I consider myself a feminist and enjoy porn. Rough, nasty porn, in fact. I think it's liberating and gives women "permission" to be sexual and experiment and do nasty things. I also find it empowering to see porn actresses having fun and really getting into the sex.
It helps me feel less "victimy" regarding sex. I think a common theme in our society is of a woman as a sexual victim and I find that very patronizing. It implies that women don't really want to have sex and need protection from sexual predators. But if you're a horny woman who wants to get fucked, you are made to feel ashamed for wanting that. There is this underlying assumption that all women in porn are victims being forced to make porn. This may be true in some cases but I think many are there because they like sex. And there's nothing wrong with that. As a feminist, you have to support a woman's right to choose to be a porn actress.
I think the anti-porn feminists tend to believe in the sisterhood of all women, as well as having a bit of a prudish streak. When another women does something that the anti-porn feminist would not do herself, she takes personal offense, seeing it as betrayal. Why, I have no idea. I knew one girl who once wrote in her blog when she was in a bad mood that she fantasized about stomping on a stripper. That's one reason why I don't associate with her much anymore.
Of course, there is some misogynistic porn out there. Though I think it is important to note that although a lot of the misogynistic porn is rough, not all rough porn is misogynistic.
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Apr 15 2007 : 2:51AM
It depends which branch of feminism you follow. Do you identify with Andrea Dworkin and Katherine McKinnon or with Naomi Wolf and Annie Sprinkle?
My 2 cents: I've always defined a liberal feminist as one who is working within the system. Meaning someone who is working towards legislation change, etc (friendly, but disappointed with the state). A radical is someone who wants to overthrow the whole system in general (let's smash the state). Then again, I've been told I'm a few waves behind the current state of feminism.
Just learn how to drive bitches. Christ, you're even taking our vehicles now! When is the last time you saw a man driving a Hummer? Exactly. *shakes fist*
When it comes to women feminists I believe there are those who hate men, and those who love women. Those who hate wants porn banned since it is traditionally men who enjoy it. Those who love wants women to be able to enjoy their sexuality in any way they like, including watching porn.
By banning porn, including the prostitution it contains, everyone in the business is being discriminated against, so feminists against porn wants to discriminate against women as long as men suffers too (even though way more women than men would be affected). As said, it's a personal vendetta that makes very little sense.
Some people have some messed up views of feminism. IIRC, to be a feminist means that you believe women are equal to men. That's it. To the original poster, check out some of bell hook's stuff. She (hooks) is someone who give white liberal women fits since they "will never get this down / understand this." The best part is hooks is this short woman from the Bronx. I had dinner with her as an undergrad. Short woman, strong voice, funny/charming as all hell, and wicked cool.
On the flip political side, Cornell West knows what's going on. Crap, I hope I'm not getting involved in one of those futile political threads here...you know those "boo/hoorah" threads where people drum out their political ideology and think, "I'm a winnar and am winning in these political threads." :/ Too funnay.
to clarify: a central tenet of Andrea Dworkin/Catherine MacKinnon style feminism was/is that all male-female sex consittutes rape.
In the 1980s, this led to the pair advocating the criminalization of all porn, and that women, including performers and non-performers claiming they had been harmed by porn, should be able to sue distributors/producers for violation of civil rights. This led to a very odd alliance with the religious right, in the sense that they would have had absolutely no other common goals.
Mackinnon also was engaged in the 80s and 90s to Jeffrey Masson, a dissident Freud scholar who had VERY different ideas about sexuality than she…
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Apr 15 2007 : 11:35AM
I'll take your word for how charming she can be at dinner but I have to strongly disagree with her politics. She is a professor of English at City College of New York. This is not a subject that requires personal politics to be applied in the classroom yet she feels that as an educator she has a "right as a subject in resistance to define reality"(University of Washington Diversity Fellows Dinner on March 2, 2005) and that teaching "is a performative act...my committment to engaged pedagogy is an expression of political activism." On the subject of English she has written "It is difficult not to hear in standard English always the sound of slaughter and conquest." (last two quotes from her book Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom)
She is really into resistance. The following is from her 2002 commencement address at Southwestern University.
"The radical, dissident voices among you have learned here at Southwestern how to form communities of resistance that have helped you find your way in the midst of life-threatening conservatism, loneliness, and the powerful forces of everyday fascism which use the politics of exclusion and ostracism to maintain the status quo. Eyery imperialist, white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal nation on the planet [just say the United States sister] teaches its citizens to care more about tomorrow than today...And the moment we do this, we are seduced by the lure of death...To live fixated on the future is to engage in psychological denial. It is a form of psychic violence that prepares us to accept the violence needed to ensure the maintenance of imperialist, future-oriented society."
I'm sorry but this sounds more like a speech written for a political debate rather than a graduation exercise. She has yet to explain how she was able to teach at Yale and the Sorbonne and become a highly prized and amply financially rewarded campus lecturer in this imperialist, white supremacist, patriarchal society of ours that disgusts her so much. The reality is were she truly living under the white supremacist, fascist, tyranny she has perceives she would have been "removed" and put in an unmarked grave long before ever getting the opportunity to voice these accusations nevermind getting to put them in print and go on public speaking and lecture tours.
edited to fix misspelled quote and to note the comments in brackets are mine
Edited by - the unknown pervert on 4/15/2007 11:38:41 AM
"But if you're a horny woman who wants to get fucked, you are made to feel ashamed for wanting that. There is this underlying assumption that all women in porn are victims being forced to make porn. This may be true in some cases but I think many are there because they like sex."
You said it. I dont know why women in porn should be ashamed, for what ? I never plaid in porn, but have a very diverse sex life. I liked sex with many men and many women, and I enjoyed it, when they exploded in my mouth and on my face. I also enjoyed golden shower games.
Conservative feminist say, this is the ultimate degrading of women. The woman is raped.
When I replied, that I wasnt raped, but I only like more extreme sexplays, they said, this only shows, how I adapted the "male brainwash procedures". I am talking not on my own free will, but am a victim of male-evil-porn-society.
When they heard, that I collected and watched porn, they were shocked. "Its as if a pig is watching pictures from the slaughterhouse with enjoyment. I am so sick, its almost hopeless to help me. I should visit a good psychiatrist."
Dont you hear this speeches in the USA from so-called religious leaders ? Isnt it ironic, that this part of the "women movement" goes hand in hand with the religious right and the Vatican ? Are these defenders of "women rights" ? I dont think so !
You can say what you want, either you are a victim, or you are mentally ill. The german leader of the feminists said last week in german TV : Women who are enjoying sex with more than one man are either brainwashed, forced to do this or drugged. They are treated like sex objects by the men. ( It only amazed me, that she found sex with ONE man acceptable. )
The ironic thing is, that these "feminists" are treating ME like an object. They ignore my free will, they ignore my sexuality and they ignore me as a person.
I think they better should call themselves "stalinists". I hope, that we all are able to give contra to these narrow minded so-called "speakers of women rights".
Opponents of feminism try and define feminist as man hating lesbians against men. I think in some cases this was true. But the majority just wanted fair treatment.
Some feminists have joined with the religious right for the sole purpose of controlling women’s sex. These feminists are saying men were right all a long women aren’t capable of making there on decisions. Women can’t be trusted so we have to make decisions for them.
All the rules society put on sex is aimed squarely at women. If called on it they will add “Oh and men too” but everyone knows it’s about women. Women are not allowed to publicly admit they like sex or porn.
I’ve heard a little bit about Sex Positive Feminist. I think this maybe the next generation of feminist. I think the young girls are watching porn on the Internet. Will demand equal rights with sex.
I think, probably, in the end, feminists are strongly opposed to porn. I see porn as very empowering to women (or at least it can be) but obviously, not everyone agrees.
Women are not mindless creatures that are easily to lead. It seems they take the best from the feminist, the thing that really make a different and throw the rest back.
I'm not sure what to make of your response to my post. I did not suggest that women were mindless creatures that are easy to lead. My point was that women are emotional creatures whose strong emotions sometimes get in the way of their reasoning.
I suppose if you really want to get technical, in that way, someone who knows this might easily lead certain women in which ever ways they desire. And if that someone happens to be someone who opposes porn, emotional (seemingly well-reasoned and yet ultimately, fraudulent) arguments in opposition of porn are extremely easy to make and surprisingly hard to counter.
For example, one might very easily make a sympathetic victim out of the 19 year old in the choke-fucking porn flick. And it's really hard to argue with that because anyone who isn't a fan of porn (and even some people who are) is going to take one look at that and just assume the girl can't possibly be enjoying it or doing it willingly (she must have been coerced, is doing it for fear she won't get more roles, etc). It's pretty much impossible to contrast this argument when you're dealing with someone whose tears will wash away all reason without looking like the big bad wolf.
Of course, I'm not saying all feminists feel this way but I've certainly talked to my fair share of those who do. I'm also aware that there are feminists who feel that porn can be a very good thing for women. I'm just not so sure that faction will be able to overcome the repeated surges of negativity that will come at them from all sides (not only from other feminists but from sources pretty much outside of feminism as well. Just people who hate porn for one reason or another).
Edited by - randomprecision on 4/16/2007 5:21:28 AM
There was always a pro-porn and pro-sex fraction in the feminist movement.
But it depends on the country. Scandinavian and dutch feminists were mostly pro-porn. This only changed in Sweden in the 90s, and is slowly changing in Denmark and Netherlands. ( I dont have the time at the moment to explain why, and I dont now, if this is interesting someone here. )
The USA were the root of the pro-porn feminists, but it was always a small fraction. But I think, they are on the rise. Look at all the attention the old Annie Sprinkles articles now get. Or Annabel Chong, etc. You can only transform these prejudices with intelligence. Traditional anti-porn feminist always thought, that pro-porn females were dumb and unintelligent.
Radical isnt only extreme left or extreme right. There are radical liberals too. ( They are strong in Denmark, weak in NL, I dont know their status in Norway. )
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - Apr 17 2007 : 9:49AM
"X1. The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it." 1845, Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, #11.
[Link]
Dither Persona non grata
I love America 650 Posts 8/05
Posted - Apr 17 2007 : 3:50PM
Damn, I was hoping for a catfight.;) Liberals as in "laissez-faire-capitalism-liberals" (libertarians/neoliberals) are generally considered as "extreme right" in Europe BTW, at least in Scandinavia. Pretty much the same situation in Norway as in Denmark, far left anarchists/anticapitalists pretty much rule the radical scene in urban areas.
Unk: being a professor of English is not the same as being an elementary school grammar teacher. So don't try to say that it is inappropriate for bell hooks to teach the subjects she does.
A comparison of chimpanzee and bonobo societies suggests that isolation provides the foundation of male supremacy.
The chimpanzee males dominate the hierarchy because the females operate separately, and a single female is no match for a single male.
On the other hand, by operating as a group, the bonobo females are able to withstand challenges from single males.
Interestingly enough, the female bonobos use sex as a social lubricant - casual sex is used in greeting/recognition much the way we use a handshake or an embrace (the original quickie?). The benefit there is believed to be two-fold - first, it helps ensure that no male knows which offspring is his and second, it keeps the males from fighting over access to females. It may also serve to control hormonal levels and help explain the reduced aggressive behavior in males.
"I guess you could say it's extremely vulgar; I like it a lot." 161 Posts 11/06
Posted - Apr 21 2007 : 1:24PM
I can't say I have given the matter a great deal of thought and, in general, I don't have much use for feminism. However, with respect, the above sounds like ridiculous cant. To believe that porn is empowering to women is to believe women in porn (or in a porn scene) when they say how much they just love giving BJs and taking facials, etc. That stuff is only said for the fantasy of the male viewer.
Almost all porn is about male fantasies and I think it is quite fair to call a lot of current porn misogynistic.
"Liberals as in "laissez-faire-capitalism-liberals" (libertarians/neoliberals) are generally considered as "extreme right" in Europe BTW, at least in Scandinavia."
The radical liberals ( or libertarians ) in Denmark arent neoliberals ( like in Germany ), but more social and more in the tradition of the 60s,70s ( civil rights, porn liberalisation etc.) I know it, because a girlfriend of me is a member of them. ( She is a former teen porn star )
The misogynists want women to feel bad for having sex outside of monogamy. One of their tactics has been to convince English-speakers that certain words, denoting sex outside of monogamy, have negative connotations, particularly the words "slut" and "whore". This tactic has been effective: women comfortable with the idea of non-monogamous sex still resent the word "slut"; women comfortable with the idea of trading sex for money still resent the word "whore".
Porn can be an antidote for the mysoginistic interpretation most people give to these words. People watching porn can see women having non-monogamous sex, sometimes for money, and see that it's not so bad as the myoginists would have us believe.
[Link]
Dither Persona non grata
I love America 650 Posts 8/05
Posted - Apr 22 2007 : 5:23PM
The kind of social liberals usually found in Scandinavia are often pro porn, drugs, free immigration etc., but they are certainly NOT libertarians by any stretch. They are often anti-capitalist, strongly in favour of progressive taxation and want limitations on exclusive material and intellectual ownership rights to combat corporate exploitation and limitation of civil liberties. They often favour exceedingly high taxes on property, and/or the right to expropriate property if deemed in the common interest. The most radical ones usually rally against the WTO, USA, free trade policies and join ATTAC or other left wing movements. The Radical Left (dk) and such would undoubtedly frown at being compared with libertarians, as in many ways they represent its complete antithesis. Noam Chomsky and his anarcho-syndicalism is usually highly regarded among them, capital-darwinistic libertarians like Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand are their nemesises. German neo-liberals as you refer to (like Freie Demokratische Partei) are much closer to US libertarians in advocating free trade capitalism and cutbacks in welfare and social protection, but neither they are libertarian in the american sense by any means.
By the way, since you so often mention Scandinavia, our feminist movement suffered a decline in my esteem today, as they managed to rally the Labour Party into voting "yes" to criminalize prostitution. With the feminists of the Socialist Left and the conservatives of the Christian People's Party constituting their very unusual compilation of bedfellows, they now have parliamentary majority and criminalization will be implemented at latest next year. This is following in the footsteps of Sweden, which criminalized prostitution in 1999. In practice it means that a fairly powerful pan-scandinavian network has been established to criminalize capitalisation of sex. It will be interesting to see if it fans out.
That is very sad news. Your part of the world has been an inspiration to the rest of us because of your support for civil rights. It is a great shame to see the forces of bigotry seizing control in this way.
But the misogynists are of 2 minds. They hate the slut, yet they will part with money, which they love the most, to have her. It's similar to slavery. The slave, though owned, is highly valuable. A man wants women to feel bad for having sex outside of monogamy...unless she's having sex with him. Then he wants her to love it. It's all about controlling. Do what I want when I want it. Let me live the life and reap the benefits of moral superiority in my community, and at the same time let me slake my lust. Let me pop my hot nut, then give me the sweet privilege of getting rid of you at my whim.
What Jeffreys is saying in Orgasm Politics is that truly radical feminism will put forth a new format of sexuality that is different from the dominant/submissive format that's as old as patriarchy itself. Porn doesn't set forth a new format. Porn is not revolutionary, it's simply rebellious. The current Porn industry doesn't make new rules, it merely breaks the old rules without changing them.
I think Jeffreys would say that watching porn is no different than buying a live prostitute. Porn doesn't salve the mysoginist bent, she might say, because prostitution has existed for a great long while, but it's never lessened misogyny. Maybe what porn does, as a mass media, is the opposite of what you suggest, Thomas. Maybe porn salves the *guilt* of the misogynist, not his misogyny.
Jeffreys puts forth the idea that porn's mass distribution of the same old sexuality has not and will not liberate us.
It's a complex issue getting the wrong response. The catalyst for this, and also the swedish 1999-ban, is human trafficking. A majority of our prostitutes are smuggled in from eastern Europe or Africa and live under horrendous conditions, in the physical but even more psychological sense. So there has been a rise in popular demands to do something about this issue (rightfully so, I think). The christian conservatives will jump at anything that counters sexual liberation and the feminists think everything ultimately is the man's fault and can be attributed to the male craving for domination, so they have opted to criminalize the purchasing of sex, targeting the male customer (the prostitute will not be commiting a crime). I think it's wrong because they should rather have put more resources into countering the organized crime that is behind human trafficking and what is rightfully described as modern day slave trade.
On this subject, I highly recommend the swedish movie Lilja 4-ever, that is one of the most heartbreaking stories ever made on film. A very emotionally strong movie.
He appears sincere, but his words seem dishonest to me.
First he gives a false definition of "gonzo" as a porn genre.
Second he creates a massive and indefensible "straw man" argument. He does this by focusing on one particular small niche in porn, that he knows will offend his target audience, then claiming by implied association that all porn movies are the same as the one he described. Clearly, those of us who have seen other movies know this is not the case.
His argument, therefore, is one that can be effective only on an ignorant audience. He must surely know this, yet rather than striving to make that audience better informed, he uses disinformation to make them distressed and angry, for the furtherance of his own agenda.
Given all that, I find his tone of wounded innocence offensive.
You're right...but maybe it's *just* the illusion that the misogynist wants. Kimi was mentioning in another thread that despite many of her clients *wanting* to please her, they just don't do what it takes 90% of the time. Maybe what the misogynist wants is the woman to enjoy him doing whatever he wants. Maybe the misogynist wants the woman to enjoy that he's getting his nut while not doing the work it takes to help her get hers. "Look babydoll, I want you to orgasmically enjoy this blowjob you're giving me." It's the old "clit in the throat" theory.
It doesn't surprise me at all. At the beggining of the women's movement, owning our sexuality and giving ourselves permission to enjoy sex was a big part of what we were fighting for. It seems as time has passed, feminist have split into two major groups, sex positive feminists and man hating feminists. Let's get real for a second, sex is something that our bodies were made to enjoy. Men are visual creatures by nature and therefore buy the majority of porn, but women can be just as visual... we just don't admit it... or won't admit it to our partner for embarrassments sake. It still amazes me, that we're so shy when it comes to speaking up about what we like and don't like almost 40 years after the 'sexual revolution' began. I AM encouraged, however, by the newest generation of adult women. They seem no to give a fuck so much about how others will perceive them... now if we can just give them a healthy dose of self esteem, they could own the planet.
[Link]
Dither Persona non grata
I love America 650 Posts 8/05
Posted - Apr 23 2007 : 1:24PM
If that is an attempt to play down the problem of human trafficking, I'm not with you at all. Of course you'll always find someone that does it out of free will, but a lot of these women are victims of the most disturbing crimes. There has been unveiled cases where they have been locked up in basements like caged animals, not even knowing where on earth they were and never let out, living with constant death threats and having to endure dozens of abusive clients every single day. The nigerian prostitutes that have "invaded" Oslo over the last few years will do you for almost less than it costs to buy a beer and a burger, they appear beyond desperate. Human trafficking is disguisting and utterly tragic and something that has to be dealt with. But placing a ban on the purchase of sex is IMO not a good solutions. Even the prostitutes themselves decry it. They will just be shipped off to another country to serve there instead. And the clients will travel too. The problem is swept under the rug, or sent off elsewhere, but it is not eliminated by any means. The Germans have been more constructive in dealing with this, giving their prostitutes legal rights and protection. The market for sex will never go away, I think you need to establish a legal alternative. Most people with a normal consciousness will go for the legal alternative if given a choice, even if it is more expensive. There should have been established brothels forced to submit to strict governmental supervision, to ensure that those working there, who would probably be eastern europeans in any case, would not be victims of human trafficking or under slave contracts. And better international police efforts must be made, to stop the influx of people shipped around as slaves.Yes, I think so too.Probably. It should be mentioned that our christian conservatives are often very affectionate of human values, welfare, environmentalism and promoting peace, and that they are generally not considered as belonging to the far right in politics (free market liberals are considered far right), but I know what you're getting at. The same women who once went in parades demonstrating for the right to orgasm, for women's equal right to casual sex, for gay rights and so forth, are in this joining forces with the same ones they demonstrated against. And the christian conservatives are such weasels. They are so marginal, usually hovering well below 10% in popular support, but for aeons they have been in position to tip the parliament to the left or to the right at their liking. Today's parliament has a left wing majority, but two decades in this balancing position has given them sustainable influence nevertheless.
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Apr 23 2007 : 1:42PM
Seems like he o.d. on sensitivity training. I've never met a man in my life who followed the sentence "I need a drink" by ordering a glass of wine.
BTW Jensen was critical of Fahrenheit 9/11. He was critical in that he felt it was too conservative. He also has endorsed Ward Churchill's remarks about the victims of 9/11 being "little Eichmanns". He has also urged that "God condemn America, so the world might live."
He is a journalism professor at the University of Texas. He has nothing in his academic resume that qualifies him to be an expert in the fields of socialogy or women's studies.
You forgot to mention, that prostitution is illegal, but porn acting is legal in Sweden.
I am not against prostitution, but I knew quite a few pro-porn feminists who are agains prostitution, but for porn acting. Because these are 2 totally different things. Porn star ARENT prostitutes. Prostitutes are 99,99% only in for the money, they prostitute theirself, because they need the money. For porn, there are very, very more reasons to play in it. Often it is money, but not always. I know 5 girls who were in porn ( 1 DK, 4 here in NL ), who didnt it for the money. Two of them very "rich girls" and had everything, money wasnt their reason to play in porn. The first liked sex before a camera and being watched, the second saw this as a form to revolt against conservative parents.
Second point, in prostitution, there are no HIV Test, there is the danger, that some "customer" would harm or even kill you. etc. So I can understand, that you are AGAINST prostitution, but PRO porn.
Another member said, that porn are always male fantasies. This isnt true also. I watch quite a lot of porn, and my female fantasies are satisfied too.
[Link]
Dither Persona non grata
I love America 650 Posts 8/05
Posted - Apr 23 2007 : 3:59PM
I am pro porn and pro prostitution. Women and men alike should have the right and ability to pursue their interests and desires, as long as this does not imply the infliction of harm upon or exploitation of others. And they should have the right to do this without facing condemnation from any moral police. I am definitely a moral relativist and egalitarianist, I also strongly believe freedom mandates social protection and wealth redistribution to ensure egoism and ruthlessness are not encouraged as the forces to make people thrive, and to counter the darwinist tendency we as animals have to form social and proprietary hierarchies. The sad reality is that prostitution in many cases is an illegit and mafia-driven industry that more often than not is based upon exactly exploitation, and usually harm, of other people. Prohibition is as I see it not the solution however. Society needs to be supportive and open, enabling this to evolve as a legit and respected way of life, because the demand will never go away. In that regard, porn has come a lot further en route to social acceptance than prostitution has, and this is probably the chief reason for why the porn industry, when it comes down to it, is a lot more legit and humane than the prostitution industry. I am not really interested in philosophizing about whether acting in porn is technically a form of prostitution or not, because as far as I am concerned they are both respectable choices that neither I nor the greater community has any right to condemn. Consequently the fact that prostitution will be criminalized saddens me. Not because I think it is a merry-go-round that eastern european women jump on for joy and pleasure, but because it is the wrong way to go in establishing prostitution as a socially respectable way of life, thus normalizing and humanizing the way it is dealt with, both from its participants and the greater community.
I think that's way too subtle for your average misogynist meathead.
A misogynist hates women. He either wants to hurt and distress them, or just plain doesn't give a damn. The sort of emotional degradation you suggest wouldn't occur to one in ten thousand. Most of those guys would have trouble with getting the concept that a woman has any feelings at all.
The men who need an escort to pretend to enjoy sex are those who really do want her to enjoy it and feel good. If she looks bored or uncomfortable, it destroys any chance of them getting pleasure from the experience. I know men who have paid their money and then walked away without ejaculating because of this type of encounter.
Kimi said this applies to 90 percent of the men she sees. These men are not seeking an illusion. They want her pleasure to be real. If they can't have real, they want at least the chance to believe it is real for a few minutes.
Thanks for your views, finally a real feminist here.
"At the beggining of the women's movement, owning our sexuality and giving ourselves permission to enjoy sex was a big part of what we were fighting for."
Yes, these were the roots of the feminist movement, as my mother had told me. I have a film, where women protested against a porn convention in Copenhagen, because they werent admitted to get in ( excluding models and professionals of course ). After a few hours, he lifted the ban and all women could enter.
"It seems as time has passed, feminist have split into two major groups, sex positive feminists and man hating feminists."
I am glad, that until the turning of the millennium, the dutch women movement was mainly PRO-porn. In a strange way, they conserved the 68s until the late 90s here. Sadly this changed in the last years.
"I AM encouraged, however, by the newest generation of adult women."
This may be the trend in the USA and UK. But in NL its turning back.
I think much more women are aroused by "normal" porn, but they feel ashamed and dont admit it.
A video clerk in Germany told me, that he has a female customer that enters the store in the last minute, when he wants to close it. The he "throws out" all customers, so that she can look for a few minutes alone in the "adult section". Then she rents a few porn flicks, but she is really cautious that nobody is watching her. Many women fear - godwhoknowswhat - if drooling in the porn section with so many men.
I have to strongly disagree. Porn CAN be empowering to women. But most (U.S.) porn today isnt, at least not for quantitative numbers.
"To believe that porn is empowering to women is to believe women in porn (or in a porn scene) when they say how much they just love giving BJs and taking facials, etc. That stuff is only said for the fantasy of the male viewer."
Surely this is overdone, especially in the US productions. All this talking : " Ill love to be covered with cum etc. " This is - mostly - set up. Our dutch girls dont talked about, but just did it. But to say, that women dont enjoy blowjobs or facials.... this is nonsense too. I enjoy this too, and know other girls/women who enjoy it. Anti-porn feminists often say, "only women who are poor/mentally ill/asocial/surpressed/forced/drugged do this".
But I was never drugged - if you dont count the power drink Red Bull as a "drug" - nor forced or raped.
"Almost all porn is about male fantasies" most is, but there are women who have "male" fantasies, there are porn movies that transcend "couple" fantasies, there are porn movies that have "female" fantasies.
"lot of current porn misogynistic." this is true, but this is a totally different point.
A tip : "Look at the Sweethearts from Europe" DVDs, from the Netherlands. Even if these movies dont have the high quality of our old Videos - which are illegal in the States because they arent § 2257 compliant - you will get an impression of porn that isnt "for males only".
