Name some of these men and women, and quote what they really said.
The whole article is sort of a straw man argument. She gets to make up what her opponents' position is, and then argue against it. But she doesn't actually name a single person that she is in opposition to, nor a single quote that she is refuting.
Her article opens with an unsupported genaralization:
Followed directly by another:And another:Then she estimates that there are only scores of well-raised men who like porn. And so forth.
Wendy McElroy, quoted in the article is worth reading directly -- much of her work including her book "A Woman's Right To Pornography" is available online -- Chapter Six makes interesting reading on her thoughts on the benefits of pornography.
Her article is an editorial for a college newspaper, right? Hardly the stuff of champions that we need to scrutinise by requiring citations and sources.
I need to talk about attending an Andrea Dworkin speaking engagement at my campus with my "I <3 Porn" shirt one of these years. Fun stuff. In one of those ironic confirmations, she and her legion of fans prove once again that they are no friend of the first amendment. But I believe that should be a story for Skronk to hear first.
Edited by - morbidthoughts on 1/26/2005 9:22:21 PM
It's just an editorial, but I am inclined to ultimately agree with Lindi.
Then again, I am in college right now. My life consists of reading and writing research papers. Turabian, MLA, and the other styles of citation are like friends I hate but need. Maybe I am too biased.
There are extremists who think porn is nothing but evil, and extremists who try to make a case that porn is all sweetness and light. I can't agree with either side.
It's easy to construct an exaggerated composite extremist position and argue against it.
But the article never makes a convincing case that porn doesn't objectify women. Would anybody here like to make that case?
Nope, but it is a simplification, isn't it? A consumer market objectifies women because that sells product, whether it is mainstream film, music, perfume, automobiles or porn.
What is ignored in these discussions is what the consumer brings to the table. Not all men want to see women devoid of personality being treated as sex-toys. Porn isn't going to change their minds about that. In other words, anti-porn crusaders have ahold of the wrong end of the stick. They won't fix the problem by eliminating porn, they'll eliminate that kind of porn by fixing the problem.
I'm glad to see that other women agree with me about this. The article kept getting posted in blogs and hailed as a great example of a woman who is porn-positive, but I felt like all I walked away from her article with was her assertion that women don't watch porn (or admit it if they do) and that feminists are bad and hate porn.
The idea that there is a feminist "party line" on porn that we all uphold irritates me to no end.
Being "pro-porn" or "porn-positive" is all well and good if all you have to do is write about it – it's when you have to start actually watching porn that it gets hard. Much more fun to write about watching porn than to actually watch porn.
God what a load of crap. I have to wonder if the author ever actually watched porn.Oh please... that's just insulting. Most of the women I know have watched some , and aren't afraid to admit it. They don't actively hate it, it just doesn't appeal to them.Let's hope her labwork isn't as sloppy as her 'journalism'.
I just have one question, why is that we ignore the blatant fact that male performers are potrayed as sex objects as much as women in porn. Just because men watch porn more than women doesn't negate the fact that most men are seen as human dildos to serve the pleasure of the female puzzy.
I am not saying this is wrong. What I am saying is that most of these types of objectors categorically ignore the fact that more and more women watch porn and like the male stars based on how well they can fukk regardless how they look. Yes, some women enjoy the looks of the men in porn but for the most part, women who enjoy porn rate perfomers primarily on performance and many of them visually enjoy a large penis. A penis is direct sexual instrument for women's pleasure. Yet, everyone even pro-porn people completely ignore the male perfomers role in porn as if it means absolutely nothing in the discussion.
Oh, I could easily agree that men and women are objectified in porn (I wouldn't agree that men are objectified as much as women, though, in 'straight' porn).
I certainly would not agree that Caitlin is correct in an assertion that porn doesn't objectify women. I, too, wondered if she'd ever watched much porn.
My own honest opinion would be that it's a natural part of sexual arousal to objectify women (or men), and that there's nothing wrong with that, in itself.
Some say 'Make love, not war'.....I say you can do both, if you budget your time 578 Posts 9/04
Posted - Jan 27 2005 : 1:00PM
Shouldn't we make a distinction between 'objectification' and 'glorification'?
If performers are portrayed as erotic BEINGS, than I'm all for it...that's how I view soft-core and hardcore. That's GLORIFICATION. They are to be admired and enjoyed from afar.
But when you put the spotlight squarely on the parts and orifices, to the exclusion of the person to whom they're attached...that's pure, cold, unappealing OBJECTIFICATION.
As to how this contributes to rape, violence, or hatred of women.....that's bullshit!!!!
The funny thing is for me I like the scenes where the girls dominates the guy the most. I've heard many other posters say the same thing. I'd be perfectly happy if there were less scenes where the guy has his foot on the girls head, is slapping her, or spitting in her face, and more scenes where the girl is standing on the guys head, slapping him and spitting in his face!!!
There is also a subculture of gay porn, male and female which seems to bypass all of these discussions of objectification. Be it in gay porn (sorry never seen any so I can't name any by name) or the violation series, same sex porn gets far more leeway in this kinda shit!!!
I don't see how people can help but objectify the people they see in porn. I don't think that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, as long as they can separate the fantasy from reality.
Maybe the word objectify is being used in place of exploit? It shouldn't be.
I've heard the argument that strip clubs exploit women, but women aren't the ones that walk out with MUCH less money than they walked in with. I feel violated.
It is the same old story , if someone chooses something a certain kind of person don't like they choose it means they're not able to make this choice because of cohercition and dehumanization or because have not mentally grow up from childood. And all of this without even ever saw any porn movie. The incredible is that those persons are proud of this.
but consider this aspect: right now there are a lot of interracial movies which were almost impossible to see during the '80 or the early '90 Then Jake Steed started his Big black monster dicks series and lots of americans started to see and buy this kind of stuff and liked them it seems a lot now is normal to see interracial scenes in porn movies but not as a slave master situations simply as sex for sex. Even interracial kisses in mainstream movies were rare at the time, Jennifer Beals was menaced of death because her romance with a white man in in Flashdance.Now Nicole Kidman may have an official romance with Lenny Kravitz even without being married and so seems not to affect her career.
I mean Someone has ever thought or write on how porn has changed some american minds in positive or negative? And Are they really changed because of porn?
Edited by - Laurie Cameron Fan on 1/31/2005 10:47:04 AM
Yes, that article was much more honest and more thoughtful. In my opinion, porn doesn't need cheerleaders to defend it with sparkly peptalk. And I reaffirm my doubt that the author of the original article has seen a wide sampling of porn.
And I also want to add that, having talked to a number of guys, even virgins, who watch a lot of porn and have had their impressions of sexuality influenced by it -- porn is not always 'good for' guys who are watching a lot of it.
Yes, it's their choice to watch it, no problem.
But sometimes it's like letting a child pick what he wants to eat, and breakfast-lunch-dinner it's Coke and potato chips with candy. They have no realization that it has an effect, some of the results aren't apparent for a long while, and even way down the road and in retrospect, there's no telling what the effects of a healthier diet might have been.
What's your point, Jewel? Nobody's arguing against free speech or anybody's right to watch porn. The thread topic is an article on whether porn objectifies women.
Just because ANYTHING is legal or has some benefits doesn't mean that its effects, merits, and possible improvements can't be discussed. It's not on some list of things that we aren't allowed to talk about.
I have a high art, I hurt with cruelty those who would damage me. 225 Posts 4/04
Posted - Jan 31 2005 : 3:15PM
My feeling is that porn objectifies men more than it does women- the man is just a body part pistoning into the woman as a whole. He gets it hard, keeps it hard and squirts- he is usually shown as nothing more than just his penis and is usually paid much less for this honor. The Object of the male in a scene is his penis nothing more. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course.
i think porn industry is objectifying both men and women but i believe its benefits are more than its disadvantages.Of course i agree with lindi that everyone who sees a lot of movies could have many problems in his personal and sexual life.Its being widely said in the forum by many users that they can seperate fantasy from reality.However i really cant understand how a man that sees 10-15 movies every month can possibly seperate fantasy from reality.After watching hundreds of movies with girls participating in any kind of orgy i think that all of us should admit that in some ways porn have influenced our behavior and changed our thoughts towards women and sex(objectifying them whether we realise that or not).This is my opinion...
Edited by - younggabe on 1/31/2005 3:35:00 PM
[Link]
nietzsche Deactivated User
5470 Posts 8/03
Posted - Jan 31 2005 : 3:40PM
We need that "upsidedown" guy to chime in on this.
Perhaps the issue is not whether porn objectifies women, men, or sex itself--it would seem to do all three most of the time--but rather how this objectification is put to work in the average video. What is disturbing to many people is exactly what is referred to in the alternet article: that there is a very narrow range of sexual behavior being objectified in a lot of porn, with a very narrow view of sex and power relationships between men and women. And it is fair to ask why this sort of objectification is so popular with the male audience for contemporary gonzo (older gonzo porn is somewhat different)--and whether the industry is turning a potentially larger, more diverse audience away by catering to the tastes of this particular male viewer. Threads like the one Lindi linked to make me wonder if some of these male viewers have ever had a real sexual/social relationship with a flesh-and-blood female. If porn is primarily a substitute for the real thing (as opposed to a entertaining diversion enriching the lives of sexually active adults), then the depictions shown in the videos naturally become more "loaded" with potentially confusing connotations. In simple terms, how do you separate fantasy from reality when you have a total absence of the latter in your life?
Not that I'm anti-porn; I am a militant supporter of erotica in all its forms. But perhaps a little variety in the objectifying would be nice.
lindi, you put it perfectly...and i think questioning what porn does to people without necessarily questioning the right to look at it is valid.
in addition to the effect it has on the way men view women, i wonder whether it affects the way women view themselves. a lot of lip service is given to the unrealistic images of women in "cosmopolitan" and "glamour" and the like and i wonder whether the amazingly thin women who seem to make up the majority of porn actresses have the same effect for anyone else.
I speak for myself Making love my primary objectiv is that the girl is enjoyning what i'm doing to her , I think I'm unable to harm a girl by my own will. When making love I even do not think about any of porn I've seen in my life it simple doesn't matter it's only a fantasy it is not real and I think i know what is real and what's not.
I just cannot watch a movie with girls humiliated or enforced to do something even if i know it's simulated If porn were so I might be an enemy for all of you (and me of course)
Edited by - Laurie Cameron Fan on 2/1/2005 10:56:08 AM
Licker, here is a webpage with a bit of elaboration on the definition of objectify.There are also a couple of paragraphs on objectifying men.
[Link]
jewel denyle Platinum X Pictures
769 Posts 4/03
Posted - Feb 1 2005 : 2:09PM
Being a woman and an adult I'm old enough to know what I'm doing and not being victimized in any way just because I did porn. I shoot girls all the time they know exactly what's involved and can make up their minds on what they want to do they're not children.
Based on the definition of 'objectifying' that Lindi linked to I'm not sure that I understood the meaning correctly.
I apologize for posting this pic of Julian again ;) but for clarity's sake, let's say that when I look at it, all I can think about is gettin on him and fucking myself senseless. Using him as a fuck-toy, if you will. I assume that would be objectifying him, but isn't my reaction what most porn strives for?
Having read that, I would suggest that it is mainly the viewer who objectifies the women in porn movies. In fact, for the same movie, some viewers will do so, and some not.
I suggest perhaps this is why we see two different sets of reactions to porn in this forum. Some guys are saying "I want to know the woman is enjoying the sex. Show me lots of her reactions to it. Let me hear her talk about the experience in 'behind the scenes'" and so on, while other guys are saying "Never mind all that stuff, just show me lots of big natural tits" or whatever.
Another example: when porn stars post on ADT, we see some of the guys trying hard to get to know them, where others just wade in with "When are you going to do triple anal?" or similar questions.
I'll qualify the statement by saying that it looks like many movies are designed to make it easy for the viewer to objectify the women in them.
I think it depends on what else you are thinking. Are you imagining just riding him as if he was a man-shaped Sybian, or are you fantasizing about him being delighted with you fucking him, and enthusiastically joining in the experience with you.
I imagine there is a sliding scale of opinion on this. Some would say if you are not planning to marry him and spend the rest of your lives together, then having sex with him is objectifying him. I would not agree with that.
For me, I'd say that once you start thinking of your partner's enjoyment, you're no longer objectifying.
One more point: You don't have to be unselfish every single time. I don't think it matters if you occasionally think of nothing but your own pleasure. Most guys would feel flattered to be "objectified" in the way that you described.
I think that it's only in certain circumstances (such as that pic) that I can relate to what it means to objectify someone.
To me, there's nothing hotter than people who are truly into each other and allowed to show some personality, but that's pretty rare in porn, especially among the men.
Mostly what I see is angry, chemically enhanced penis fucking machines and the submissives who love them, and this bores the shit out of me.
