Good post on Porn and "Freedom of Speech"

Laurelin in the Rain
March 6, 2006
Here’s my freedom of speech, now I’ve heard yours

We’ve all heard this before. We criticize pornography, explaining what it is, what it does, what it depicts, what it means, how it hurts. And before we know it, we have to deal with Larry Flynt Clone #120258202 wailing ‘But it’s my freeeeeeedom of speeeeeech! Freedom to offend!’ etc.

Translation: ‘Since we have freedom of speech, and I’ve got money and power behind me, shut the fuck up, I don’t like what you’re saying’.

Say for a minute we take the laughable idea that pornography somehow constitutes ’speech’ seriously. Free speech applies equally to me and to Larry Flynt. If LF can ’speak’ through pornography, so can I speak when I tell him exactly what his speech is and does. And ’stop trying to silence meeeee’ does not answer my objections on any level. Nor does it invalidate what I have to say. If you speak freely, be prepared to be called on it by others who are permitted to speak just as much as you. Don’t say things you can’t defend intellectually. The answer to bad speech is better speech, as we know.

So when the pornographer speaks, we can talk back. But is pornography itself ’speech’?

Pornography is real. That woman in the picture, having all sorts of indignities inflicted on her? That’s real. That’s happening. She’s not a senseless mannequin, she’s a human being. She is not speaking, she is not expressing her sexuality (as the pro-porn cheerleaders claim), she is following a script written for her by a man. She is appearing in the role of what-the-pornographic-mind-wants-her-to-be. Her sounds of pleasure are acting, put on, in order to keep up the charade that women enjoy degradation, pain and humiliation at the hands of men.... <more>

http://laurelin.wordpress.com/2006/03/06/heres-my-freedom-of-speech-now-ive-heard-yours/


More feminist links at Carnival of Feminists XI

http://angryforareason.blogspot.com/

Very well said:

control over reality and space"

Radical feminists are sometimes accused of implicating an all-powerful patriarchy. I have trouble understanding this criticism since radical feminists are the ones at the forefront in the fight against patriarchy. Why would anyone bother if they thought patriarchy is all-powerful? I see this criticism as a red herring, or a form of denial. The people who claim to be free of societal influences are usually the ones who are the most consumed into the jaws of patriarchal society. Unfortunately, irony is most often lost in the people it should help. I personally see patriarchy as not all-powerful but all-pervasive. It is the pervasiveness of patriarchy that gives it power—a power that is often overwhelming but that can nevertheless be challenged. In many societies, patriarchy is quite literally enforced through violence. However, in the society I am accustomed to at least, the primary processes by which patriarchy is perpetuated is a much more subtle psychological assault.

Patriarchy is perpetuated by controlling our actions and our emotional reactions. Since our perception of reality is mediated by our actions and emotions, patriarchy thereby controls our perception of reality. Despite the worshipping of so-called pure reason by great white male philosophers (who are oftentimes the most “irrational” people), our reasoning faculties are by nature inseparable from our emotional faculties. Our interpretations of the world are guided by our reactions to it, and by our observations of other people’s reactions. Contrary to common wisdom, our beliefs do not form a neat causal relationship with our actions and emotions. That is to say, beliefs do not always cause actions and emotions. Beliefs, actions, and emotions are intertwined in intercausal relationships. More often than not, our beliefs are formed to explain or rationalize our actions and reactions. For example, if we (i.e., privileged people) regularly walk past spangers without giving any money and avoiding eye contact, we may be compelled to believe that poor people are responsible for their own poverty, do not deserve our charity, and would not be able to use the money to help themselves anyway, lest we conclude that we are uncompassionate people. If we give to charity for the satisfy our sense of righteousness, we will unlikely question the inequality inherent in the act of charity and, thus, perpetuate the system of inequality. And if our experiences with homeless people have been limited to negative interactions, we form negative emotions towards homeless people and base our beliefs of homelessness on those emotions. We can rarely, if ever, access reason without first going through our emotions, which are in effect the gateways to, or retailers of, our thoughts.

The actions and emotions men can have towards women are controlled from an early age. Boys are teased or bullied for any actions and expressions of emotions that are conducive to the formation of empathy towards women. Many boys (and men) would not be seen holding a book that is written by a woman, that has a female on the cover (unless she is scantily clad and posturing seductively), or that is feminine in any way. Boys often cannot talk about girls without including disavowal, objectification, or insult. Oftentimes, only disdainful or condescending reactions to girls are deemed socially appropriate. Boys are discouraged from discussions and behaviours that allow them to understand or relate to girls. Behaviours negatively perceived, when perpetrated by girls, are explained as being the result of nature of their sex. The degradation of girls is reinforced by both peers and adults. Boys observe the reactions to their behaviour, which may be humour, admiration, encouragement, or nonchalance, and form their beliefs accordingly. At the same time that men are discouraged from empathizing with women as holistic human beings, they are encouraged to objectify women (I don’t think I need to list all the ways by which this happens, do I?). The objectifying beliefs themselves, however, are less harmful than the long-term loss of empathetic processes.

Women are conditioned to restrain their emotional reactions to attitudes and behaviours that are harmful to them. The emotions of women that are threatening to others such as anger are suppressed, while other emotions such as guilt are encouraged. Anger, when expressed by a woman, is “irrational”. We are conditioned to believe that objectification and sexist attitudes in general are supposed to be humorous, or certainly harmless and not deserving scorn. <more>

http://buriedvoices.com/2006/03/09/control-over-reality-and-space/

Confessions of a porn user

"I’ve used porn. Yes, I’m a woman and I’ve actually used porn. Hetereosexual, lesbian, bondage, hentai, gang bangs, rapes, bukkake, amateur, professional, I used it all. I got off on watching women like myself being subjugated for male pleasure.

It all started when I was 12 and found porn on my father’s computer, of girls who couldn’t have been much older than me. I felt compelled to use them the way he did. When I reached my teens, I began searching for it on the internet and used whatever I could get my hands on. One of my boyfriends encouraged me to watch porn with him, introducing me to some pretty horrific shit that I still can’t name, and I cheerfully agreed. By the time I reached adulthood, porn and arousal had become inseparable. I couldn’t get off without it, whether alone or with a partner, though I didn’t need to actually see it to use it. I could recall it in my mind and have it be almost as good.

Yet any enjoyment I felt was hollow and empty, almost unreal. If I identified with the women, I was objectifying myself and felt deeply disturbed as I watched ‘my’ body raped and abused. If I identified with the men, I was surprised by the hatred and disgust I began to feel for the women, which eventually extended to all women, including myself. I realised I had to shut my mind off to push back these feelings and continue enjoying it.... <more>

http://geekyfeminist.wordpress.com/2006/03/13/confessions-of-a-porn-user/