Forums of the Libertarian Left

RonaldMcDonald wrote:

So if he lives in parent's house, it's up for them to decide.

Ok, I expressed myself badly. Your lack of argument is ignored

MaikU wrote:However I agree that pornography is degrading. Especially modern pornography.

Bonus question: which is more degrading, women participating in pornography, or using force to forbid women from participating in pornography?

I don't know about you but my porn usually involves blood and body parts flying all over.

RoyceChristian wrote:Martin Amiss, A rough trade -- feature article from the Guardian about the porn industry.

Martin Amis wrote:But then humourlessness, universal and institutionalised humourlessness, is the lifeblood of porno.

I thought that line was spot-on.

I don't personally have a problem with porn.It becomes degrading when the man or woman is being forced to do something they wouldn't generally do,or because of a dour economic situation.

The link I'm going to provide is from a blog I read from time to time,a good syndicalist blog.Its a five or six part post exploring anarcha-feminism,this is from the third post and I pretty much agree with all of it.

http://propertyistheft.wordpress.com/20 ... -industry/

Where are all the anarcha-feminists? we need some on here.

http://youtu.be/qCJfsYzzHh0

http://nopretence.wordpress.com/

Francois Tremblay wrote:

MaikU wrote:However I agree that pornography is degrading. Especially modern pornography.

Bonus question: which is more degrading, women participating in pornography, or using force to forbid women from participating in pornography?

Obviously forbidding, but I don't think being "told that it's not a great idea" is the same thing as forbidding....

Now these girls, on the other hand, you are most definitely not supposed to feel attracted to, especially the one on the left.

joe wrote:Where are all the anarcha-feminists? we need some on here.

http://youtu.be/qCJfsYzzHh0

http://nopretence.wordpress.com/

Been meaning to cite some sex affirmative stuff. Mina Loy's feminist manifesto is short, fun, and aesthetically pleasing if you can find it on the webz.

Birthday Pony wrote:I only wonder where the line is drawn. Some sex-positive thinkers say there's erotica which is just sexual art or representation and then there's pornography which is inherently degrading. Interestingly, the porno- prefix comes from a Greek word which means prostitute, not sex. So perhaps it is the wage slavery involved that is at the root of its degrading connotations, but that could just be one big old confirmation bias.

I find sex-positive theory to be unconvincing (along with the positive-negative dichotomy. I mean really?) because it usually lacks any real deep institutional thought. They just can't fathom how even a woman making her own video, just masturbating, can still perpetuate patriarchy because the world still views her as part of the sex class. When I see people taking the sex-positive side, they almost never consider it to be something that men won't have access to. Men (speaking institutionally from a class theory perspective here) aren't going to give up power because they see a bunch of "good" porn on the market. It's not fucking revolutionary. Sorry.

neverfox wrote:

Birthday Pony wrote:I only wonder where the line is drawn. Some sex-positive thinkers say there's erotica which is just sexual art or representation and then there's pornography which is inherently degrading. Interestingly, the porno- prefix comes from a Greek word which means prostitute, not sex. So perhaps it is the wage slavery involved that is at the root of its degrading connotations, but that could just be one big old confirmation bias.

I find sex-positive theory to be unconvincing (along with the positive-negative dichotomy. I mean really?) because it usually lacks any real deep institutional thought. They just can't fathom how even a woman making her own video, just masturbating, can still perpetuate patriarchy because the world still views her as part of the sex class. When I see people taking the sex-positive side, they almost never consider it to be something that men won't have access to. Men (speaking institutionally from a class theory perspective here) aren't going to give up power because they see a bunch of "good" porn on the market. It's not fucking revolutionary. Sorry.

^This

neverfox wrote:I find sex-positive theory to be unconvincing (along with the positive-negative dichotomy. I mean really?) because it usually lacks any real deep institutional thought. They just can't fathom how even a woman making her own video, just masturbating, can still perpetuate patriarchy because the world still views her as part of the sex class. When I see people taking the sex-positive side, they almost never consider it to be something that men won't have access to. Men (speaking institutionally from a class theory perspective here) aren't going to give up power because they see a bunch of "good" porn on the market. It's not fucking revolutionary. Sorry.

I think that's a very valid point, and I think you're mostly right in that making porn isn't revolutionary because, quite honestly, even "good" porn isn't going to alter the way men look at the women on film. Seeing anti-authoritarian porn would still be a spectator/spectacle relationship.

Still, I wonder how much of these arguments (and I'm not referring to yours) are rooted in some kind of puritanical "woman is holy" line of thought. I don't know enough about the history of sex to make an argument either way, and what I do know certainly helps support the prominent "domination through sex" idea.

Basically, I like sex. Most people I know like sex. It's probably about as revolutionary as eating your favorite food, no matter what way you spin it.

well surely part of the sex positive thing is "who are you to tell me what is revolutionary ' what is perpetuating patriarchy?" and if ok so every porn is perpetuating patriarchy how is that not just an academic form of slut-shaming? & is a gal w/make up and a tight dress on guilty too? what about me if I look at her ass?

ctmummey wrote:[if] every porn is perpetuating patriarchy how is that not just an academic form of slut-shaming?

Good point.

ctmummey wrote:well surely part of the sex positive thing is "who are you to tell me what is revolutionary ' what is perpetuating patriarchy?" and if ok so every porn is perpetuating patriarchy how is that not just an academic form of slut-shaming? & is a gal w/make up and a tight dress on guilty too? what about me if I look at her ass?

Another valid point.

I'm not saying that every porn perpetuates patriarchy, but that it (most likely) doesn't challenge it. Even the Anarchist porn out there is pretty straight forward as porn.

What about porn made for women? Do such porn perpetuate patriarchy?

ctmummey wrote:and if ok so every porn is perpetuating patriarchy how is that not just an academic form of slut-shaming?

For pretty much the same reasons that Dworkin's analysis is not equivalent to calling all heterosexual sex rape, nor is it about shaming women who like penis-in-vagina (PIV) intercourse. Consider this discussion of that matter:

Claire K. wrote:Part of the problem is that sex-positive feminists always seem to be reacting to radical feminists, and radical feminists are usually reacting to normative forms of heterosexuality. As a result, sex-positive writings usually say more about how normative forms of heterosexuality can be empowering than about how damaging it is when that sexuality is forced on people or how empowering non-normative sexualities can be. That is, they support those sorts of conversation in theory, but in practice there’s no need to talk about it because they’re in agreement with radical feminists on those points so the rad-fems already have it covered. What this comes to in practice is that anytime someone tries to bring up old feminist saws like how the majority of women don’t orgasm from PIV intercourse alone, a bunch of sex-positive feminists jump in to relate, in graphic detail, how much they looooove PIV intercourse. There’s nothing wrong with loving PIV intercourse, but given that the dominant culture already accepts (and enforces) that as the only acceptable form of sexuality, I don’t think it really needs defending, and especially not defending with such enthusiasm that it drowns out conversations about alternatives.

(emphasis mine)

Likewise, there’s nothing wrong with loving being the subject of sexually-explicit photos or videos, sharing them or even making a living from it, "but given that the dominant culture already accepts (and enforces) that as the only acceptable form of" publically expressing female sexuality (to an audience that damn well better include men), "I don’t think it really needs defending, and especially not defending with such enthusiasm that it drowns out conversations about alternatives."

well i have no reason to disagree w/any of that

the quote you posted is interested. i think you can see that type of thing in a lot of discussions amongst warring groups of radicals. there should probably be a name for it.

ctmummey wrote:the quote you posted is interested. i think you can see that type of thing in a lot of discussions amongst warring groups of radicals. there should probably be a name for it.

I agree. One more specific than "circular firing squad".

@neverfox,

Even then you need to accept the limits of that approach as it's only relevant to a particular context. Hetero sexual freedom is only the norm for developed nations, and even then it's possible to find regions where it is not the norm for wimin to have sex outside of a marriage/committed monogomous relationship. Wimin outside of the developed world don't necessarily have the same kind of sexual freedom and in some may still be punished with ostracisism, isolation, rape, gang-rape, assault or murder for being a "harlot" or "loose woman". There are going to be different issues to be addressed.

we spell women differently now too? oh ok.

btw can we all agree: matriarchial societies > patriarchal societies

I don't care what > what, I'd rather not have any of it.

RC,

I'm not sure what that's a response to. I never intended to imply that het freedom was the norm; I was saying that "heterosexual intercourse the paradigm activity for all sexuality." That doesn't seem incompatible with what you're saying at all. In fact, it supports it. If you haven't read the opening of Intercourse, it's about Sophia Tolstoy.

Read 'The Trauma Myth' by Susan Clancy - most children enjoy doing sex, society makes them feel bad about it afterwards. If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition.

Not before 13-11 depending on the kid