porn. And I think porn can be emotional too - think of couples who are in love filming themselves and so on.

I'd say that porn is a sexual act portrayed in a medium of communications for the purpose of arousing any viewers.

lazydaisy

Simu- can you say what you consider arousal? Do you mean for men an erection and for women lubrication?

If a sex act is represented with emotion than maybe it isnt porn?

A couple filiming themselves may choose to represent just the sex act and not represent their feelings, or they may choose to represent their feelings also, or we as viewers may or may not recognise those signs of emotions and we as viewers may or may not get aroused by it. So are you saying that they way to tell whether or not something is porn is by checking your own physiological responses to it?

I do not find MTV in the least bit arousing. I find it tedious and boring. Though I do find a lot of it demeaning to women. One could argue that the women who are in them are participating in their own degradation.

simu

lazydaisy wrote:

Simu- can you say what you consider arousal? Do you mean for men an erection and for women lubrication?

Well, there are other observable signs of arousal in humans too - in crease in heart rate and so on and I guess you'd have to include any combination of these things.

If a sex act is represented with emotion than maybe it isnt porn?

A couple filiming themselves may choose to represent just the sex act and not represent their feelings, or they may choose to represent their feelings also, or we as viewers may or may not recognise those signs of emotions and we as viewers may or may not get aroused by it. So are you saying that they way to tell whether or not something is porn is by checking your own physiological responses to it?

Well, I think there is a degree of subjectivity, especially with stuff that's erotic or less blatantly sexual. But, on a practical level, there are stricter definitions for films, for example. There's a pretty clear line established between porn and non-porn movies but even this is being blured by films such as 9 songs and so on.

I do not find MTV in the least bit arousing. I find it tedious and boring. Though I do find a lot of it demeaning to women. One could argue that the women who are in them are participating in their own degradation.

I don't think MTV is demeaning to women especially. Sure, the rap videos with the women "shaking their bootys" seem a bit sad but they're just harmless fun imo. In fact, one could argue that programmes like Jackass show far more degradation of men but me, I just see it as silly slap-stick.

Vangelis

David19 wrote:

I believe Vangelis is from another country and English may not be her first language. I think that might explain the usage of the word discriminating. I presume she meant degrading. I could be wrong though.

I know the meaning of discriminating. Will people please stop using my nationality as an excuse... for nothing? I can speak and write English and I know the difference between discriminating and degrading. Feminists call pornography discriminating. The reason why I do not understand this is not because I don't know the meaning of the word discriminating, it is because I think it is a poor arguement and that the women in porn-industry are there because they want to be there. Not because they are being discriminated.

Solas, I don't know why you ask, but if you like to know then I might have a mild form of Asperger's. And do not - please - offend me and call me debilitated. That'd be discriminating. And please do not feel sorry for me either. That's just embarrassing. I'm fine.

One arguement in the Bible against porn is that one shall not commit adultery/fornication. If anyone would like to know. I'm saying this because I chose to, not because I expect anyone to agree. I just want it to be heard.
Looking at a woman to desire her, God says, is committing adultery with her in one's mind. It'll take some time for me to find the verse that states this and I'll find it if anyone is interested.

simu

Vangelis wrote:

I know the meaning of discriminating. Will people please stop using my nationality as an excuse... for nothing? I can speak and write English and I know the difference between discriminating and degrading. Feminists call pornography discriminating. The reason why I do not understand this is not because I don't know the meaning of the word discriminating, it is because I think it is a poor arguement and that the women in porn-industry are there because they want to be there. Not because they are being discriminated.

Oh, I'd assumed you meant degrading. Do you mean women are being discriminated against or in favour of or some such thing? Or that porn shows that there are differences between men and women???

One arguement in the Bible against porn is that one shall not commit adultery/fornication. If anyone would like to know. I'm saying this because I chose to, not because I expect anyone to agree. I just want it to be heard.
Looking at a woman to desire her, God says, is committing adultery with her in one's mind. It'll take some time for me to find the verse that states this and I'll find it if anyone is interested.

Well, what about porn made by a husband and wife for their own use then? Husbands are allowed to desire their wives, afaik.

solas

vangelis wrote:

Solas, I don't know why you ask, but if you like to know then I might have a mild form of Asperger's. And do not - please - offend me and call me debilitated. That'd be discriminating. And please do not feel sorry for me either. That's just embarrassing. I'm fine.

I have no intentions of calling anyone debilitated. I spent four years working with children in this area. Its just people here at boards can be very narrow minded and don't make allowances for other peoples perspectives, often because they just don't understand.
as an example, in the past people with dyslexia have been bastardised for their literary comprehnsion.

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

Simu- can you say what you consider arousal? Do you mean for men an erection and for women lubrication?

If a sex act is represented with emotion than maybe it isnt porn?

A couple filiming themselves may choose to represent just the sex act and not represent their feelings, or they may choose to represent their feelings also, or we as viewers may or may not recognise those signs of emotions and we as viewers may or may not get aroused by it. So are you saying that they way to tell whether or not something is porn is by checking your own physiological responses to it?

I do not find MTV in the least bit arousing. I find it tedious and boring. Though I do find a lot of it demeaning to women. One could argue that the women who are in them are participating in their own degradation.

That's an interesting post. But say that a couple who were emotionally attached, were in love. Would they at all be willing to sell their emotions on camera? I don't see that as very likely, but then again I'm not experienced. In pornography! (Thank God!)

Vangelis

Shazbot wrote:

Well Vangelis , from what I've noticed over your past few threads is that you either (a) start a topic and make your views known , and when someone crticises them you keep asking more random questions straying further from the original topic.
or (b) Just bring up a topic and ask for other peoples opinions ( as in this thread ) without giving your own. You expect to be educated from this thread but this isnt what the humanities forum is about.

I want to clear this up. And use the thread about pedophilia as an example of my way of thinking.

People have misgivings about me that as I see it are caused by a lack of understanding of my real intentions. My posts in the pedophile-discussion were pervaded by questions to other posts. That was not an attack on the other posters' attacks on me and my opinions. I was trying to communicate that the debate should not be so one-sided and more broad.

The same I do when I ask: "Why do feminists call the porn-industry discriminating?" I know some arguements, but I think they are simply too vague.

When I ask people questions and they are puzzled and think that I disagree and attempt to drown their arguements in new questions, that is not true. Don't think that. wasn't it Aristotle who kept asking questions whenever he had a debate? Not that I ask as good questions as him, but I do ask questions. And I dig deeper and deeper, trying to pass general opinions that are perhaps not as well-founded as they seem to be.

I'm not being sensational and people have called me that too. I'm not obsessed about... manifesting myself or justifying myself as I write this. And I don't mean to take up too much space in this thread, but I felt that this attempt at commnicating my intentions was necessary.

Solas said that I have a tendency to think outside the box. I have done this all my life and I'm used to misunderstanding and conflicts because of that.

simu

Vangelis wrote:

The same I do when I ask: "Why do feminists call the porn-industry discriminating?" I know some arguements, but I think they are simply too vague.

You don't have to explain or defend your personality but you could explain what you mean exactly by the question above. It doesn't seem very clear to me.

Vangelis

simu wrote:

Oh, I'd assumed you meant degrading. Do you mean women are being discriminated against or in favour of or some such thing? Or that porn shows that there are differences between men and women???

I meant discriminating. I've heard that word being used so often in pornography debates and thought "What is so discriminating about pornography? They choose to do it!". I suppose that feminists say pornography is discriminating against women because they are being portrayed as objects of sexual pleasure. Objectifying women sounds horrible, I think. No one is an object.

But the women choose to be in porn movies and magazines, so how can one say they are being discriminated? If so, the women must choose to be discriminated.

Well, what about porn made by a husband and wife for their own use then? Husbands are allowed to desire their wives, afaik.

If somebody wants that, then it is their business. I prefer the real thing though. Sex is only sex if you are having sex.

Vangelis

simu wrote:

You don't have to explain or defend your personality but you could explain what you mean exactly by the question above. It doesn't seem very clear to me.

Explained in post above. Again, I am not defending myself. The fact that you say I do shows that my explanation has not been successful, which is depressing. Understand it the one who can.

solas

<ot>A very shy guy goes into a bar and sees a beautiful woman sitting at the bar. After an hour of gathering up his courage, he finally goes over to her and asks, tentatively, "Um, would you mind if I chatted with you for a while?"

She responds by yelling, at the top of her lungs, "NO! I won't sleep with you tonight!" Everyone in the bar is now staring at them. Naturally, the guy is hopelessly and completely embarrassed and he slinks back to his table.

After a few minutes, the woman walks over to him and apologizes. She smiles at him and says, "I'm sorry if I embarrassed you. You see, I'm a graduate student in psychology, and I'm studying how people respond to embarrassing situations."

To which he responds, at the top of his lungs, "What do you mean $200?!"<ot>

Sangre

Vangelis wrote:

I meant discriminating. I've heard that word being used so often in pornography debates and thought "What is so discriminating about pornography? They choose to do it!". I suppose that feminists say pornography is discriminating against women because they are being portrayed as objects of sexual pleasure. Objectifying women sounds horrible, I think. No one is an object.

In that context degrading is the correct word.

I really don't know what you're asking.

simu

Vangelis wrote:

I meant discriminating. I've heard that word being used so often in pornography debates and thought "What is so discriminating about pornography? They choose to do it!". I suppose that feminists say pornography is discriminating against women because they are being portrayed as objects of sexual pleasure. Objectifying women sounds horrible, I think. No one is an object.

But the women choose to be in porn movies and magazines, so how can one say they are being discriminated? If so, the women must choose to be discriminated.

(The verb can't be used transitively in this sense btw - look. It's confusing).

I think anti-porn feminists might argue that women involved in porn might be being discriminted against in some way without their being aware of it. You could compare how, say, in the nineteenth century, most women didn't think they were being discriminated against by not being allowed to vote. It took a while for the idea that this was unfair to spread. (although I think exploited would be a better word in the case of porn).


Or else, women might be forced to get involved in porn through violence or because of poverty and so on.

No one is an object but people can be objectified, alright.

If somebody wants that, then it is their business. I prefer the real thing though. Sex is only sex if you are having sex.

But what says the Bible? Well, I guess it was less of an issue back then given the lack of recording devices in the old days!

Vangelis

simu wrote:

(The verb can't be used transitively in this sense btw - look. It's confusing).

That's true. I didn't think of that. Well, I'd have to use:
"To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies."
This has a negative side and it is this kind of negative discrimination that I'm talking about.

I think anti-porn feminists might argue that women involved in porn might be being discriminted against in some way without their being aware of it. You could compare how, say, in the nineteenth century, most women didn't think they were being discriminated against by not being allowed to vote. It took a while for the idea that this was unfair to spread. (although I think exploited would be a better word in the case of porn).

Exploited, degraded, abused, belittled perhaps.

Or else, women might be forced to get involved in porn through violence or because of poverty and so on.

Yes, allthough this is not always the case. Rape-videos are horrible, not that I haven't seen any.

No one is an object but people can be objectified, alright.

But do people have a right to do this? What about the woman/man who allows for people to objectify her/him?

But what says the Bible? Well, I guess it was less of an issue back then given the lack of recording devices in the old days!

I'll have to do a little research.

lazydaisy

I should have been more specific about MTV. Things like Brittany Spears school girl video, that video with all those close ups of women doing aerobics, a lot of rap videos, etc, I think these are demeaning to women but I dont find them erotic or pornographic. But they are clearly made not for me to find them arousing, but a heterosexual pair of male eyes.

From what I understand of Feminist critiques of porn, most of it emerged in the late 60s and through to the 90s where it was thought to have encouraged rape and violence toward women. Certainly there are rape fantasies acted out in some porn, just as there are S&M fantasies [acted/played?] out on other porn, just as there are women who are actually killed in snuff films. So thats the first main objection.

The other main objection to porn is how it represents the female body. What it tells us it should like and what it tells us it should act like. It is also seen as one of the most stark examples of how women are judged, in that it is on their sexuality and physical attributes. If you recall the fairytales we grew up with, the most beautiful in the land marries the most powerful in the land, and in all shades of grey what counts for women, is how they look and how they please the male gaze. So if you consider, that life imitates art, this has serious consequences for women.

Then there are feminists who support the manufacturing of porn for women. They argue that it is being made with the female eye. Survellience is often pointed to as a locus of power and control. Who is watching you. [Read Foucaults essay on the panopticon] so they feel that porn is giving women back their gaze and control of the camera and the editing room.

There is also a concept in feminism known as INTERNALISED OPPRESSION. That is when you absorb, practise and endorse the very practises which keep you down, much like the way the Irish practised catholicism. Or the way oppressed populations believe the crap that oppressors tell them ie "your black therefore your inferior and stupid." If you hear it often enough you will believe it. This is also known as internalised oppression. Anti-porn feminists would argue that the women who are performing are victims of internalized oppression.

A couple making a film- ok lets remember that it really doesnt matter how they feel about each other. What we are judging is what is on the film, what is being represented and how we receive it. Also we said nothing about selling. This is a private matter anyhow. Perhaps not such a good example. As porn is contrived, artiface. There are shoots and retakes. There are auditions and casting calls. There is someone to refill the film and hold the boom mic. There is distrubution and marketing, editing, makeup and hair, someone to yell cut and gate, and all the other stuff that goes into film making.

Vangelis, please do not bring the Bible into this. You will raise all sorts of distracting things with translation and interpretation issues.

I know that your English is very good, but I just want to point out to you, that there are still subtelties and leaps within the language. I speak American english and I am constantly running into problems with people who speak hiberno or british english. This is no ones fault. Its just cultural blackholes where it feels like we cant communicate. There are different contexts which can give the same words very different meanings or resonances. I do not presume at all that because we speak the same language that we understand each other. Sometimes I think it may even make things harder. [No pun intended.]:D