The actors in it actually seem to like each other instead of there being a lot of hitting, choking, slapping etc. going on.

they just aren't using their hands to do so...

There were two dudes having sex on a table in a restaurant, while all the other patrons went about their business as if nothing odd were going on.

I'm serious. I never have.

for example, is illegal, rightly so, mostly because what people do to children to make it.

In days gone by, women often were drugged and kept as virtual prisoners to make movie after movie. Regulation of the sex/porn trade helps prevent this so that the actors themselves are protected.

And yet, just the other day, a 30 year-old gay porn star, Eric Rhodes, died of a heart attack while in the midst of his current steroid cycle which he was on presumably to be bigger and buffer to make "better" porn.

I think porn should be legal, but I can see the argument that it's an industry which, more so in the past but maybe to this day, does not treat its workers very well.

You make porn anytime you point a camera at two people engaged in sex or possibly even just a very sexual situation. Banning porn outright would only make the conditions worse in my opinion. Look at what has happened in the illegal drug trade, when you force legitimate activities underground using the justification that unsavory elements tend to perform those activities you ratchet up the unsavoryness multiple times.

That is my concern, kidnapping and steroid use are already illegal. If a crime is being committed auxiliary to the creation of porn that is a separate issue to me then whether porn in and of itself is right or wrong.

who doesn't care about porn either way... Whatever floats one's boat(s).

Not all women or men who participate are victims of abuse or pimps. I knew a few dorm mates in college who worked in the sex industry. They were not abused, they didn't have pimps. They are now professionals, married, some with kids even, but without student debt. Again, none of my beeswax what consenting adults do - whether it is porn or webcams or working as escorts.

And for me, the key word in what you wrote is "consenting".

do to ME because they think all the hitting, cursing, name-calling, assaulting and general degradation they see in many porn films now is a NORMAL way to treat women.

That treatment is even one of the 14 signs of fascism:


9. Rampant Sexism

Rampant sexism - Governments of fascist states tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Traditional gender roles are made even more rigid and exaggerated. Condemnation of abortion and a virulent homophobia are commonly built into broad policy.

What better way to make sure women stay at home in traditional gender roles but by calling them bitches and sluts if they don't want to have cum sprayed in their face OR calling them prudes when they actually like sex, but not objectifying sex?



I don't see why this is hard to understand. Yes... the actors may be consenting, but the societal influence their treatment of women in many of their films can transfer to women who did NOT consent to said treatment.

Not really fussing at you, Staph. Just making the point about "consent."

Especially when so much is voluntarily posted on-line by amateurs. I have a difficult time seeing how anyone is hurt in this situation unless underage young men are involved. I am speaking entirely regarding gay porn here-no comment whatsoever on straight porn which I really find irritating.

Full disclosure: Straight, have seen enough porn to know what it is, and that it doesn't appeal to me.

I scan this issue when it pops up from time to time, and it seems like people are continually talking past each other.

Most of the objection (to the objections to porn) seems to come from a free speech / you can't ban that point of view. That's deliberately obtuse. It's not a puritanical argument suggesting sex is inherently bad or demeaning. It's critical argument suggesting that bad, demeaning porn is bad and demeaning.

It's a cultural issue, and it's largely to do with male / female power dynamics. Respectfully, I think it's a little glib for a gay man to say he doesn't see what they're talking about vis a vis gay porn. You wouldn't. That's not the issue. Men are equals in our society in a way that men and women are not. Whether they prefer men or women, men outside of prison don't worry about being perceived as a piece of sexual toilet paper to be used and discarded. But what I think they're talking about is that a huge proportion of (hetero) porn not only comes from exactly that place, but celebrates the fact. No humanity. No emotion. Porn itself makes an argument that sex is an empty, meaningless itch to be scratched, violently and mindlessly.

I say what "they" are talking about, because I don't propose to have the answer to all of this either -- it's complicated. Certainly puritanical bans on sexual content of any kind won't fly in any kind of open society.

But that doesn't mean there's not a huge point to be made about the crass, juvenile, soulless depictions of sex, and women in particular, that make up the bulk of "porn." Is that somehow not true? Or, are people not supposed to point it out, because even shitty, animalistic depictions of sex must get a pass from everyone, lest we become too repressive?

Bullshit. There's a lot of bad, ugly porn in the world, a lot of it insulting and demeaning to women in particular, and people who care about free speech and open discussions of sexuality ought to be helping point that out, not standing on some detached notion that we have to tread lightly so as not to cramp anyone's style.

We can make qualitative distinctions about things -- that's what progressives are supposed to be good at. It's not "porn: yes or no?" It's about bad art informed by bad ideas. Art tells stories, and if those stories rely on debasing stereotypes or a celebration of human cruelty or depredation, we ought to talk about that.

nations with the least restrictive hard core porn laws are the nations with the greatest gender equality. - and Sweden, for instance, was also the first nation to extend rights to homosexuals.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=829806

the one factor that combines with gender inequality across the world is conservative religious belief. Free speech advocates, even recognizing that this is the case, do not advocate censorship of conservative religious belief, either, even tho it is gross and demeaning regarding women.

they do advocate education that includes discussion of the harm that religion causes to women - because this harm is quantifiable. the harm from porn, on the other hand, doesn't translate in societies when you compare those nations with gender equality, porn and religion.

Religion is the common oppressor.

If there were an argument being made that we must ban porn to improve gender relations, that would be a response. The fact that progressive societies still have porn doesn't really bear on whether a lot of porn comes from a regressive, degrading place in terms of men and women.

Bad porn isn't the source of degrading attitudes toward women. But it plays into and magnifies it. And the reverse is not true, if that's what you're saying. Accepting any and all depictions of sex as okay doesn't improve anything. That would be like saying laxer gun laws lower crime rates, because some town or state with lax gun laws has low crime rates. There's no cause and effect relationship.

The story bad porn is telling is a lie. And swimming around in an ocean of lies about what women and sexual relations are about isn't a net positive for culture.

if you read my link you would see the cross cultural study that indicates this - and looks at other studies, as well.

on the other hand, there is no correlation between bad porn and sex crimes - and, in fact,

http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/05/is-pornography-a-catalyst-of-s

we also live in a time when it is more socially acceptable to report rape.

Rather than focus on porn, which shows no causal relationship to sex crimes, it seems an emphasis on issues that actual impact the quality of women's lives might be more productive.

one of those issues is religious conservatism. another is contraceptive access. another is pay equity. another is a social safety net and affordable and good child care. another is education. ALL of these issues directly relate to women's status in society and improve gender equality.

porn doesn't.

There's no reason not to discuss and criticize degrading, dehumanizing, misogynistic content in porn. Nor do I think social criticism requires any proof of direct cause and effect. The bad porn isn't somehow not bad because it doesn't walk up to people and kill them.

What I don't get is why some people dig in their heels and try to defend the abominable crap we all know is abominable crap. They stand on semantic pinpoints and argue about freedom of expression and whether criticizing porn for being misogynist and morally bankrupt is somehow the same as puritanical censorship, when they know that's not the issue.

In fact, the sensibilities people rightly criticize in porn are a kind of manifestation of puritanical views of sex. Puritans think sex is dirty and debasing and empty. A lot of porn just brings that concept to life. It seems to thrill in the emptiness and soullessness, which is not even a fair depiction of reality.

If you want to limit all discussion of gender and social issues to legislation, that's fine, but that's not an argument to which you can hold everyone else.

Edit: Two responses seemed one too many, so I'll repeat here that I agree completely that religious repression of sexuality is the basic recipe for sexual perversity. And I'll add that a lot of porn feeds that exact deviation.

Which is the problem.

The problem is sex is overhyped in most cultures. We have been so brainwashed to worship at the alter of sex we beleive we need it more than we actually do and we believe it is an appropriate criteria with which to judge the value of a mate and people. It's not.

But I can't because I write lesbian .. er... yep, erotica. Not porn. No indeed.

is just bad cinema.

Fiction doesn't have to be accurate, but poetic licence shouldn't embrace stupidity.