Openly Anti-porn - reprint of letter

Jam

I'd echo some previous statements that it sounds like the author was unnerved by either her partner saying something along the lines of "I want to **** you.', or by herself saying "**** me harder", and regretting the objectification immediately or later. Who hasn't said or done something in the heat of the moment that they haven't regretted later, at least once? 'Oh Christ, I can't believe I slept with her.' Then found the blame in pornography.

Oddly enough, this thread strikes something I've been wondering about for a long time: are love and objectification mutually exclusive? Can you love and objectify someone?

I've no doubts one makes love to another person. But is ****ing done to a person or an object? Is (non-sexual) ****ing done in order dehumanize?

This only confuses me in that I've found sometimes women want to be objectified, to be taken and ****ed. Naturally I don't objectify women on a normal basis, they aren't sex on legs, and I realize these moments of '**** me now, **** me harder' are only temporary, but it seems I'm being asked to switch my very nature on demand. To stop being a caring person (me) and objectify them for a period of time. It would be like being asked to sincerely be a racist for 20 minutes. It would only be distressing if I was any good at it.

Gah, maybe I should start my own PI thread.

gargleblaster

pajunior wrote: »

As a guy I simply have to ask, are there many women who feel this way? For me this was by far the most disturbing aspect of a somewhat disturbing letter.

No idea. I know it does apply to me as well. She's talking about economic value, and I could make more money doing that kind of stuff than anything else I'm currently able to do.

Ickle Magoo

Jam wrote: »

Oddly enough, this thread strikes something I've been wondering about for a long time: are love and objectification mutually exclusive? Can you love and objectify someone?

No I don't think they are mutually exclusive/yes I think you can both love and objectify someone, I know I can anyway - I would think certainly while having sex we objectify each other...

Jam wrote: »

I've no doubts one makes love to another person. But is ****ing done to a person or an object? Is (non-sexual) ****ing done in order dehumanize?

I'm not sure what (non-sexual) ****ing is but I don't think you have to love someone to **** them, nor dehumanise them to think about or want them in purely carnal terms.

Jam wrote: »

This only confuses me in that I've found sometimes women want to be objectified, to be taken and ****ed. Naturally I don't objectify women on a normal basis, they aren't sex on legs, and I realize these moments of '**** me now, **** me harder' are only temporary, but it seems I'm being asked to switch my very nature on demand. To stop being a caring person (me) and objectify them for a period of time. It would be like being asked to sincerely be a racist for 20 minutes. It would only be distressing if I was any good at it.

I view lust and that animalistic kind of sex a bit like anger in a relationship - you still love/like/care deep down but for a time a stronger emotion takes precedence. I also don't think it's possible to untangle one emotion completely from any others - I can feel lust, passion, anger, tenderness, etc, if not all at the one time then certainly successively in a nano-second.

Jam wrote: »

Gah, maybe I should start my own PI thread.

gargleblaster

Jam wrote: »

Oddly enough, this thread strikes something I've been wondering about for a long time: are love and objectification mutually exclusive? Can you love and objectify someone?

I don't believe so, no. They are mutually exclusive as far as I'm concerned. Objectification seems by definition to be the act of dehumanizing. I know that for me this would be impossible.

I've no doubts one makes love to another person. But is ****ing done to a person or an object? Is (non-sexual) ****ing done in order dehumanize?

I don't think so, but I'm not sure what non-sexual ****ing is. From my perspective, if you don't care anything about the person then yes it is possible to objectify them while ****ing them.

This only confuses me in that I've found sometimes women want to be objectified, to be taken and ****ed. Naturally I don't objectify women on a normal basis, they aren't sex on legs, and I realize these moments of '**** me now, **** me harder' are only temporary, but it seems I'm being asked to switch my very nature on demand. To stop being a caring person (me) and objectify them for a period of time. It would be like being asked to sincerely be a racist for 20 minutes. It would only be distressing if I was any good at it.

Gah, maybe I should start my own PI thread.

I think it all depends on your relationship to the woman, and what she wants and likes. We all have varying tastes and desires. It would seem that the key is how well you know the woman, really.

If you don't know her well and are objectifying her then it's objectification pure and simple. If you know her, and she asks you to do it, then it is not objectification - it's role playing. Not everyone enjoys role-playing or is willing to try it. That is again simply matter of individual taste.

Acacia

pajunior wrote: »

As a guy I simply have to ask, are there many women who feel this way? For me this was by far the most disturbing aspect of a somewhat disturbing letter.

Well, I can't speak for other women, but yeah, there's been times when it seems like faced with the decision to stock shelves for minimum wage or earn a couple hundred euro as a stripper for one night's work... if I had the body and the confidence, I could totally understand why some girls go down the sex industry route.

Even ruling out the whole prostitution/stripper element of things, how often do you hear people commenting on the whole Page 3/ Nuts thing? "Sure, it's just a bit of harmless fun, and they earn great money." That's pretty much the message that's given out to women, perhaps unconsciously. You could try to earn a living as a doctor or lawyer, but you can whip out your bewbs for a bit of quick cash , so why should you bother?

Btw, I'm not judging girls negtively for becoming glamour models, etc. I just think it's kinda sad that it's probably the most, well-paid lucrative kind of work available to women.

seenitall

gargleblaster wrote: »

If you don't know her well and are objectifying her then it's objectification pure and simple. If you know her, and she asks you to do it, then it is not objectification - it's role playing. Not everyone enjoys role-playing or is willing to try it. That is again simply matter of individual taste.

Hm, let's see if I got this right: if a woman wants to be objectified ("fcuked hard" etc.), then it's not objectification, but role-playing. But if the woman doesn't do "role-play", then wanting to fcuk her hard is purely and simply objectifying her, and can't possibly be felt about the woman one loves (since love and objectification are mutually exclusive).

I don't get why it's ok for a woman to feel like she'd like a bit of good old objectification, but it's not feasible for a man who loves her to want to objectify her (at opportune times, naturally ). They are two sides of the same coin.

Jam

Hurrah, two conflicting opinions on the love/objectification question.

seenitall wrote: »

I don't get why it's ok for a woman to feel like she'd like a bit of good old objectification, but it's not feasible for a man who loves her to want to objectify her (at opportune times, naturally ). They are two sides of the same coin.

I think it's the permanent objectification of women that is the contention, not the occasional bedroom objectification.

To clarify, non-sexual ****ing would be assault. 'I'm going to assault Tony. I'm going to **** him up.' In this context, it would seem to me, that the act is in order to dehumanize him. As it's morally easier to hurt a dehumanized object, than a person.

It's from that I draw that ****ing is an objectifying process. Or maybe that's what the pornography industry wants me to think.

seenitall

Jam wrote: »

Hurrah, two conflicting opinions on the love/objectification question.

I think it's the permanent objectification of women that is the contention, not the occasional bedroom objectification.

TBH, that whole "non-sexual fcuking" point of yours went completely over my head until you clarified it just now... I was responding to a point I found of interest in the gargleblaster's post, re. the sexual kind. Perhaps I got the wrong end of the, er, stick so.

Dudess

Feck it, I've no problem with men paying attention to my boobs and arse - once it doesn't cause discomfort, that's not objectification, that's appreciation. :pac:

Acacia wrote: »

The enormous pressure young women have on them to be hot, sexy and skinny but heavens no, never a 'slut'... They have to be sexually attractive and liberal, but expressing their own desires i.e. being 'slutty' is a no-go area.

Be sexy... but don't be sexual. And Beyoncé, Britney, the one out of Pussycat Dolls all having conservative christian leanings is one of the best popular symbols of madonna-whore approval I can think of.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I think the letter highlights the attitude that man people have that all porn is aggressive porn. I keep seeing it trotted out over and over again in articles all over the place.

It's like people in a new city, walking down the street getting distracted by big neon signs and tourist trap mechanisms.

People will google "porn" in order to research their articles and jump on the first 3 links. As someone who runs assorted websites i have to break some hearts and say that the first 3 links are not the most popular, they are the ones with the best written pages for SEO.

I made the point earlier that for some, while perhaps incorrect, the word "porn" is automatically a negative one - look at how phrases like "Torture porn", "Violence porn", "Misery porn" have entered the cultural lexicon... hence "porn" just being associated by some with the cold, crass - and very popular - stuff featuring women being depicted as disturbingly treated. I make the mistake myself - I use "erotica" to refer to the benign stuff, rather than "porn".

An aside: anyone who says those who dislike the above have "issues" are the ones with issues themselves... And not "all" men like it. The writer is misdirecting her ire, as Acacia says, but some folks are being a tad too dismissive of her also IMO. And as I said, why are the same points she's making then being thanked by those who dismiss her when made by others? E.g. when The Sweeper spoke of her concern re how porn will affect teens' journey of sexual discovery... was that not, in a roundabout way, pretty much a point the letter-writer was making?

I agree too with Elle that some of the reaction to the letter seems "mock horrified"... And I wouldn't be someone who thinks it's fair or reasonable of a woman to be angry at her partner for enjoying porn, nor would I deem porn to be causing degradation of women.

Ickle Magoo

Dudess wrote: »

And as I said, why are the same points she's making then being thanked by those who dismiss her when made by others?

Because that's now the second time you've made that point, I think I have to point out that while I don't speak for anyone else, I certainly don't only thank posts because I agree wholeheartedly with every point it makes - I also thank to appreciate a point well made, whether I agree with it or not. I'm not sure why thanks are now being used as a measure of anything significant out-with the actual points being articulated, tbh...

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

Feck it, I've no problem with men paying attention to my boobs and arse - once it doesn't cause discomfort, that's not objectification, that's appreciation. :pac:

Exactly.

Be sexy... but don't be sexual. And Beyoncé, Britney, the one out of Pussycat Dolls all having conservative christian leanings is one of the best popular symbols of madonna-whore approval I can think of.

Remember the furore over Madonna?

I made the point earlier that for some, while perhaps incorrect, the word "porn" is automatically a negative one - look at how phrases like "Torture porn", "Violence porn", "Misery porn" have entered the cultural lexicon... hence "porn" just being associated by some with the cold, crass - and very popular - stuff featuring women being depicted as disturbingly treated. I make the mistake myself - I use "erotica" to refer to the benign stuff, rather than "porn".

Porn is considered pretty normal now I think, many referencea to it on mainstream TV like Top Gear or Have I got News for You, in a joking way. Often it's seen as a normal thing that men do, or indeed women. As it should be.

An aside: anyone who says those who dislike the above have "issues" are the ones with issues themselves... And not "all" men like it. The writer is misdirecting her ire, as Acacia says, but some folks are being a tad too dismissive of her also IMO. And as I said, why are the same points she's making then being thanked by those who dismiss her when made by others? E.g. when The Sweeper spoke of her concern re how porn will affect teens' journey of sexual discovery... was that not, in a roundabout way, pretty much a point the letter-writer was making?

Not all men like porn and they aren't odd because they do.

There have been a few posts agreeing with the OP in ways, but because it was put in a more "liberal" way was fine.

There seems to be a view that we can't restrict things. As a liberal myself on social issues, yes, there are times we have to restrict things.

Child porn is seen as no, no, maybe certain parts of adult porn are too?

Dudess

K-9 wrote: »

Porn is considered pretty normal now I think, many referencea to it on mainstream TV like Top Gear or Have I got News for You, in a joking way. Often it's seen as a normal thing that men do, or indeed women. As it should be.

Yeah I meant the word is misinterpreted, I didn't mean that I think it's reasonable to be opposed to all porn.

Not all men like porn

Sure - just to clarify: when I said that, I was only referring to the horrible stuff, not porn in general.

Dudess

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Because that's now the second time you've made that point, I think I have to point out that while I don't speak for anyone else, I certainly don't only thank posts because I agree wholeheartedly with every point it makes - I also thank to appreciate a point well made, whether I agree with it or not. I'm not sure why thanks are now being used as a measure of anything significant out-with the actual points being articulated, tbh...

Fair enough, apologies. Plus, didn't mean to regurgitate my point - was just backing up what I had said earlier with an example.

I just think some of the reaction to the letter-writer is unfair - I know it's OTT in places, but maybe she just has difficulty articulating what she means. You can still question the awfulness of some porn without being sexually repressed/prudish. I think whatever people do consensually in private, no matter how extreme it is for me personally, is fair game. When it's on film for commercial consumption though: different story.

Eve_Dublin

pajunior wrote: »

As a guy I simply have to ask, are there many women who feel this way? For me this was by far the most disturbing aspect of a somewhat disturbing letter.

That wouldn't pass through my mind in a million years. Using my femaleness in other ways has passed through my mind in moments of financial desperation in the past...becoming a serogate mother, selling an ovary while living in the states, becoming a Guinea Pig for science where they needed specifically females....all kinds of things have gone through my head when I needed money badly but never prostitution or lapdancing etc.

pajunior

Acacia wrote: »

Well, I can't speak for other women, but yeah, there's been times when it seems like faced with the decision to stock shelves for minimum wage or earn a couple hundred euro as a stripper for one night's work... if I had the body and the confidence, I could totally understand why some girls go down the sex industry route.

Even ruling out the whole prostitution/stripper element of things, how often do you hear people commenting on the whole Page 3/ Nuts thing? "Sure, it's just a bit of harmless fun, and they earn great money." That's pretty much the message that's given out to women, perhaps unconsciously. You could try to earn a living as a doctor or lawyer, but you can whip out your bewbs for a bit of quick cash , so why should you bother?

Btw, I'm not judging girls negtively for becoming glamour models, etc. I just think it's kinda sad that it's probably the most, well-paid lucrative kind of work available to women.

But this girl isn't talking about stacking shelves, she says that she is educated and smart but still thinks her body is her most valuable asset.
I don't know if she is over-estimating her body or under-estimating her economic value as an employee. Just seems very strange to me.

Malari

gargleblaster wrote: »

And I find this quite unfair. Of course it's not because they can't distinguish between fantasy and reality. It might be more due to how they're raised; whether or not their parents stress the importance of apperance, weight, etc. Perhaps the type of peer group they have growing up. There could be any number of factors. However the doll and advertising and as some people have phrased it 'the sea of sexism that we all grow up swimming in' (a metaphor explaining how it is that it can be so overwhelmingly ubiquitous yet still seemingly impossible for so many to even recognize) all combine to contribute to epidemics of eating disorders and body dysmorphic disorders. I sincerely doubt it's due to a lack of ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

I've given what you said some thought. Sorry if I came across as unfair or abrupt, but I genuinely find it startling that children should grow up thinking they should look like Barbie. I would like to know more about the pressures some girls feel and this thread is very interesting.

I have a close friend whose family member is bulimic and I ask her questions sometimes that maybe are a bit direct or a bit taboo, but I just want to understand how people get to this incredibly unhealthy way of thinking.

Ickle Magoo

Jam wrote: »

Hurrah, two conflicting opinions on the love/objectification question.

:eek: Women destroy hive-mind theory!

I'm not sure what you expected - people will obviously have differing thoughts and opinions based on their own personal experiences - or even just personal interpretation of the way you chose to word your post.

Dudess wrote: »

Fair enough, apologies. Plus, didn't mean to regurgitate my point again - was just backing up what I had said earlier with an example.

I just think some of the reaction to the letter-writer is unfair - I know it's OTT in places, but maybe she just has difficulty articulating what she means. You can still question the awfulness of some porn without being sexually repressed/prudish. I think whatever people do consensually in private, no matter how extreme it is for me personally, is fair game. When it's on film for commercial consumption though: different story.

So you concede it's OTT and then start defending based on your assumption of her lack of writing skills - and you can't see why anyone else thinks it's just badly written? And that's before going anywhere near some of the fallacious points she makes which make it sound like only men use and enjoy porn, only the kind of sex/titillation she is into is acceptable and that the examples of porn she uses taken from one tiny part of what is out there.

But of course, pointing that out just makes me a female chauvinist pig or whatever snide insult the author has to throw about to claw their way into the moral high ground.

Raekwon

pajunior wrote: »

But this girl isn't talking about stacking shelves, she says that she is educated and smart but still thinks her body is her most valuable asset.
I don't know if she is over-estimating her body or under-estimating her economic value as an employee. Just seems very strange to me.

Well it's no secret that the porn industry is extremely lucrative and there are obviously very intelligent business women within the industry who become millionaires from doing porn, even when they retire, they become talent scouts, agents, producers and sometimes even main steam actresses, in some rare cases.

But this only seems to be the case in stronger economic countries like the US and France for example. In places like Eastern Europe & South America a much larger percentage of women turn to porn to obviously escape from hardship, with the lure of 'easy money' too hard to resist for most. Hence the booming sex industries in these countries and a massive supply and demand for female performers.

For example if you Google the terms "Czech/Russian/Brazilian porn stars" you are guaranteed to get an endless list of performers. Plus women from these parts of the world usually do the hardest scenes, even in Germany which is famous for hardcore/graphic porn, most of the actresses will be imports from poorer neighbouring countries.

TBH it's simple economics at a very basic level. These women usually don't have opportunities available to them like their counterparts in the UK & Ireland. The playing field is extremely level over here and both sexes have the same opportunities, for the most part, so women obviously don't need to turn to the sex industry to make a living.

BlastedGlute

I think women like have been mentioned on this thread are feeling all of their issues first hand. But what I think they need to do is separate the problems their men are having with themselves and in their relationships and not try to say that every man is paddling the same river on the whole "choking" issue( jesus like hahaha) Yeah I've watched a fair bit of porn, spent a while in the army to, so had plenty of alone time haha. But if their experiencing sexual violence and trying to blame internet porn, its not different to blaming school shootings on grand theft auto or some heavy metal band. The problem is in the individual. It's a sad enough letter because I think it says more about the womans current personal circumstances than it does for society as a whole

Ickle Magoo

BlastedGlute wrote: »

I think women like have been mentioned on this thread are feeling all of their issues first hand.

I have no idea what that means...

BlastedGlute

The author of the anti-porn book and the author of the letter. The women who feel objectified. I thought that was obvious....

Ickle Magoo

That bit was but that's only half the sentence I quoted - what does "feeling their issues first hand" mean?

BlastedGlute

Seriously? I mean I think they are speaking from experience and trying to broaden that experience as though it were a shared one by any women who has sexually encountered a man who has at some stage watched porn. I dont know how much more I can explain it, I thought it would be obvious given the nature of the thread....

Ickle Magoo

Yes seriously - everyone "feels their issues first hand", who is going to feel their own issues second or third hand? If you mean they are projecting onto others then that makes more sense.

Dudess

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So you concede it's OTT and then start defending based on your assumption of her lack of writing skills - and you can't see why anyone else thinks it's just badly written? And that's before going anywhere near some of the fallacious points she makes which make it sound like only men use and enjoy porn, only the kind of sex/titillation she is into is acceptable and that the examples of porn she uses taken from one tiny part of what is out there.

But of course, pointing that out just makes me a female chauvinist pig or whatever snide insult the author has to throw about to claw their way into the moral high ground.

I am considering that she is mistakenly using the blanket term porn only in reference to the misogynistic stuff - ok, it's an assumption by me, but to be fair, it is the only type of porn she mentions. On that basis I think it would be a bit disingenuous to assume she is also referring to the love-making stuff, or even the harder ****ing stuff where the woman isn't depicted as being degraded.

BlastedGlute

Not everyone feels their issues first hand. She's not a man so how does she know how a man reacts to porn? She has not had that experience first hand. Not every politician feels poverty first hand but they still dictate the living standards of the state every day and speak about it like they actually understand. People emulate understanding based on outside information just as much as they empathize so don't try and troll my english as a point to an argument if in fact your making an argument and not just trying to spell check me.

Ickle Magoo

Dudess wrote: »

I am considering that she is mistakenly using the blanket term porn only in reference to the misogynistic stuff - ok, it's an assumption by me, but to be fair, it is the only type of porn she mentions. I think it would be a bit disingenuous to assume she is also referring to the love-making stuff, or even the harder ****ing stuff where the woman isn't depicted as being degraded.

She'd have to be naive in the extreme to think "porn" only covers the kind of porn she goes on to describe. I think it much more likely she is, as she says, wholly anti-porn and just finds that particular angle safer ground from which to moralise and launch a negative tirade from. I imagine the same letter would read as rather a damp squib if the examples she used were couples posting their own home videos or the like.

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Not everyone feels their issues first hand. She's not a man so how does she know how a man reacts to porn? She has not had that experience first hand. Not every politician feels poverty first hand but they still dictate the living standards of the state every day and speak about it like they actually understand. People emulate understanding based on outside information just as much as they empathize so don't try and troll my english as a point to an argument if in fact your making an argument and not just trying to spell check me.

How can it be THEIR issue and they don't feel it first hand? It makes no sense. Look, I'm trying to understand the point you are making so I don't have to write it off as gobbledegook and ignore it - if that's what you'd rather I do, then fine - consider it done.

Dudess

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

She'd have to be naive in the extreme to think "porn" only covers the kind of porn she goes on to describe. I think it much more likely she is, as she says, wholly anti-porn and just finds that particular angle safer ground from which to moralise and launch a negative tirade from. I imagine the same letter would read as rather a damp squib if the examples she used were couples posting their own home videos or the like.

Perhaps - and with that in mind, I understand your position far more clearly. But the thinking process "Porn meaning hardcore porn" does happen.

Ambersky

I am really not arguing with the mods here in this post I just think what has happened with an earlier post of mine is really interesting in the context of what we are talking about here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72731819&postcount=75
I posted a link to Channell 4s Sex Education Vs Pornography programme saying it wasnt anti sex but against a lot of the mis informaiton created by Porn .... basically anyway

I included a link to an image I saw as displaying that very idea, where the presenter displays images of womens breasts and stands behind them.
From watching the programme I know she is asking an audience of young people which images they think are the best and is challenging them to think about what is normal.
Therefore I didnt even think about the images of womens breasts in any kind of Not Safe for Work or any kind of socially unacceptable way and posted the image itself up with my post.
http://media2.sexperience.mintdigital.com/files/media/0003/1185/s2_ep1_img_260x190.jpg?1278325793 NSFW

The image has been edited as NSFW.
I am not challenging this or asking for any criticism of the mods they are just doing what it says in the rules I suppose.

Im just saying isnt it amazing an image of our bodies, womens breasts, can not be seen as anything other than ......... what .
Is this because of the Porn Industry.
Has Porn done this to images of our own bodies that they can not be seen in any other way than as a reflection of porn or NSFW

coffee_cake

Ambersky wrote: »

Im just saying isnt it amazing an image of our bodies, womens breasts, can not be seen as anything other than ......... what .
Is this because of the Porn Industry.
Has Porn done this to images of our own bodies that they can not be seen in any other way than as a reflection of porn or NSFW

Ambersky, just- what? A lot of us surf the net at work, and no, naked bodies of any sort on the computer screen are not welcome. Same reason I don't click into the "male drool whatever" thread at work.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with porn. :mad: