Do you think porn is mostly misogynistic in its present form, if you answer yes, what should be done about it.

By and large, porn does not represent the oppression or commodification of women by men. The majority of women getting into porn know exactly what they are doing, and a good number of porn directors and producers are women.

Hahahaha!!!

Let's take a detour...

Candida Royal is probably one of the most prominent figures in Feminist porn and she certainly did good stuff. From what I understand, since the movies don't really *look* different and often hire the same actors, the difference lies in the treatment of the actors and the focus on female orgasms. In my mind, it actually makes porn a touch better since you have some sort of promise that the stuff there isn't fake.

Now, feminists are in disagreement where porn and sexuality is concerned. Some, like Candida and a few other thinkers (whose name I can't recall here, sadly), believe that women should seek to live their sexuality freely, as most men seem to do (which, in my opinion, misses the fact that a large proportion of males are just as *stuck* with their sexual education and the values of their communities). Some, like butler, Dworkin and Mackinnon, have a more radical view on the industry, seeing it as the best example of female abasement. Porn is the best symbol we have to express the thought that women are objects of men's desires and volitions, that they are not, therefore, exactly human like men. Of course, that does away with the idea that some women in the industry actually seek out the lifestyle and do so as freely as their male counterparts. In other words, that discourse makes women sound stupid and sheepish: they do porn because they were somehow *told* to and they don't have the freedom or the sufficient reason to act otherwise (again, of course, because males made sure they wouldn't have it).

In other words, the danger behind this discussion is that the "ism" in Feminism conceals much dissent under the guise of a labelled unified movement. I don't think feminism has but one voice. I don't think the story of women in and around the business is reducible to one social construct (or rational and free agents) perspective. Some feminists dig porn, others don't. Some women dig porn, some don't.

What I take away from the issue is that, on a minimal level, feminism has had the benefit of forcing conversations and reflections on the matter: we're all less naïve and stupid about it because they forced some of our pre-understandings of what porn was into the light and demanded that we face them critically. It's also opened the way to way more female directors and producers who, lo and behold, ended up being more radical and hardcore than many males (see Belladonna's produtions).

So, more thinking, and more diversified porn. Two very good results from the feminist outlook on porn.

Another question could be to ask what the relation between porn and art is, but I'm not going to get into that here. Just come to my class on the subject instead!

So, nothing should be "done about it".

"The majority of women getting into porn know exactly what they are doing, and a good number of porn directors and producers are women."

I don't think this relates to whether it is misogynistic and promotes misogyny and patriarchy among its consumers. If much of porn portrays women as objects or as servants, how do you respond to that problem.

Let me raise a specific example: POV fellatio and bukkake are male-centric forms of pornography that do not seem to exactly empower or respect women. What is your opinion.

Also, just because a woman knows what she is getting into doesn't really mean anything. Plenty of crack dealers "know what they're getting into," plenty of sharecroppers "knew what they were getting into," but this matters little if there isn't much choice for them, or if the system sort of forces them down that pathway, whether they know what they're getting into or not.

@ Jamie: that sort of generalization is dangerous and should be avoided. I would make the same comment (I have) but I'd leave it as a problematic one. That is: you have no idea how many women join freely, and you also have no idea how many believe they do porn of their free will, but in fact had lives that made it almost inevitable because of social constructs that they could not avoid.

You're right to point out that many women do porn freely. That doesn't do away with a history of behaviour that says differently. It also doesn't do away with the many that still don't. And as porn is a socially *sanctioned* business, we as a society do condone all of it acts and values, including the ones that are less ... respectable?
So to many, the industry still screams of misogynistic values and behaviours, and in my opinion they have good grounds to say so. Our job is not to say: "Yeah, but it's going away" but, rather, "We need to be aware of this, we need to keep this in mind, and make sure that porn is made in a way that makes it less likely to be that kind of symbol.". After all, porn is "pleasure oriented" and that should likely be the grounding value of the industry (I know... there's also cold hard cash... but that's just why feminism forcing us to think how we relate pleasure and cash is a good thing) !

Thucy:
Bukkakes are also performed by males in gay porn. I think that the identification process goes both ways, and often tends to associate the viewer more to the "victim" than to the standing, ejaculating males. That doesn't mean that there are no males associating to the power position of the cummers, but I think it's again something that is valued differently by various individuals.

"So, nothing should be "done about it"."

Is this because you do not believe it is misogynistic, or because you do not care that it is misogynistic.

If the answer is the former, how can you explain much of porn which is... pretty irrefutably misogynistic?

"Horny slut gets punished"
"Cum dumpster Joanna Starxxx"

etc.

How do you explain rape porn, submission porn, POV porn, total lack of female orgasms etc.

I want to quickly offer the aside that I am undecided but am offering the counter arguments I have heard to stoke this a bit.

Anyway, I think most would agree that porn in itself i.e. explicitly erotic photography and video footage is not misogynistic, what we are talking about is actual porn, not abstract porn. The existence of egalitarian or feminist porn does not render irrelevant the discussion of your run of the mill male centric heteronormative porn.

Gonna go walk the dog now (and no, that's not some sort of sick metaphor!). I'll read your posts later.
Good thread Thucy. Ya must have forgot to smoke your Troll weed this morning (or evening, given where you are).

"That doesn't mean that there are no males associating to the power position of the cummers, but I think it's again something that is valued differently by various individuals."

Maybe but my point was do you not think that this and other sorts of porn pretty much exist and were invented out of misogyny and in many cases the turn on *is* objectification, submission, humiliation, and misogyny?

I think you should be careful associating "misogyny" and "objectification". We all know the expression "you are the object of my desire", and we would't think that it is misogynistic for all that, right? Fantasy objectifies all participants in that it reduces them to a role we have them play in how we want things to unfold. Misogyny is different, in that it rests on a negative evaluation of females in the realm of humanity. That evaluation is objectifying in its roots and result, but all objectifications (including in porn and sexual fantasies, on which porn heavily relies) are not misogynistic.

That's why I brought up the case of all-male bukkakes, to show that all misogyny is objectifying, but all objectifications (this what living fantasies through porn entails) are not misogynistic.

Who watches porn now days? I have moved beyond that, to the wonderful world of Hentia

Well I think if you are a straight male who objectifies women and only women, then it feeds into your misogyny, and I think if an institution, like the porn industry, primarily objectifies women, then they are participating in misogyny/patriarchy, no?

I like women in my porn, is that what you're asking?

You can read whatever you want into porn. Do misogynists enjoy certain types? Sure. Does that mean everyone who likes that genre is misogynistic? No.

'Porn', like 'art' or 'music' is a giant catch-all.

Thucky, I suggest you define the loaded words you are using if you want people's opinion.

Or you could just shove your viewpoint down people's throat in a way that makes them look evil if they disagree.

Like so: the desire to censor is the desire to control thought. What those who attempt to suppress viewpoints they disagree with want is not to engage in debate, it is to suppress the voices of others so their viewpoint is the only word heard. This is not the sign of a strong argument.

I think that's the issue though: the meaning of the words we use. Which is why I've insisted mostly on distinguishing misogyny from objectification, making the former a case of the latter.
Objectification is nothing but the construction of the object of your experience through knowledge and values you have already adopted. What values and knowledge you project on the object defines it as whatever you want (a tool for your work, a *proper* means to your ends, etc.) One thing that recent philosophy has shown is that our objects are multi-dimensional: that is, one thing is at once many objects.
So what of porn?
It is an industry that has as its prime target: cash. It uses as a means to its end one of humanity's most profound instinct: sexual desire.
Now, sexual desire objectifies as well, as I've said before. It does so indiscriminately, so to speak.
Our societies, however, have valued sexual roles for a long time, and the sexual role of the female is generally submissive: an object in man's plans. So, porn, trying to show stuff that people can relate to, has often used that image as well.

So porn is at once undiscriminating and sexist, at once the expression of human sexual desire sold to make money and the expression of human values, which are not however the prime object of porn (what it sees itself as doing, which is ... money).

So, to come back to what I was saying, you can't say that porn unproblematically objectifies women: it may do so, but then again, any agent in a society might also be doing so in different kinds of projects.

Oh come on strat no need to get so antagonistic and defensive. I feel the need here to quote myself so that you may hear me the second time:

"I want to quickly offer the aside that I am undecided but am offering the counter arguments I have heard to stoke this a bit."

Ctrl-f that and youll see it shows up twice ;)

Anyway. If you really are one of these people obsessed with making definitions, I'll offer some:

Pornography - erotic pictures, video, or other depictions whose purpose is to provide sexual pleasure or stimulation above any other purpose, which would distinguish it from art whose purpose is to evoke other emotions.

Misogyny - the viewing of women as less than men, or the hatred or disgust or fear of women

Patriarchy - the set of all things which perpetuate the ideas and realities of male superiority in our world

Objectification - the viewing of a person as a means to an end, in the case of sexual objectification of women, the viewing of women as a means to an orgasm rather than equally worthy human beings.

Feminism - the movement that wishes to end misogyny and patriarchy and evaluate both sexes equally rather than preferencing men over women, which has happened historically and continues down to the present day.

Anything else? Lol.

Oh! And another way to capture what the intuition is here (cause I've written it poorly I fear):
"Porn" is not a catch all like "art": true, both terms describe practices informed by general aims and objects. But the overall aim of porn, as an industry (and that is the target of your recriminations Thucy, yes?), is cash. They only rarely mean to take a stance in the evaluation of sexual roles, and when they do, it tends to profit social agendas like that of the feminists (in so far as we can boil it down to one general point of view or philosophy). Art, on the other hand, means to accomplish something different than mere monetary value. In fact, when we see it as doing just that, we often call it "entertainment" rather than art.
So one must be careful with the words one uses and what phenomena they describe. Strat was right about that.

"and the sexual role of the female is generally submissive: an object in man's plans. So, porn, trying to show stuff that people can relate to, has often used that image as well. "

Yes, I agree that this is the case. But you have described the "is", am I now looking for your opinion on the "ought". Is this okay, should it be changed, if so how, etc.

"you can't say that porn unproblematically objectifies women: it may do so, but then again, any agent in a society might also be doing so in different kinds of projects. "

Agreed, but we're talking about porn lol. Yes things like choices of news anchors or the fashion industry play their roles in this whole issue of patriarchy or misogyny as well, but we're not talking about that here, I'm asking what you think of porn

"that is the target of your recriminations Thucy, yes?"

Gonna redirect you to my post, now for the third time, lol


"I want to quickly offer the aside that I am undecided but am offering the counter arguments I have heard to stoke this a bit."

Anyway yeah I don't think we're talking about the makers of porn as somehow conscious agents of sexism. I think what I'm really wanting to talk about is the effect of porn on its consumers, and viewing this effect whatever it may be, what the proper response from society should be, if anything.

Prostitution: Paying women/men to have sex with you.

Pornography: Paying women/men to have sex with someone else.

I've never quite understood why one is considered to be so much worse than the other. From my point of view, both are perfectly fine as long as they happen to other people (willing people, of course). Whether this view is feminist, or quite the reverse, I haven't got the foggiest idea :p.

Pornography - erotic pictures, video, or other depictions whose purpose is to provide sexual pleasure or stimulation above any other purpose, which would distinguish it from art whose purpose is to evoke other emotions.

-- to which one should add, I think: the name of an industry which capitalizes on these images.
-- I also wonder if it doesn't answer to something more primal: much *art* of ancient times (Greeks, yes, but also pre-historic) depicts sexual acts and sexual images. Much art of ancient times had as a favoured topic or image that of a fertile woman. One can't forget the importance of our sexual drive in the becoming of humanity.

Misogyny - the viewing of women as less than men, or the hatred or disgust or fear of women

-- It is mostly the latter. One should also insist on what makes that "viewing" possible, whether it is critical choice or merely prejudice (that is, a judgment one accepts in his life without ever questioning it because it was handed down to him through the very process of socialisation.) That distinction is important since it boils down to responsibility and that, I think, is the crux of the matter for feminists. Without that distinction, feminist porn is still bad (I would certainly argue that the distinction doesn't make a difference in the fact that *people* end up objectified on the screen; it does, however, make a difference in the how and the why).

Patriarchy - the set of all things which perpetuate the ideas and realities of male superiority in our world

- Too strong: it's a mere social structure. There are matriarchal societies as well. Are they equally bad for being equally one-sided? You have to differentiate the concept from the values one can ascribe to it. Patriarchy to the feminist is not what it is to the anthropologist or the sociologist.

Objectification - the viewing of a person as a means to an end, in the case of sexual objectification of women, the viewing of women as a means to an orgasm rather than equally worthy human beings.

-- I refer you to what I said earlier: objectification is a necessary process to the possibility of sense and meaning in our experience of the world. You can cash it out in many ways (Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, etc.), but it goes beyond how we treat women or men. It is at the very foundation of *otherness* in general.

Feminism - the movement that wishes to end misogyny and patriarchy and evaluate both sexes equally rather than preferencing men over women, which has happened historically and continues down to the present day.

-- Too strong: Feminism doesn't speak of one voice. It has many different strains and argues in many different ways. Some believe that the evaluation is necessary but must be done critically. Some argue that equality is impossible in fact, but possible in terms of consideration of interest, etc.

"Anyway yeah I don't think we're talking about the makers of porn as somehow conscious agents of sexism. I think what I'm really wanting to talk about is the effect of porn on its consumers, and viewing this effect whatever it may be, what the proper response from society should be, if anything."

You're asking a completely different question here than the one I thought you were addressing. It has psychological, sociological and philosophical ramifications and I don't think that there are any clear answers. I certainly wouldn't risk psychological theories on the matter, though if you want a good laugh, Penn and Teller have a Bullshit show dedicated to the issue that is pretty funny and instructive.

+1 (several times over) to Cachimbo.

My knee jerk reaction is that porn is not inherently sexist. I say that because (despite what you hear about in TV shows) women also watch porn. However, the overwhelming majority of porn is directed at heterosexual males and so it certainly has the appearance of being sexist.

The industry itself may be vile in the treatment of it's employees and, yes, the nature of porn may cause it to be especially prone to these things. However, I'd hazard a guess that this more a product of the capitalist patriarchy (or whatever pinko buzzwords you want to string together) than the act of some girl taking a load to the face.

"Patriarchy to the feminist is not what it is to the anthropologist or the sociologist. "

Right, I'm talking about the feminist definition of patriarchy here. I'm also talking about, as a feminist would talk about, broader global and western cultures, not obscure matriarchal societies at the ends of the earth, interesting though they are.

"Feminism doesn't speak of one voice. "

I know that, but they do all have in common a desire to end patriarchy and equate men and women to the extent they believe this is a physical possibility. Believe me that I know it, because I started this thread after having my thoughts provoked by a debate I saw between pro-bukkake sex positive feminists and anti-porn feminists.

"pro-bukkake sex positive feminists"

I'd love to see to the pins that the pro-bukkake movement wears.

lol!

Maybe I should have said, in the "Advice Thread", that I gave a few classes on this, both in my "intro to phil of art" class and in ethics or phil of law classes. As for some of the concepts in there, they pertain to my field of study as well.

I'll say this (before I go watch some porn): at the end of the day, it tells you a lot about the way our society deals with porn and whatever its effects may be when a community such as ours poses questions of the type Thucy posted. I believe that the object itself, pornographic material, is multidimensional and complex in its significations and effects. I therefore think that responsibility towards porn demands that we think critically through the various layers of that phenomenon. Asking questions like Thucy did, engaging in critical thinking like we all have, that's telling you that for all its misogynistic implications, porn isn't just that. We have to be aware that it can be (which is what I think we're all saying here) but we also have to be aware that it very much is otherwise as well. Not engaging in that sort of critical thinking is tantamount to objectifying those who produce or consume pornography: it's reducing them to a place in whatever theory we have, doing away with their particularities and singular endeavours. In my mind, it's just as bad as misogynistic objectification, just as irresponsible.

And that's exactly what none of the people writing in this thread so far have been.

"I'm talking about the feminist definition of patriarchy here."

-- I don't think that there is ONE definition for feminists, though I would agree that there are important similarities across the board.

"I'm also talking about, as a feminist would talk about, broader global and western cultures, not obscure matriarchal societies at the ends of the earth, interesting though they are."

-- Matriarchal communities were PLENTY here in America. They still are in some native cultures.

I know that, but they do all have in common a desire to end patriarchy and equate men and women to the extent they believe this is a physical possibility.

-- This is very loaded Thucy: physical possibility? Really? I doubt that. And don't forget that you have a brand of feminism that actually believes the woman to be superior to men.

"Believe me that I know it, because I started this thread after having my thoughts provoked by a debate I saw between pro-bukkake sex positive feminists and anti-porn feminists."

Yay for debates! That must have been a fascinating one.