The Porn Myth

[ThomCat]

A good article that discusses Andrea Dworkin's views on porn, and attempts to see if her predictions were right now that porn is immediately available to anyone online.

I'm still forming an opinion of the article. I think the author is taking one effect, one outcome, and I think she is generalizing it too far. I think she's making the mistake of thinking that the general effect on middle class college students is the only effect. But despite that, I think this article is a good starting point.

I'm going to cross post this in GD for everyone to see, but I would like to see a discussion here too that won't be a messy riot.

.............................

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

The Porn Myth
In the end, porn doesn’t whet men’s appetites—it turns them off the real thing.
By Naomi Wolf

At a benefit the other night, I saw Andrea Dworkin, the anti-porn activist most famous in the eighties for her conviction that opening the floodgates of pornography would lead men to see real women in sexually debased ways. If we did not limit pornography, she argued—before Internet technology made that prospect a technical impossibility—most men would come to objectify women as they objectified porn stars, and treat them accordingly. In a kind of domino theory, she predicted, rape and other kinds of sexual mayhem would surely follow.

The feminist warrior looked gentle and almost frail. The world she had, Cassandra-like, warned us about so passionately was truly here: Porn is, as David Amsden says, the “wallpaper” of our lives now. So was she right or wrong?

She was right about the warning, wrong about the outcome. As she foretold, pornography did breach the dike that separated a marginal, adult, private pursuit from the mainstream public arena. The whole world, post-Internet, did become pornographized. Young men and women are indeed being taught what sex is, how it looks, what its etiquette and expectations are, by pornographic training—and this is having a huge effect on how they interact.

But the effect is not making men into raving beasts. On the contrary: The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as “porn-worthy.” Far from having to fend off porn-crazed young men, young women are worrying that as mere flesh and blood, they can scarcely get, let alone hold, their attention.

[ThomCat]

1. In GD, this article is being pretty thoroughly trashed.

I think there's a lot of sense in this article.

How many shy, insecure guys spend time alone on their computers now instead of out socializing?
And how many of those guys get intimidated or nervous when they meat a women, and choose not to talk to her?
And how many of those guys might have spoken to her, but instead go home to porn?
And of those guys who do have girlfriends, how many of them have distorted views about what sex is because they got their sex-ed from porn?

I think too many people are attacking this article too quickly. "Methinks thou dost protest too much." I think a lot of those guys feel big talking about porn in public, but are too insecure to really talk about it seriously.

[Katherine Brengle]

2. I think people will go to great lengths to defend their

privilege. All of the feminism-related GD arguments turn into this, because there are too many posters either blinded by a lifetime under patriarchy or totally aware but completely unwilling to lose their privilege.

I think you rule for posting it. Will post again in a bit.

[ThomCat]

3. I rarely start new threads.

But that article seems very reasonable to me, and I thought it could start a discussion that would not turn into attacks and flames.

I was, obviously, clueless about how it would be received. :)

Thank you.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. The patriarchy is alive and well on most of this board

But most of the sexist jerks think they are such mensches because they are pro-choice.

[iverglas]

13. there's a method to their menschness

They don't oppose women being able to control our reproductive lives -- so we don't get to oppose anything at all that they want.

They'll let us have abortions, so we have to let them have all the guns they can eat. Oops, I mean, we have to let little weak women carry guns around to protect themselves from big bad sexual predators ... even though women are at most risk of harm from the men they love. They'll let us have abortions, so we have to let them have all the prostitutes they can buy. Oops, I mean, we have to let other women decide what to do with their bodies, even though the overwhelming majority of women in prostitution have made no choice in any meaningful sense of the concept at all.

The idea that any of them actually give a shit about women is not credible. It's just more misogyny -- heaping more exploitation on the exploited, by using them to advance agendas that are contrary to their interests.

[ThomCat]

14. That is a very, very incredible post.

:)

[iverglas]

15. why thank you

Oddly, we never seem to have been properly introduced. ;)

I read your posts appreciatively whenever I happen to be where you are.

Now, if you plan to tangle with the gunheads in future, let me know and I'll try to cover you. That place ain't for amateurs!

[ThomCat]

21. If I accidentally fall into the gun forum

(a place I avoid) I'll definitely send you a PM. :)

[Scout]

16. never try to come between a man and his weinie.... n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

18. Oh but they care so deeply about those prostituted women, don't they?

Remember how kind they were to the Duke accuser? Notice how compassionately they describe the sex workers who are involved in scandals with politicians? :sarcasm:

[iverglas]

19. hey, that's right

Those happy self-actualized hookers performing such a vital public service ... none of 'em streetwalkers, either, eh?

[ThomCat]

22. Double standards are a hallmark of prejudice.

You're "this" when they want you, and "that" when they don't. You are defined in whatever way is convenient for the dominant class, even if the definitions are mutually exclusive.
x(

[bliss_eternal]

27. Excellent point.

Very well said. :thumbsup:

[iverglas]

24. the menschen are revolting

I offer it only for instructional purposes, never ever recommending that anyone actually sully their fingers at that place ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=147696&mesg_id=147723

[ThomCat]

30. Wow, Your post is spot on.

And they're calling you a troll?

:wtf:

Are they really that totally clueless? I love your post! I think you have it exactly right.

[iverglas]

31. it's become a sort of daily occurrence

I don't mind playing with some of them, but the troll turnover rate there is the highest of anywhere at DU and the constant barrage of the same old shit gets pretty tedious. And maintaining the pretence that we're all liberals/progressives/D/democrats together gets tiresome. It's kind of fun to go back a year or two in the archives and visit with all the tombstones; any given thread will be populated by about 75% ghosties and ghoulies.

Now I must wave to my fan club, which I wuv, and which obviously follows me devotedly around hanging on my every word ... a 21-gun salute for them:



Well, that's allegedly a 21-gun salute (that's our vice-head of state



standing there waiting for it). Maybe we just forego the guns up here ...

[iverglas]

32. as long as we're on the subject ...

I'm quite the urban legend in a number of people's own quite twisted minds ...

http://www.guntards.net/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=1654

http://progunprogressive.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=40&highlight=&sid=daa93e0bf687910a2f6ac7817ce8941d

They link to their icky "progressive" boards, so I do too. Wanna play spot-the-progressives?

Now, I can't link to the full version of the urban legend; you'll have to google iverglas fucked gunpoint for that one. No, it isn't quite an ancestor of that talk radio thing; it's purportedly fact (it ain't), but now that I think about it, I'd be unsurprised if it had been the subject of a few fantasies ...

I think I deserve my own Snopes page at this point.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. Porn sucks. But so does that article.

I don't even have time to parse every detail of what I disliked about her thesis so I'll make just a few points...

Wolf has gotten increasingly conservative over the years, and not in a good way

While I completely agree with much of what she says about porn, I could not help but notice that Naomi has picked up some tiresome RW memes in her writing. As exemplified in this passage:

Other cultures know this. I am not advocating a return to the days of hiding female sexuality, but I am noting that the power and charge of sex are maintained when there is some sacredness to it, when it is not on tap all the time. In many more traditional cultures, it is not prudery that leads them to discourage men from looking at pornography. It is, rather, because these cultures understand male sexuality and what it takes to keep men and women turned on to one another over time—to help men, in particular, to, as the Old Testament puts it, “rejoice with the wife of thy youth; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times.” These cultures urge men not to look at porn because they know that a powerful erotic bond between parents is a key element of a strong family.

And feminists have misunderstood many of these prohibitions.

Um, no Naomi, we haven't. :eyes:

But she has, apparently. Looks like another formerly reliable feminist has bought into the fundie koolaid fairy tale that restricting women's freedom protects women and strengthens relationships and families. And she perpetuates the strangely paradoxical view of male sexuality as being this immutable and all-powerful force of nature, while at the same time being so very fragile and transitory that women must take responsibility for it and exercise the utmost vigilance over every detail of our own behavior. Furthermore, her article implies that women don't have physical desires of our own, despite her talking about how porn makes us hesitant to express them.

I can see the point Wolf is making about how ubiquitous explicit images of sex (well, not sex actually, but rather the commodification of the female body that represents it in the collective consciousness) serve to diminish the desire for the real experience but I object to the way she is promoting some rather unfeminist ideas.

[Bunny]

6. Hi Thom - I read your thread in GD.

I give you a world of credit for maintaining your cool. There are a couple of posters there who can discuss this subject objectively, most of the rest are not capable of nuanced thinking - it's all so black and white to them.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

7. It really is, isn't it?

The 2 prevailing false dichotomies are:

You either love porn and think it's great OR you are an uptight fundie prude trying to censor everyone.

If you are a woman, you can be a sex object OR you can be sexless.

[ThomCat]

8. It's frustrating.

I'm not even anti-porn in and of itself. I just think the porn Industry has always been corrupt and dangerous and still is. And just because porn in and of itself isn't inherently bad doesn't mean that all porn is good. A vast amount of it is sexist, violent, degrading crap.

I thought the topic was too important to not post in GD, but at the same time I should have known it would turn into all of that.

There's almost no room for nuance or actual discussion in there.

[ismnotwasm]

9. And you are right

The industry is corrupt and dangerous. I thought you had a lot of guts posting that article, although I agree more with CatBurgler regarding it's content and Ms. Wolff herself.
I've got to go (as usual)and although the thread posting isn't opening any new doors, look at the views it's getting! There are many who just don't post much. Makes people think. Some people don't have a particular opinion, then they see something like that, they get curious. Keeps it in the spotlight. The problem with the porn industry, you gotta overturn rocks before your going to get any light shined on it.

Thank you again, Thomcat

[Branjor]

10. Or, what I got called once on DU for opposing porn....

"Mullah Omar".

[bliss_eternal]

11. What the....?

What is with people here and the name-calling when there's a difference of stance? :grr::mad:

I once spoke out in a thread about statutory rape, only to be pm'd by someone--called "shrill" and provided with a link to a tacky "age of consent" web site. :puke: As if all I needed to change my position was the knowledge that in some countries, consent begins at 10 or 12. :eyes:

[iverglas]

12. I guess you've missed what I've been getting called

There's quite a dedicated contingent of name-callers there. The commitment to the exploitation and abuse of women that some people manifest, and the strategies they adopt to further their cause, are really quite remarkable.

[bliss_eternal]

26. Yes, I guess I did....

...(miss what you've been called). :(

I try to stay out of those threads, gems that they are. I guess after being harassed over my comments and even private messaged more times than I can count with nastiness, one tends to shy away from such things.

But I am sorry to hear you're called names for speaking your truth. :hug:

[iverglas]

28. if you're quick

you might catch this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=147696&mesg_id=147733


Interestingly, I have never got a PM such as you describe. I must look a little less advisable to tangle with. ;)

[bliss_eternal]

33. Whoa...

I missed it. Must have been bad.

As for the pm's--they were quite some time ago, and most(not all) were from people that were eventually tombstoned. I don't know if the people that sent them did so because I seemed like easy pickings or because they were insane trolls, hell bent on their campaigns of harassment and being as disruptive as possible. :shrug:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

17. So I noticed my porn/chickenhawk thread got deleted. Maybe I can hide out here

I wonder if it got alerted on by one of those DUers who accuse us of trying to censor them. If it was, the irony would be off the charts. I saw the moderator message on Katherine Brengle's thread about how mine contained "graphic imagery". Oh, you mean, like the graphic imagery that is in....oh I don't know....PORN?!?!

But there's nothing degrading about porn and anyone who says so is depriving people of their choice. Unless you suggest that the men who enjoy and defend it should experience it firsthand. Now that's offensive, apparently. :eyes:

[Scout]

20. i remember a thread....

where the "valuable service" performed by Monica Lewinsky for Bill Clinton was being lauded ... I dared to suggest that the poster who thought that was such an important, valuable service might want to perform that service herself sometime for politicians or others in need ... boy, was SHE pissed off! It's ok for other women to give blow jobs to men they aren't married to, but not HER. She had to have her husband come in and post in her defense, all outraged and demanding an apology and that I be tombstoned.

Double standards, double standards.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. I hear ya

Amazing how we get threatened for daring to suggest that turnabout might be fair play. I expect better of my fellow progressives. I expect them to see through hypocrisy and double standards of all kinds. I am frequently disappointed.

[bliss_eternal]

25. That sounds so funny....

...and I'm VERY sorry I missed that display of hypocrisy. :rofl:
Nice work, Scout.

[iverglas]

29. it was absolutely hilarious

and I have most of it saved to disk, should anyone want it. ;)

It was the Tribute to Larry Flynt thread -- everybody post his/her drooling adoration of the great man, and we'll send it to Larry. Well, I didn't quite think that was a great idea ...

[bliss_eternal]

34. I remember that thread...

...how the heck did I miss that particular part of the exchange? Dammit! I miss all the cool/funny stuff. :( (bliss pouting)

I agree--really bad idea for a thread. I was suprised to see so many respond to it so positively. :crazy:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

35. Gee I bet they deleted all the negative posts before they sent it to him

Wouldn't want to hurt Flynt's fee fees, would we? :eyes: