Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
History of Feminism
In reply to the discussion: Pornography is more popular in red states. Why is that? [View all]ismnotwasm
(42,641 posts)89. I used my university access
Which I'm finding I shouldn't do on my iPad. There is a wealth of information on pornography. Too much to go into, but I can find peer reviewed stats. Too tired tonight, just got in. This does NOT answer your question, it's merely food for thought
Toward a Symptomatology of Cyberporn
Michael Uebel
The new fantasmic dimensions of cyberpornography are my focus in this essay. It is my contention that, as the media of mass-circulating porn are changing, as bits and binary codes replace glossy centerfolds, fantasy is being activated in novel ways. Cyberspace is installing a new regime of sexual representation and, with it, tactical modes of dreaming, thinking, and acting. The pornographic image, more than ever, occupies the interspace bridging private fantasy and mass public disposition.7 As the Web becomes increasingly constructed as the imaginary reference point of the public, we begin to recognize our own desires as they are re-presented to us in the media senssuround. "Even. . . the most perverse among us," Michael Warner observes in another context, "could point to his or her desires or identifications and see that they were public desires, even mass public desires, from the moment that they were our desires."8 Yet at the same time that we observe our desires (pre)scripted in and by the grand historical metatext of late technocapitalism, we are discovering that there are points within the metatext, like cyberporn, which hold the promise of strategic resistance.9
Cyberporn, more aggressively than other contemporary mass-public languages (advertising, network news, Hollywood film), translates subjective desires and fantasies into objective, often unstable, "published dreams."10 This translation into objectivity of the pornographic imaginary is a crucial aspect of its productive cultural function. If conceiving the desires cyberporn produces as separable from the scripts, the enunciated laws, such porn calls into existence, is impossible, then we do well to follow Foucault in replacing the strict "law and sovereignty" of sex with an open "technology of sex," a multiple, positive technology of desire.11 Such a positive technology of desire opens the possibility of directing our attention to the specific ways the postmodern apparatus of cyberporn produces, rather than just regulates or prohibits, desires. Although Clinton and Congress, law enforcement, the press (witness its singular obsession with "child porn"12 ), conservative public-interest organizations, and certain professionals in the health industry continue to frame their discussion and assessment of cyberporn in terms of control and interdiction,13 I want here to establish a counterdiscourse of sorts, one informed by Deleuze and Guattari's formulations of desire as a machinic and, we shall see, potentially masochistic production in order to ground a new approach to cyberbodies, especially those offered up for pornographic consumption.
Michael Uebel
The new fantasmic dimensions of cyberpornography are my focus in this essay. It is my contention that, as the media of mass-circulating porn are changing, as bits and binary codes replace glossy centerfolds, fantasy is being activated in novel ways. Cyberspace is installing a new regime of sexual representation and, with it, tactical modes of dreaming, thinking, and acting. The pornographic image, more than ever, occupies the interspace bridging private fantasy and mass public disposition.7 As the Web becomes increasingly constructed as the imaginary reference point of the public, we begin to recognize our own desires as they are re-presented to us in the media senssuround. "Even. . . the most perverse among us," Michael Warner observes in another context, "could point to his or her desires or identifications and see that they were public desires, even mass public desires, from the moment that they were our desires."8 Yet at the same time that we observe our desires (pre)scripted in and by the grand historical metatext of late technocapitalism, we are discovering that there are points within the metatext, like cyberporn, which hold the promise of strategic resistance.9
Cyberporn, more aggressively than other contemporary mass-public languages (advertising, network news, Hollywood film), translates subjective desires and fantasies into objective, often unstable, "published dreams."10 This translation into objectivity of the pornographic imaginary is a crucial aspect of its productive cultural function. If conceiving the desires cyberporn produces as separable from the scripts, the enunciated laws, such porn calls into existence, is impossible, then we do well to follow Foucault in replacing the strict "law and sovereignty" of sex with an open "technology of sex," a multiple, positive technology of desire.11 Such a positive technology of desire opens the possibility of directing our attention to the specific ways the postmodern apparatus of cyberporn produces, rather than just regulates or prohibits, desires. Although Clinton and Congress, law enforcement, the press (witness its singular obsession with "child porn"12 ), conservative public-interest organizations, and certain professionals in the health industry continue to frame their discussion and assessment of cyberporn in terms of control and interdiction,13 I want here to establish a counterdiscourse of sorts, one informed by Deleuze and Guattari's formulations of desire as a machinic and, we shall see, potentially masochistic production in order to ground a new approach to cyberbodies, especially those offered up for pornographic consumption.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v003/3.4uebel.html
Not sure this will link, but its certainly an interesting analysis
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
100 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

So you have nothing to support your underlying point for discussion...
ProgressiveProfessor
Nov 2012
#8
? I guess we have nothing to fear from internet snooping empowered by the Patriot Act & all of these
patrice
Nov 2012
#34
There is nothing out there that the bandwidth/ISP industry considers definitive
ProgressiveProfessor
Nov 2012
#19
who or what agency in the ISP industry makes statistical studies on porn?
BlancheSplanchnik
Nov 2012
#25
The ISP/Bandwidth industry actually does do studies on usage and trends
ProgressiveProfessor
Nov 2012
#28
Then it should be easy for you to come up with some data to disprove the OP
Angry Dragon
Nov 2012
#18
The problem is there is no hard data out there on this or other usage that is not self published
ProgressiveProfessor
Nov 2012
#22
i have always found this contradictive fact interesting and thought it obvious
seabeyond
Nov 2012
#10
filters does nothing to stop a willing particpant to view porn. it was the absurdity of our porn
seabeyond
Nov 2012
#16
dont turn it on. not a tough one. i would think you would appreciate a simple process for
seabeyond
Nov 2012
#54
THIS.... THIS is what all the moaning and groaning and whining is about. wow. nt
seabeyond
Nov 2012
#60
So you like the government forcing you to buy stuff that doesn't work just so you can turn it off?
jeff47
Nov 2012
#64
really? all the restrictions and demand puts on all the products we buy for so many fuckin reasons
seabeyond
Nov 2012
#66
If Windows forces us to buy it to hopefully turn a profit for a corporation, that's not so bad.
redqueen
Nov 2012
#69
If it actually worked, you might have an argument. The software doesn't work. (nt)
jeff47
Nov 2012
#70
I find it facinating that the tidbit about "the software doesn't work" is apparently a-OK
jeff47
Nov 2012
#76
this is the problem. the vast majority that defend porn, are not watching. they do not know what
seabeyond
Nov 2012
#33
I'd bet research would find that true way more often than not. Liberals could tend to be more free
patrice
Nov 2012
#39
you are absolutely correct. once i started realizing this was the case with so many, i started
seabeyond
Nov 2012
#42
Thanksgiving dinner with my 3 nieces, upper-middle, professional women & one business owner.
patrice
Nov 2012
#50
and of course, the poster that it was addressed to will never watch, think or argue
seabeyond
Nov 2012
#35
If we posit that one of the reasons red states are red is that, more often than not, the
patrice
Nov 2012
#31
and the american woman.she is so fearful for too many men, i am reading. more and more on the net,
seabeyond
Nov 2012
#38
wow. hitting everyone of my posts with really poor argument skills. you will not hear me argue
seabeyond
Nov 2012
#57
bah hahahah. gotta make sense instead of the knee jerk accusation of knee jerk
seabeyond
Nov 2012
#65
btw... re read your posts filled with insults. and i believe you and the other started
seabeyond
Nov 2012
#74
When evidence showing the rape and abuse in the production of pornography is presented,
redqueen
Nov 2012
#46
I find it interesting that up-thread you attack "porn supporters" for not really watching
jeff47
Nov 2012
#53
He refers to romance novels as female porn, but doesn't refer to it as all of what female porn is.
jeff47
Nov 2012
#63
it is as if you do not believe their is an inequity. as if you do not believe that women are placed
seabeyond
Nov 2012
#49