Based on your unscientific sampling of five titles, I think one could argue that 20 percent of porn titles contain sexist degrading remarks. That assumes that terms like "sucking", "fucking", and "cock" are not inherently sexist or degrading.

"Perfect Alexis Amore wants you to fuck her" -- straightforward, even complimentary to the woman

"Chubby brunette gets her ass stretched" -- descriptive, maybe mildly degrading due to weight-based criticism of the female protagonist

"Fucking slut, I'm gonna kill you!" -- okay, that one is probably a red flag

"New Mom sucks cock to pay bills" -- is it noble and heroic that the protagonist is so dedicated to her family, or deceptively so because she appears to enjoy it? and the sad thing is, he's not really even a talent agent so there is no job to audition for.

"Mina rides a 12 inch cock" -- objectively descriptive

Well, Thuc, I would argue that your definition of misogyny appears to broad - the word means "hatred of females because they are female." I don't accept that is a subtext behind any of the porn you are citing.

"and the sad thing is, he's not really even a talent agent so there is no job to audition for."
I laughed, out loud. :P

okay then drop misogyny, replace with "sexism"

honestly you guys get hung up on terms a lot lol... you know what i mean dont you?

"honestly you guys get hung up on terms a lot lol... you know what i mean dont you?"

Grrrr. You want to hold an intellectual conversation but chastise us for getting specific and narrowing down our arguments.

Our words are what hold us to account so, yes, we should be hung up on terms, specifics, and particulars.

i mean, whatever fine. its just something that's always annoyed me.

didnt socrates kind of prove its impossible to define terms? better to just kind of go with the flow.

In fairness, Thucy, some of your word usage today had been mystifying.

On the other hand, I'm not sure you didn't abandon this one too soon. Isn't it fair to suppose that "hatred of females because they are female" is indeed a subtext of much of the pornography you have cited?

well i dont know about hatred, though that is sometimes there. more just the idea that they are not equal to men and exist first and foremost for men's purposes.

Anyway, arguing that porn is sexist is ad oculos. If we define sexism on the discrimination and disadvantage of one sex by another then heterosexual porn is obviously sexist. Women are most often, taking your five anecdotes into account for example, the objects of male fantasies. However, that is only because the target audience for this kind of porn is the straight male - therefore, of course, the straight male is going to be the one in the position of power.

If you look at porn with females as the target audience, it is men that are objectified and women who are put in the position of power.

"didnt socrates kind of prove its impossible to define terms? better to just kind of go with the flow."

That's just eggs that is. That's just pure eggs. And by eggs, I mean bullshit.

"well i dont know about hatred, though that is sometimes there. more just the idea that they are not equal to men and exist first and foremost for men's purposes."

That would be sexism, Thucy.

Smeg83 has point though, the idea of misogyny as a product of pornography is an interesting one. Perhaps the unattainability for most men of the beautiful women presented in porn and/or of the exotic fantasy acts performed leads to misogyny in men and leads them to acts such as rape and general aggression towards females.

"Women are most often, taking your five anecdotes into account for example, the objects of male fantasies. However, that is only because the target audience for this kind of porn is the straight male - therefore, of course, the straight male is going to be the one in the position of power.

If you look at porn with females as the target audience, it is men that are objectified and women who are put in the position of power."

Well yeah but aren't both of those kind of wrong? I guess that's what I'm asking.

"That would be sexism, Thucy." Okay fair enough we'll stick with sexism.

And yeah... there is I think definitely a dark side to porn in at least one respect, even if it is hard to pin down because I'm not much of a psychologist.

I think pornography (meaning the bulk of porn that is hetero male-centric) does not lead to misogyny. I think misogynistic men are going to be misogynist men however much porn they do or don't watch. I do, however, think that porn may lead to greater incidence of adultery and prostitution as men seek a (perhaps unrealistic) sexual ideal they do not find in most traditional monogamous relationships.

Porn does not make me hate women. Porn makes me think women are awesome.

"Well yeah but aren't both of those kind of wrong?"

I think, on a gun instinct principle, I would like to irrationally agree with that and say yes that they are absolutely wrong. However, if one is to go down that line of condemning fantasy then it becomes a question of how far we go in condemning as wrong various fantasy situations that we can create.

If a fantasy bukkake is wrong then a fantasy first person shoot-em-up game should be wrong as well. Both fantasies objectify, degrade and place human beings in to power structures, both the audience and the actors.

From that standpoint, we could then argue that certain types of films and even music could be classed as 'wrong' - Eminem's rap music has for a long time been widely accepted as both sexist and misogynistic.

In this sense, it might seem wise for us not to ban products like Eminem's music or pornography because it is having these things in our society that allows us to transgress them and have exactly the kind of debate we are having. After all, we do not live in a utopia.

"Porn does not make me hate women. Porn makes me think women are awesome."

Porn makes young boys who have never interacted with women on an intimate level think that that level of abuse is "normal". And by "awesome" you mean "awesome" pleasure object, not awesome human being.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqXi8WmQ_WM

"Eminem's music or pornography because it is having these things in our society that allows us to transgress them and have exactly the kind of debate we are having. After all, we do not live in a utopia."

We're not "transgressing" them (I think you mean transcend, but I don't know). Rape and sexual violence continues to soar. Infecting society with porn and misogynistic music isn't doing anything to reduce that, instead it's normalizing it.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Porn =/= Rape and or Sexual Violence. Some porn may contain them, but a lot fo porn is just two (or more) consenting adults boffing to their hearts' content.

Can't we compromise and have more porn with romance and female friendly motifs? "Ohh, baby. Let me draw you a hot bath and massage your feet while you tell me about your day. Don't worry, I've already done the laundry." Win/Win, right?

There is a lot of couples porn out there. Marilyn Chambers produces some for couples that is very respectful abd "romantic".

The .01% porn that is "female-friendly" doesn't make up for the 99.9% that isn't, but it's the usual argument used to defend multi-billion dollar industry that is the continued violent degradation of women for pleasure. Compare the number of sites offering rape porn (it labels itself rape porn) and compare the handful of producers that produce so-called "feminist" porn or whatever. Anybody can google rape porn/brutal porn/donkey porn and google feminist porn, see how many hits come up for each. Which types of porn do you think have more effects and influence on society?

There's no way you can rationalize away the fact that so many people participate and profit off of the brutalization of women. Since people around here love to generalize about whole races of people on the basis of two anecdotal stories, we can surely say that porn is horrible for women and for society in general, and the couple of outliers people point out don't make a damn of a difference other than sooth some people's consciences about the kind of brutality they participate in.

As you are so fond of saying... Back it up with *evidence*, Putin. You rattle off numbers but provide no evidence.

"Rape and sexual violence continues to soar."

"You rattle off numbers but provide no evidence."

Actually, he did provide numbers, but they seem to contradict his point. Forcible rape is (according to his link on crime statistics) at its lowest rate per capita in over 30 years (and in absolute numbers since 1985). At the same time, porn is more prevalent and easily accessible than anytime in the last 30 years. So much for the link between porn and violence against women.

I agree that the amount of "female-friendly" porn is so small as to be insignificant (.01% or whatever it may be). However, I think it is incorrect to identify the remaining 99.99% as violent degradation such as rape porn. I do not dispute that there is plenty of rape porn out there, and easily located through Google. Mushing violent rape porn in with the vast majority of mainstream hetero porn (featuring consensual, non-violent sex) is a red herring designed to draw a negative reaction to porn in general.

It reminds me of criticism of prostitution due to juvenile prostitutes and illegal human trafficking (except that those are illegal and rape porn is not). Pretty much every news report I see covering prostitution brings up underage prostitutes and sex slaves from Asia or Eastern Europe. Yeah, those are real problems and need to be dealt with, but the media ignores that the vast majority of prostitutes in the U.S. are neither underage nor illegally trafficked. The media plays on those extreme examples to sound more righteous, just as critics of pornography in general harp on the extreme example of rape porn.

I meant his numbers attributing a predominance in brutal violent rape porn versus simple consexual sex porn. What is in Vogue right now is gangnangs and interracial sex, but moat of it has willing participants.

Personally, I don't find a moat of gangnangs all that attractive.

I dunno though, do you not think certain industries that yes, technically, CAN be legitimate and morally operating, TEND toward exploitation? Like I dunno cigarette companies, casinos, or candy makers, or whatever.

The soda companies exploit. They know caffeine is addictive and yet most of their pops *still* contain it for no reason. It doesn't improve the flavor. It just gets their consumers wired and hooked on their sodas.