Abusive images belittle women, men and sex

[Triana]

Irish Examiner ( Dublin), June 7, 2007, p. 10.
by Robert Jensen

Pornography is an industrial media product primarily sold to men in a male-dominant culture for use as a masturbation facilitator.

With that simple sentence, we can dispatch with a lot of the knee-jerk defenses of pornography.

First, today’s producers of sexually explicit material aren’t interested in creating a space for artists exploring the mysteries of sexuality. Pornographers make good money by churning out a rigidly formatted product that minimizes creativity and maximizes profit.

Second, despite all the talk about “couples-friendly” pornography and the rise in women’s p*** consumption, the overwhelming majority of consumers of heterosexual pornography are men. Not surprisingly in a male-dominant society, the material reflects a hyper-masculine sexual imagination rooted in a conventional conception of masculinity: sex as conquest and the acquisition of pleasure through the ta king of women.

Third, men don’t encounter ­this toxic definition of sex as a rational argument to be evaluated critically but through masturbation leading to orgasm -- a powerful method for delivering the woman-hating message of the genre, reinforced in virtually every other institution of the society.

Evidence from laboratory studies and in-depth interviews indicates that men’s habitual use of media material that sexually degrades women (1) heightens the risk of sexual violence for women and (2) leads to women’s dissatisfaction with male partners in many relationships.

The evidence makes it even clearer that this pornographic culture also is destructive for men.

This doesn’t mean the harms of pornography are borne equally by all; in male-dominant societies, women bear the brunt of the damage from the sexualizing of a domination/subordination dynamic, which is so central to pornography. Nor does it mean that all people experience pornography the same way.

But while human behavior is variable, there are patterns we can observe. From nearly 20 years of research on the issue, I have concluded that one of the most damaging aspects of pornography (along with much of pop culture) is not only that it objectifies women but that it also encourages men to objectify ourselves, to cut ourselves off from the rich, complex experience of sexuality and intimacy. Pornography provides men a quick and easy orgasm, producing physical pleasure with little or no emotional engagement. But to do that, what are we doing to ourselves?

In hundreds of formal interviews and informal discussions with men, I repeatedly hear them describe going emotionally numb when viewing pornography and masturbating, a state of being “checked out.” In my own use of pornography as a child and young man, I remember how completely I would shut down during the experience.

So, to enter into the pornographic world and experience that intense sexual rush, many men have to turn off some of the emotional reactions typically connected to a sexual experience with a real person -- a sense of the other’s humanity, an awareness of being present with another person, the recognition of something outside our own bodies, as well as a deeper connection to oneself. Many of those same men report that in intimate relationships with another person, this same emotionally shut-down response to sexual stimulation kicks in.

In short: Pornography helps train men not to feel during an experience that is most about feeling.


MORE...

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/articles_gender.html

[Manifestor_of_Light]

1. Don't forget the TV shows and movies.

So many TV shows and movies have the plot of a woman in danger of stalking, kidnaping, rape or murder, which is often completed. That contributes a lot to the abuse, I think. They need to think of other plots besides women in peril of being the victim of a major felony.

[noamnety]

8. Adding to that thought

Many times those sorts of scenes, the stalking, rape, etc, are shot in a way - using specific angles and lighting, slow timing, and particular kinds of clothes on particular women, to make the scene look erotic.

[silverojo]

2. K&R

P.S. -- Edwards for President! :patriot:

[meowomon]

3. Pornography doesn't train men.

Society/family does.

Sex is hot. Watching videos of couples (or more) having real sexual pleasure is a turn on for many people.(myself included) I don't like the plastic boobed porn stars making really weird noises and pretending they are enjoying it. THAT is a big turn off.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

21. this is so special

The unfunny joke, the unfounded allegations about someone you plainly know nothing about.

I invite you to read my post 16, to remedy the latter failing.

On the former, well, ya either got it or ya don't.

[The Doctor.]

4. Ummm.... yeah.

I simply must see more of 'Dr.' Jensen's work. :eyes:

[Prophet 451]

6. Jensen's work has been critqued many times before

Jensen doesn';t even try to be a serious researcher. His work consists of finding evidence to support the conclusions he decided upon before he started.

[iverglas]

16. yeah

Jensen's work has been critqued many times before

Very often by the right wing in the US.


http://www.ffiles.net/shows.html

Robert Jensen: Pornography is a Left Issue (2006) (Also featuring Deric Shannon, anarchist activist, Sociology PhD student and owner of Wooden Man Records
Read article authored with Gail Dines: Pornography is a Left Issue

Robert Jensen is an associate professor in The School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin.Jensen joined the UT faculty in 1992 after completing his Ph.D. in media ethics and law in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota. Prior to his academic career, he worked as a professional journalist for a decade. At UT, Jensen teaches courses in media law, ethics, and politics. He also is director of the Senior Fellows Program, the honors program of the College of Communication. In his research, Jensen draws on a variety of critical approaches to media and power. Much of his work has focused on pornography and the radical feminist critique of sexuality and men's violence. In more recent work, he has addressed questions of race through a critique of white privilege and institutionalized racism. In addition to teaching and research, Jensen writes for popular media, both alternative and mainstream. His opinion and analytic pieces on such subjects as foreign policy, politics, and race have appeared in papers around the country. He also is involved in a number of activist groups working against U.S. military and economic domination of the rest of the world. Jensen is the author of The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights, 2005); Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights, 2004); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang, 2002); co-author with Gail Dines and Ann Russo of Pornography: The Production and Consumption of Inequality (Routledge, 1998); and co-editor with David S. Allen of Freeing the First Amendment: Critical Perspectives on Freedom of Expression (New York University Press, 1995).

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0321-26.htm

Published on Monday, March 21, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
The World is Waiting for an Answer: Are we Americans, or Human Beings?

by Robert Jensen
Speech given at the Austin, TX, antiwar rally marking the second anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq
March 19, 2005

... Let me put it as clearly as I can: The way we live in this country -- the way every one of us here at this rally today lives -- is morally indefensible and ecologically unsustainable. It is a way of life that can’t be enjoyed by the rest of the world, and it is a way of life that if unchecked literally will destroy the world.

So, our immediate message is clear: U.S. out of Iraq now. The U.S. occupation of Iraq cannot bring security and democracy in Iraq. It is an impediment to security and democracy.

Our choices over the long term are just as clear. On all these fronts, political and personal, we have to ask: What are we willing to give up? What risks are we willing to take?

We have a choice: We can actually live the values that we say guide our country or we can abandon those values. We can work to make democracy -- that is, a system in which ordinary people have meaningful input into the formation of public policy -- a reality in our own country. If we don’t, the unrestrained and violent use of U.S. power abroad will remain a danger.

We have a choice: We can live on top of the world or we can live in the world. The stakes are high; if we don’t find a way to force the United States to live in the world, before too long there may well be no world left for anyone.

These challenges can be condensed into a simple choice: We can be Americans, or we can be human beings.

The rest of the world is waiting for our answer.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/1047072.html

Sept. 26, 2001, 9:50AM
U.S. just as guilty of committing own violent acts
By ROBERT JENSEN

... It should need not be said, but I will say it: The acts of terrorism that killed civilians in New York and Washington were reprehensible and indefensible; to try to defend them would be to abandon one's humanity. No matter what the motivation of the attackers, the method is beyond discussion.

But this act was no more despicable than the massive acts of terrorism -- the deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes -- that the U.S. government has committed during my lifetime. For more than five decades throughout the Third World, the United States has deliberately targeted civilians or engaged in violence so indiscriminate that there is no other way to understand it except as terrorism. And it has supported similar acts of terrorism by client states.

If that statement seems outrageous, ask the people of Vietnam. Or Cambodia and Laos. Or Indonesia and East Timor. Or Chile. Or Central America. Or Iraq. Or Palestine. The list of countries and peoples who have felt the violence of this country is long. Vietnamese civilians bombed by the United States. Timorese civilians killed by a U.S. ally with U.S.-supplied weapons. Nicaraguan civilians killed by a U.S. proxy army of terrorists. Iraqi civilians killed by the deliberate bombing of an entire country's infrastructure.

So, my anger is directed not only at individuals who engineered the Sept. 11 tragedy, but at those who have held power in the United States and have engineered attacks on civilians every bit as tragic. That anger is compounded by hypocritical U.S. officials' talk of their commitment to higher ideals, as President Bush proclaimed "our resolve for justice and peace."

http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/yct/images/YCT_Watch_List_Spring2004.pdf

Professor Watch List
Young Conservatives of Texas - University of Texas Chapter
www.yct.org

Spring 2004 Watch List
Instructor: Robert Jensen
Department: Journalism
Course Evaluated: Critical Issues in Journalism
Spring 2004 courses: Critical Issues in Journalism

In a survey course about Journalism, one might expect to learn about the industry, some basics about reporting and layout, the history of journalism, the values of a free press and what careers make the news machine function. Instead, Jensen introduces the unsuspecting student to a crash course in socialism, white privilege, the "truth"; about the Persian Gulf War and the role of America as the world's prominent sponsor of terrorism. Jensen half-heartedly attempts to tie his rants to "critical issues" in journalism, insisting his lessons are valid under the guise of teaching potential journalists to "think" about the world around them. Jensen is also renowned for using class time when he teaches Media Law and Ethics to "come out" and analogize gay rights with the civil rights movement. Ostensibly, this relates somehow to his course material.

That Robert Jensen is a bad, bad man indeed.

I'll bet that one of his "personal issues" isn't not gettin' any.

[Hissyspit]

7. What nonsense.

"going emotionally numb when viewing pornography and masturbating, a state of being “checked out.” In my own use of pornography as a child and young man, I remember how completely I would shut down during the experience."

Jeez... :eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

9. men masturbate? who knew?

[Katherine Brengle]

11. When I was into porn in college,

I definitely experienced the shut-down factor - I think it's necessary in order to derive any pleasure from the experience.

I also think there are a lot of closed minded people in denial posting in this thread.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. This is a tired old argument.

Sexual imagery in the arts has existed since the arts. Cave paintings, for example, are full of sexual imagery. If sexual imagery offends you, don't look at it, don't read it, don't listen to it: turn it off it's your choice. If you find the sexual imagery production industry offensive and oppressive, search for another career.

[iverglas]

13. if only anybody'd made it

Did you really think someone here was talking about "sexual imagery"?

Gone blind from too much of something, maybe ...

[Warren Stupidity]

14. uh actually yes.

"Abusive images belittle women, men and sex
Edited on Sat Oct-20-07 01:47 AM by Triana
Irish Examiner ( Dublin), June 7, 2007, p. 10.
by Robert Jensen

Pornography is an industrial media product primarily sold to men in a male-dominant culture for use as a masturbation facilitator."

That is exactly what the OP was talking about.

[iverglas]

15. yes indeed

"abusive images" = "sexual imagery"
"pornography" = "sexual imagery"

Kinda like how

pitbulls = dogs
diamonds = shiny objects

Sorry. You lose.

No one said "All sexual imagery consists of abusive images/pornography". So your comments about sexual imagery are irrelevant. Just as comments about dogs would be in a discussion of pitbulls, or comments about shiny objects would be in a discussion of diamonds.

Do, however, feel free to join the actual discussion, anytime you decide to acknowledge the subject matter.

[bliss_eternal]

17. self delete...

.

[Katherine Brengle]

22. "Sexual imagery" and the porn industry are not the same thing.

Don't be a jackass.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Oh really? Define the difference.

[Katherine Brengle]

29. Pornography is sexual imagery, all sexual imagery is NOT pornography.

You are equating two things when in actuality one is a subset of the other.

Are you here to be daft just for the fun of it?

[Warren Stupidity]

30. So you cannot provide a definition

other than 'one is a subset of the other'. Gosh that just cut right through the fog.

On the other hand you certainly can provide an insult with every response. Let me guess, you can't define pornography, 'but you know it when you see it'?

Perhaps you could form a council of distinguished porn judges that could meet on Monday nights to review the latest in sexual imagery to decide for the rest of us peasants what is porn and what is not.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. "congratulations on being a giant tool."

Thanks for the complement. You really know how to make a guy feel good about himself.

"Pornography: obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit."

Was that serious on your part? a) it is circular: now go define 'obscene'; b) 'little or no artistic merit' is completely subjective.

You have once again failed to provide a definition of pornography that objectively differentiates it from 'sexual imagery'. You can't, as the difference is entirely in the mind of the observer. Your pornography is my picnic in the grass.

"When "Le D'jeuner sur l'Herbe" was exhibited by Edouard Manet at the Paris Salon des Refuses in 1863 it caused an uproar and was condemned by the critics. The now famous painting depicts a nude woman in the company of two fully clothed contemporarily dressed men having a picnic in the woods. The negative reaction was due more to the French’s conservative nature than to any moral or aesthetic sensibilities. It was perfectly acceptable at the time to show nudes in a classical setting but not in a contemporary one."
http://www.delacruzarts.com/html/censorship.htm

[NaturalHigh]

35. From your posts, I gather that you don't like pornography.

I have a suggestion for you; don't watch it. I don't like porn either, and that's what I do. It's none of my business if other people like to watch it, nor is it yours.

[iverglas]

37. well as long as we're making suggestions

Here's one for you: go away and stay away until you have something meaningful to add to the discussion.

If you don't like other people's opinions, don't read them. It's none of your business if people want to discuss something you're not interested in.

[NaturalHigh]

38. Another party heard from.

Normally, a discussion in an online forum involves different opinions, not just those with which you agree. It's a little different than some of the DU "groups" where only one point of view is allowed. Sorry if you don't think other points-of-view are meaningful, but I've noticed from the anti-porn people that that is the norm.

[iverglas]

39. "normally"

Well, if by that you mean "usually", you'd be right. Hereabouts, discussion usually involves opinions, and not much else.

What you did -- which was to spew a couple of opinions about nothing of any relevance to the discussion -- does very often seem to pass as "discussion".

The discussion here is actually about something. Not about what someone here should do, or what you think she should do.

You haven't actually contributed anything to that discussion.

You've made a really utterly dumb comment about the author of the piece offered for discussion -- you have not said anything about the content of the article itself.

You've made rude remarks to a participant in the discussion -- you have not said anything about any issue under discussion.

You even seem to have chosen to disregard what the subject matter of the discussion is -- it's "abusive images" and their asserted effect, not "pornography". Not that you've even managed to say anything about pornography.

The only "point-of-view" you seem to have expressed is that the author of the article under discussion is ... well hey, you didn't even say, did you? Obviously not worthy of having his work read, anyhow. Oh, and your "point-of-view" that someone else here should essentially shut the fuck up, as if your opinion about what a participant in a discussion that was ongoing when you arrived should do was relevant to anything, let alone of any interest at all to anyone.


Normally -- among reasonable people of goodwill engaged in civil discourse, that is -- a discussion involves an exchange of points of view and of the facts and arguments that support them and have led the people who hold them to adopt them, and the consideration of those points of view and facts and arguments by everyone involved, and responses to them by those who disagree, stating their own facts and arguments, and so on.

How you imagine that shoving yourself into a discussion and contributing nothing but insult directed against the author of the subject matter of the discussion and instructions to a participant in the discussion who has expressed no interest in being told what to do by you constitutes "discussion", I wouldn't know.

[Boojatta]

40. Being uninvolved is not a way to be constructively influential.

From your posts, I gather that you don't like pornography. I have a suggestion for you; don't watch it. I don't like porn either, and that's what I do. It's none of my business if other people like to watch it, nor is it yours.

Suppose some people want to produce porn and are looking for investors. A potential investor admits to not liking porn and asks whether or not that's a problem. If those who are seeking money say, "That okay, but it's none of your business whether or not anybody buys anything from us. Don't expect to receive any information in the future about revenues", then is the potential investor likely to invest?

There's a secret ballot. You could argue that it's nobody's business how people vote and that it's nobody's business who gets elected. Then you could argue that legislation is nobody's business.

At the beginning of a trial, a prosecutor could say, "The defendant has a record of civil disobedience. Today we are here because the defendant has again violated a law. Obviously the defendant doesn't like the particular law that the defendant violated. Therefore, that law is none of the defendant's business. I will not be telling the defendant what law was violated."

[Warren Stupidity]

41. The investor, the voter, and the defendant all have a vested interest

in the information they are being deprived of in your contrived examples. They actually need to know. The person who does not like pornography, whatever pornography is, has no vested interest in continuing to subject themselves to an experience they find unpleasant. That person can simply stop looking. That person, having decided that 'pornography' is unpleasant, has no need to continue to receive more pornographic information.

Instead some people find some forms of expression so upsetting and unpleasant that they intend to make sure nobody else can experience this unpleasantness. Those people should mind their own business.

[iverglas]

42. ah, speaking of some people

Instead some people find some forms of expression so upsetting and unpleasant that they intend to make sure nobody else can experience this unpleasantness. Those people should mind their own business.

And then there are the some people whose only "argument" against what other people say is to misrepresent what said other people say. Not to mention falsely attribute ideas and feelings to said other people ...

Funny. Ain't it?

[Warren Stupidity]

43. It would be funny if it were at all relevant.

Instead it seems that some people here do not wish to engage in a dialog but instead appear to be very irritated that they do not simply receive 'ataboys' and 'huzzahs' to their regurgitation of questionable diatribes against the EVIL PORN.

I directly responded to a point made by a poster. That would be more than I can say for your post.

[iverglas]

44. fuckin duh

What did you imagine I was saying?

If any one of you and your fellow travellers in this thread had said ANYTHING RELEVANT to the topic under discussion, or to anything anyone else said -- well, yes, it might be funny, as in odd, strange, weird, unusual ...

You may have "responded to a point made by a poster". The problem is that what that poster said --

Suppose some people want to produce porn and are looking for investors. A potential investor admits to not liking porn and asks whether or not that's a problem.

-- was in response to something YOU had said --

From your posts, I gather that you don't like pornography.
I have a suggestion for you; don't watch it.

which WAS NOT RELEVANT to anything under discussion.

And in responding to the irrelevant thing said about the irrelevant thing you said, all you could manage to do was misrepresent the subject matter and other people's words and feelings about it.

Any clearer now?

Any time you want to join a discussion about the actual subject raised for discussion in this thread --

men’s habitual use of media material
that sexually degrades women

-- and the implications of that fact, you just feel really free to do so.

Really. Nobody's stopping you. Nobody's telling you to shut up. Nobody's telling you that if you don't like articles asserting that men’s habitual use of media material that sexually degrades women is a problem they have a suggestion for you: don't read them.

I, for one, am just waiting with bated breath for you to say something, anything, that is related in any way at all to the subject matter of this thread.

If you don't do that, and yet do keep posting in the thread, I, for one, am going to have to wonder what your purpose is.

[Boojatta]

45. How about this?

Instead some people find some forms of expression so upsetting and unpleasant that they intend to make sure nobody else can experience this unpleasantness.

You are speaking in very general terms here. Consider an example: courses about English composition and essay writing. People who teach such courses find some forms of expression very upsetting and label them as "errors."

Those people should mind their own business.

Should teachers stop marking papers and instead mind their own business? Some people might point out that marking papers is part of a teacher's business. However, a writing course would have little purpose if it influenced only the writing composed for that course. Evidently, writing courses are directed towards an improper purpose, right?

[One_Life_To_Give]

18. And if removed what would change?

Wether men masturbate to Industrial Produced images or those created in their own minds. I don't see where we could assume there will be a significant difference?

[iverglas]

19. so what are you saying here?

This was the assertion in the opening post:

Abusive images belittle women, men and sex

and that was the subject matter of the article.

You respond by saying:

And if removed what would change?
Wether men masturbate to Industrial Produced images or those created in their own minds. I don't see where we could assume there will be a significant difference?

Given the topic of the thread in which you have posted the comment, I have to infer that you are asking what the difference would be between men masturbating to Industrial Produced abusive images and men masturbating to abusive images created in their own minds.

I'm not sure why you'd be asking that. Are abusive images the only thing that men can create in their own minds to masturbate to? If not, is your question kind of insulting to men, or does it just make no sense?

You're not sure where we could assume there would be a significant difference ... because men are not interested in any sexual fantasies that are not abusive of women, and thus that is all they would produce for themselves?

I dunno. I kind of suspect that isn't what you meant to say, but by saying it in this thread, that's what you've said. Maybe you'd rather this thread was about something other than what it's about. It isn't.

[One_Life_To_Give]

24. Some will think it's insulting but

I don't believe the Industry creates images that it wants to sell so much as the Industry creates images that men want to buy and fantasize about.

Put another way the guy who goes out and purchases some video of a woman being raped. Was probably fantasizing about such and definetly thinks such is highly erotic before he ever learned that such things were made.

Hence I speculate that the Porn Industry puts in Media what already exists in Mens fantasies and not the other way around. To which the next question would be is it realy porn that is degrading to Sex, women, men or is it that some men are degrading to sex, women, men? Which implies that the Industry is a symptom and not a cause.

[iverglas]

25. yes, we're all just tabula rasa

We were all born with an innate lust for fast cars, fast food and very expensive running shoes. Nobody had to work to persuade us that we need/want those things. Advertising is just an expensive hobby.

And men think that "a woman being raped" is "highly erotic" because, well, they were born that way.

I'm sure glad I don't think such ugly things about men. I wonder when the "sex-positive feminists" and their friends will show up and have something to say about it.


Which implies that the Industry is a symptom and not a cause.

Pretty much every social phenomenon in the world is both symptom and cause of something, I'd have to say.

It always just amuses me how some people want us to ignore the causal aspect of some things -- in fact, you know, it's rather amazing how there will always be some people wanting us to ignore the causal aspect of everything. It's always the particular thing that's under discussion whose causal aspect needs to be ignored. Widespread unfettered access to guns doesn't cause crime, the war on drugs causes crime. Vote Ron Paul! Women's lack of access to secure, well-paid skilled jobs doesn't cause women to be poor in old age, women's choice to withdraw from the work force for a decade to rear children causes them to be poor in old age. Down with equal pay for work of equal value! Men's perception that rape is socially approved and desired by women doesn't cause violence against women, let's send a thank you card to Larry Flynt!

What we must never ever do is address the causal role in the oppression of a vulnerable group played by something that the dominant group has a vested interest in.

[One_Life_To_Give]

26. Yes, get to the Cause

But I don't believe we can blame Larry Flynt for all of the abuse perpetrated against women.

There are more significant factors than what is portrayed in certain media. How a boys father treats his mother, sisters and other women in his life has far more to do with how he will treat women than anything Larry ever concidered.

[iverglas]

27. what discussion are you participating in?

But I don't believe we can blame Larry Flynt for all of the abuse perpetrated against women.

What's this "but"? Somebody said that we can blame Larry Flynt for all of the abuse perpetrated against women, BUT you don't think we can? We must be looking at different threads here.

There are more significant factors than what is portrayed in certain media. How a boys father treats his mother, sisters and other women in his life has far more to do with how he will treat women than anything Larry ever concidered.

And how his father treats his mother is caused by how his father treated his mother ... and there we are, all the way back to how Adam treated Eve, with no intervening causal factors. And nothing to worry about!

Certainly nothing we can do. No sirree. It's all Adam's fault. Let's blame him; he's dead, so that works pretty well.

For those with an agenda.

[One_Life_To_Give]

28. You brought up Flynt

You brought up Flynt
Down with equal pay for work of equal value! Men's perception that rape is socially approved and desired by women doesn't cause violence against women, let's send a thank you card to Larry Flynt!

to which I replied that we can't blame him for everything.


Certainly nothing we can do. No sirree. It's all Adam's fault. Let's blame him; he's dead, so that works pretty well.

And where did you get this from?

My comments all focus on that violent porn is a symptom. The eradication of which will be of virtually no help to women. IMHO. Boys don't just suddenly see violent porn at age 16 and think thats cool and go do terrible things to their girlfriends. That type of behaviour started to be learned 16 years previous to seeing that.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Oh there certainly is a feedback loop there.

But so what? We are talking about fantasy and 'what is in one's mind', which is simply not anyone else's concern. If I fantasize about raping small lizards and you produce graphic images of gekko rape for me to buy, what concern is that to anyone else? If I go out and actually rape small lizards, society has a right to be concerned.

[bliss_eternal]

20. Using one's imagination to produce images...

...and doing whatever one would like to with said images, would not seem to be inflicting abuse on anyone. Very different from actually "utilizing" a human being (male or female) to create "industrial produced images."

[Warren Stupidity]

32. "industrial produced images"

yeah that must be wicked bad. Is that the new emotic neologism to lend credibility to censorship?

[NaturalHigh]

36. I've read a lot of Jensen's work.

For someone who doesn't like porn, he sure watches a lot of it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. How does that dispatch a lot of knee jerk defenses of pornography?

"Pornography is an industrial media product primarily sold to men in a male-dominant culture for use as a masturbation facilitator."

Well it's sold to men in all cultures, isn't it? If there are cultures where it's not sold, I'm willing to bet they're as backwards as the taliban when it comes to social freedoms.

"First, today’s producers of sexually explicit material aren’t interested in creating a space for artists exploring the mysteries of sexuality. Pornographers make good money by churning out a rigidly formatted product that minimizes creativity and maximizes profit."

Is that a strawman? I don't think anybody's really claiming pornography is an art form, unless you're talking about erotic art, which really isn't porn.

"Second, despite all the talk about “couples-friendly” pornography and the rise in women’s p*** consumption, the overwhelming majority of consumers of heterosexual pornography are men."

women's p***? What's that?

"Evidence from laboratory studies and in-depth interviews indicates that men’s habitual use of media material that sexually degrades women (1) heightens the risk of sexual violence for women and (2) leads to women’s dissatisfaction with male partners in many relationships."

How are these studies done? Where are they finding non-porn watching controls?

"In hundreds of formal interviews and informal discussions with men, I repeatedly hear them describe going emotionally numb when viewing pornography and masturbating, a state of being “checked out.”"

Well duh. They probably shouldn't be operating heavy machinery either.