Is Porn Bad for You?

[semper occultus]

yeah - I'm reaching...sounds marginally more snigger-worthy than it reads to the average 12 yr old...

[vanlose kid]

*


i also think, and i may be wrong, that to a certain extent you among others are conflating pornography as AD is using the term with all and everything that can be placed under that term, and not taking into account what AD specifically means when she uses the word.

As far as I alone am concerned, I am completely confident that I know exactly what she places under that term, as a result of having been comprehensively and thoroughly familiar with her work on the subject for more than twenty years. So yes. You may be and are wrong.

i think she's pretty clear on this,

And you base that on what exactly? Having just stumbled across a softball Q&A Michael Moorcock did with her in 1995, plus some or all of the part of the introduction to one of her books in which she compares herself to Frederick Douglass, who -- as you may or may not recall -- opposed slavery and not minstrel shows?

I mean, I too think she's pretty clear on that. Exceedingly clear. Crystal clear. And yet, we seem to have a very different understanding of what she clearly and tirelessly advocated.

i mean, i don't think she wants her own books (the literary stuff) or stuff like Nabokov or Joyce burned. but then again i think you know that. so ... i don't know. would it help to say the porn industry? some parts of the porn industry? what Mike Moorcock says about "what porn says"? you draw the lines. i don't and can't so far see that AD was against freedom of expression. then again, maybe i just can't see what you can?

Either address the arguments I made or stop addressing me as if they had less bearing on my position than her not having intended to have her own books banned does.

Thank you so very much. And peace to you too. I do always enjoy your pretty ways.

edit: formatting and typos.

ps: maybe we need to define our terms?

*

I've defined mine. But in the event that you ever get around to quoting or responding to any substantive points I've raised, please let me know if you have any questions about their meaning.

ok, we read these things differently. you are the expert on Dworkin. you win. as for my "pretty" ways, they're not as pretty as yours, for sure. ta.

*

[Simulist]

"Almost half"? Oh, so women couldn't be offended because it's impossible for them to feel empathy with men, is that what you're saying? OR are their tiny brains just incapable of recognising hateful bullshit, is that your position?

No, Stephen, that is not what I'm saying. Those might be your conclusions, but they are certainly not mine.

[Simulist]

and i realized, or remembered, that this is not a biological, scientific, or essentialist argument. it's a cultural one. "In this society..." is not a universal generalization, it's a particular claim about a particular culture's particular way of seeing, understanding, defining the concept "man". and it does make sense. it's actually quite accurate.

To a degree it is accurate, but it is a gross generalization even "in this society."

Even from the point of view of "this society," the claim that "men have no other criteria for worth" than "the possession of a phallus" is false.

[vanlose kid]

and i realized, or remembered, that this is not a biological, scientific, or essentialist argument. it's a cultural one. "In this society..." is not a universal generalization, it's a particular claim about a particular culture's particular way of seeing, understanding, defining the concept "man". and it does make sense. it's actually quite accurate.

To a degree it is accurate, but it is a gross generalization even "in this society."

Even from the point of view of "this society," the claim that "men have no other criteria for worth" than "the possession of a phallus" is false.

it is a gross generalization if she meant to generalize over all (biological) men. if she is then she is then there is something to saying that she's off her rocker. but from my reading of her and from the little i know of her life which i've picked up over the past few days, i wouldn't be prepared to say emphatically that she is.

as for "the claim that 'men have no other criteria for worth' than 'the possession of a phallus' is false", as a factual claim, certainly. as a rhetorical bit of shorthand hyperbole that ties the superiority of this certain subset of men who do think in this manner, and i do think they exist, to their possession of a penis, it's a bit clunky but does it's job.

for what it's worth though i'll say this: 1) if ADworkin is as insane as some claim she is then there would be no point in me arguing against it; 2) if however she isn't as insane as some claim she is then likewise there would be no point in arguing against it. that's my position, basically.

and as far as i can tell, there are some things she has said that even those who are certain she is insane approve of. seems to me at least that there might be some common ground there. if that means anything.

*

[Simulist]

I don't think Dworkin was insane either; what's more, I think she was right about many things, just as she was also terribly wrong about many things, too.

[vanlose kid]

I don't think Dworkin was insane either; what's more, I think she was right about many things, just as she was also terribly wrong about many things, too.

then i might find out as i go along. as of now i haven't seen it yet, but as i said, for me, it's early days. don't think i can be held accountable for what she was wrong about though.

*

[BrandonD]

Cocaine is illegal. Diazepam, though equally hazardous to one's health (many would say more hazardous since it has caused significantly more deaths in recent years), is perfectly legal with a prescription.

However, the criminalization and cultural stigmas built around cocaine gives it quite the aura of evil. Cocaine "dealers" must live in the shadows as criminals, while diazepam is sold in your brightly lit neighborhood walgreens. The dealer lives in danger from the authorities, and thus could possibly carry a gun. Follow the string of logic and it's clear that cocaine is seen as disproportionately evil through little fault of the actual drug itself, but because of the distorted lens of cultural perception.

Pornography is in a similar position as cocaine in the example. I fail to see how pornography is any worse for humans than depictions of graphic violence on the television. I would even argue that depictions of violence is much worse. But as anyone knows, the most graphic and disgusting depictions of violence are allowed on even ordinary non-cable TV, while on that same program a woman's nipple is considered "indecent" and not allowed to be shown. Doesn't this seems strange? My girlfriend doesn't have cable TV just the regular "antenna" kind, and I recently saw a computer recreation of a bullet ripping through someone's head on a crime solving show.

In a society without the christian residue, where nudity and sex were not seen as "evil", this subject would be seen in an ENTIRELY different way.

[blanc]

C2W I didn't say this:

"You seem to be saying that rape-not-committed-for-pornography is categorically a lesser offense than rape-that-is-committed-for-pornography. And you also seem to be saying that rape-not-committed-for-pornography is merely a predicate act that precedes its inevitable seamless transition to rape-that-is-committed-for-pornography.

Please correct me if that's wrong. But on an interim basis, since the only one other reason for drawing a distinction between rape-prior-to-transition and rape-for-pornography that I can think of at all would be some kind of free-standing objection to pornography on non-rape-related grounds that you haven't made, I'm going to assume that you are at least saying that rape-for-pornography can be more traumatic than rape-not-for-pornography.

If so, I can't and don't argue with what you're saying.

However, the least that you really do seem to be saying is:

* that all rape-for-pornography is more traumatic than all rape not-for-pornography

* that all rape-not-for-pornography naturally progresses to rape-for-pornography; and

* that all or most pornography depicts real acts of rape or -- at a minimum -- cannot be proven not to"

I avoid making comparisons between rapes as in this one is worse than that one.

I'd really prefer it if you didn't expand what I write into your interpretation of it, but rather asked me to clarify specific bits if they're not clearly written. This is because it takes me far longer to unravel what you are writing when you have made a construct out of my original statements and proceed to pull the construct to pieces. The second piece which VK quoted contains three brief 'biographies' notated 3,4,5 which are pretty typical of the relationship between rape and pornography in so far as I have come across survivor experiences. That is, its pretty seamless.

then this

"Stop attributing vile and reprehensible beliefs and positions to me that I've never expressed or owned.

I know you can do it. "

I haven't attributed vile and reprehensible beliefs and positions to you which you have never expressed or owned. As above, if you don't understand what I mean in any part of my posts please ask for clarification rather than going off on one, at length.

[vanlose kid]

Cocaine is illegal. Diazepam, though equally hazardous to one's health (many would say more hazardous since it has caused significantly more deaths in recent years), is perfectly legal with a prescription.

However, the criminalization and cultural stigmas built around cocaine gives it quite the aura of evil. Cocaine "dealers" must live in the shadows as criminals, while diazepam is sold in your brightly lit neighborhood walgreens. The dealer lives in danger from the authorities, and thus could possibly carry a gun. Follow the string of logic and it's clear that cocaine is seen as disproportionately evil through little fault of the actual drug itself, but because of the distorted lens of cultural perception.

Pornography is in a similar position as cocaine in the example. I fail to see how pornography is any worse for humans than depictions of graphic violence on the television. I would even argue that depictions of violence is much worse. But as anyone knows, the most graphic and disgusting depictions of violence are allowed on even ordinary non-cable TV, while on that same program a woman's nipple is considered "indecent" and not allowed to be shown. Doesn't this seems strange? My girlfriend doesn't have cable TV just the regular "antenna" kind, and I recently saw a computer recreation of a bullet ripping through someone's head on a crime solving show.

In a society without the christian residue, where nudity and sex were not seen as "evil", this subject would be seen in an ENTIRELY different way.

well, if all porn could be reduced to nudity and/or sex, that would make sense. but it doesn't so it doesn't.

as a side note, i don't think anyone here's arguing that position. at least i amn't. so.

*

[Wombaticus Rex]

Via: http://www.smittenkittenonline.com/blog ... anny-wylde

I don’t know how this usually works. Really, I don’t. The coffee shop romance, the cubicle affair; this stuff is outside of my experience. It’s in the realm of the unreal for me.

But, I play out these scenarios all the time. I’ve been an office manager, an interior designer, a high end photographer, and a pool boy. Each time I seem to fuck something up. And each time, the client still sucks my cock.

Porn is the purveyor of happy endings. I’m the guy who always gets the girl. It’s just that come tomorrow, someone else gets her too.

In the world of machismo, it’s not so bad. I can fuck a few hundred women and never look back. But the hopeless romantic still resides in me. Every once in a while he’ll stick his head up. He’ll tell me this whole thing is a sham.

Its a bit more complicated than that though. Sometimes that side of me is wrong.

I sat on set with a girl I’d only met twice before. The first time, I thought she was cute. The second, easy enough to talk to. By the third, I just wanted to fuck. And afterwards, well…with some people, fucking’s not really enough.

A few months spent together and I still hadn’t got my fill. By that time, I had to admit it. I was in love.

Today my heart’s in the same place. I’m still riding that high that every couple wants to last forever.

Other people can be a problem though. And I guess it’s not much of a problem, sometimes things are just complicated.

“Like how do you deal with it? Knowing your girl is going to work to get fucked…” Someone asked me this on the phone, someone I’m sort-of friends with.

“Well, I do the same thing. Maybe if I didn’t, things would be different. Besides, if you take away all that societal conditioning, I don’t think it’s that difficult to get over. I mean, sexual monogamy is cultural, right?”

Sure, but I’m from the United States, raised Christian, and subject to the same media as every other post-modern kid. Sexual monogamy is part of my culture. Sometimes it feels like a part of my brain.

Scratch that. Jealousy is a part of my brain. Not monogamy.

We’re at a convention and I’m watching her from twenty yards away. “Some day I want to be able to yell at motherfuckers for groping my girlfriend,” I joke.

The person I’m talking to smiles, maybe laughs. So does the guy with his arm around her.

She looks like she’s supposed to: cute, available, fuckable, whatever. Still, she walks back and kisses me. Our arms are around each other. It’s obvious we’re together.

The guy doesn’t look upset. His attention is drawn elsewhere. He was just expressing his admiration. She was networking.

“I think you have to be a certain type of person, or just learn to make it work. But when you love someone, you should be happy when they’re successful. You should love the fact that they can make money doing something they enjoy.

“Like, your girlfriend works at Starbucks, right? She probably hates every yuppie she serves an Espresso to. And she’s getting paid what?.”

This guy says, “I don’t know. Not very much.” And he makes a face that means he still doesn’t get it.

Sometimes it’s hard to determine whether these issues are real. Other people bring them up. But when I’m with her, it’s not something I think about all that much.

I guess it was weird the first time my ex showed me one of her videos. Somewhere along the line, she mentioned that her scene partner was “Male Performer of the Year.” So I was watching her get fucked by the industry-standard best guy at fucking.

Still, she was in bed with me, showing me stuff she liked or was good at. She was trying to impress me. If we were in high school, she could have played me an acoustic cover of her favorite ballad. Maybe I wouldn’t be that into it. But I’d still listen. Something about it would still make me smile.

The jealousy’s just a way to feel sorry for myself, or pretend that I’m not enough. But apart from moguls and tycoons, no one’s enough to keep their partner from going to work.

Love is grand and all, but without money, it’s hard to do that sappy shit like cuddle up in the back booth of a restaurant or go see a movie you don’t actually want to watch. And I like doing those things.

I also like having sex for a living. So it’s not hard to imagine that my girlfriend does too. If she did something else, people would still get her attention. She’d just give it in some other way.

At the end of the day, it’s a job. I’m human, so I get jealous and protective, and whatever. I also light up when I see this girl is happy. Porno romance or not, it works.

To the interrogators, the other people: it’s really not so bad. I get the girl in the movies, then come home and it’s for real.

[BrandonD]

well, if all porn could be reduced to nudity and/or sex, that would make sense. but it doesn't so it doesn't.

as a side note, i don't think anyone here's arguing that position. at least i amn't. so.
*

Um, I don't think you're really arguing any position except the defense of Dworkin. I'm not really interested in her opinions, the title of this thread is "Is porn bad for you?" which is what I was talking about, and not "What do you guys think about this Dworkin person?" She is clearly very controversial and *more importantly* she is not here to clarify her words or defend her points, so I don't see why her material is worth discussing any further.

Maybe we can get back to our own personal thoughts and feelings on the subject, which I think might make this thread interesting and civilized again.

[compared2what?]

C2W I didn't say this:

"You seem to be saying that rape-not-committed-for-pornography is categorically a lesser offense than rape-that-is-committed-for-pornography. And you also seem to be saying that rape-not-committed-for-pornography is merely a predicate act that precedes its inevitable seamless transition to rape-that-is-committed-for-pornography.

You are so very right. You did not say it. I said it. By way of explaining to you what you seemed to be saying, while asking politely for corrections.

Maybe you missed this part:

Please correct me if that's wrong. But on an interim basis, since the only one other reason for drawing a distinction between rape-prior-to-transition and rape-for-pornography that I can think of at all would be some kind of free-standing objection to pornography on non-rape-related grounds that you haven't made, I'm going to assume that you are at least saying that rape-for-pornography can be more traumatic than rape-not-for-pornography.

Or maybe you just couldn't unravel it.

I'd really prefer it if you didn't expand what I write into your interpretation of it, but rather asked me to clarify specific bits if they're not clearly written.

Okay. I'll do that. And I'll also compile a list of all such questions I've already asked without receiving any response from you.

But just to start with the posts presently under discussion, here's a do-over, custom-tailored per your specifications. For your ease of reading, I've broken it down into five short, easy-to-read steps. But if there's anything too tangled for you to puzzle out, please don't hesitate to let me know.

STEP ONE:

You said you wanted to explain something to me about this:

All of them say quite plainly that they were raped, abused, prostituted and otherwise violently coerced into having sex against their will by their fathers, stepfathers, uncles, stepbrothers and pimps, sometimes for pornographic purposes. One of them also says explicitly that she was enslaved and imprisoned, and I take it as granted that the other two were as well. I don't doubt that any of them are telling the truth, or that there are many women whose truth they represent. They were not injured by pornography. They were injured by men who committed multiple violent and sexual criminal offenses against them and -- presumably -- got away with it, as many violent sexual criminals who prey on their dependents do.

Was that too tangled to unravel? Sorry. Here. I'll reduce it to one simple point that can be stated in one short declarative sentence, using only words of two syllable or fewer:

These women say they were raped and abused by men they knew, sometimes for porn and sometimes not.

STEP TWO:

Most of your explanation was about child pornography:

Naively, when I first began to become aware of what has been happening for so long now, I thought the information I had would easily be sufficient to locate the films made with the suffering of the child victims I was particularly concerned about. 3 separate law enforcement officers, all quite senior, one Norwegian, one British, one American, and all concerned on a regular basis with these crimes, put me straight about this. The precise details of the room, the wardrobe with the contrast beading, the bookshelves, the position of the beds, windows, doors, the colour of the carpet and the rug covering the blood stain, not a lot of help. I thought I must have hit paydirt with a photo of an original, one off garment used in one of the scenarios, I was even more sure I had when one of the victims got some tailor made soft porn spam about it sent to her private email after the (corrupt) police force dealing with this was informed about its existence, but even that was no help because although they showed it at an international conference of law enforcement officers to see if anyone had come across it, the answer was basically the same - with thousands of new images hitting the net continuously, no-one could recall this one. Remember Wonderland? Just one of the many much publicised busts of exchangers of paedophile pornography - which actually did not manage to root out more than a handful of perpetrators. I saw some of the faces of the children, just a few hundred of them. Is that enough? There are no reliable stats, no reliable research into the connection between pornography and the criminal assaults and murder which sustain it because, for one thing, there's just too much of it, and too few people who care enough to do anything about it.

But I hadn't said anything about child pornography at all. And I'd clearly said I had zero-tolerance for it elsewhere.

So I don't understand what explanatory point you were trying to make there.

Could you clarify what you were trying to say to (or about) me with it?

STEP THREE

Some of your explanation was about how much porn involves rape or other criminal acts.

How many acts available on internet porn sites are criminal? Do you know, does anybody know? Can anyone reliably determine, by looking alone, all of which are criminal and all of which are not?

But I hadn't said or suggested that rape and other criminal acts in porn were rare anywhere in the passage you quoted. In fact, I'd said:

I don't doubt that any of them are telling the truth, or that there are many women whose truth they represent.

Further, while I didn't say anything about porn as a criminal enterprise in that particular quote, I had said quite clearly and directly that it was elsewhere. In fact, I'd said it several times in posts addressed to you. Here, for example:

So. Once again. I have zero tolerance for the abuse and enslavement of men, women and children in the porn industry, because I have zero tolerance for the abuse and enslavement of men, women and children. The contemporary porn industry is largely an organized criminal enterprise, much like -- and pretty closely related to -- the contemporary drug trafficking industry, in which the abuse and enslavement of men, women and children is likewise routine.

So I don't understand what explanatory point you were trying to make there.

Could you clarify what you were trying to say to (or about) me with it?

STEP FOUR

One sentence of your explanation was about the situation of women who are sometimes raped for porn, and sometimes not for porn. That was the very same thing that I had written about. So I took it to be what you wanted to explain to me about what I had written.

That sentence read:

The practical situation of rape prior to and for pornography is usually seamless.

STEP FIVE

That confused me.

I asked myself what it might explain.

It couldn't have been simply that these women were sometimes raped for porn and sometimes not for porn.

Because that was what I'd just said.

Indeed, it only differed from what I had just said in that you drew an explicit distinction between rape prior to and for pornography.

So.

If you "avoid making comparisons between rapes as in this one is worse than that one," what were you trying to explain to me about the situation of women who are sometimes raped for porn and sometimes not?

Because that's not clear to me at all. Unless, maybe...Hmm. Let me review your post for additional and potentially illuminating remarks.

Wait! Was it something like this?

The second piece which VK quoted contains three brief 'biographies' notated 3,4,5 which are pretty typical of the relationship between rape and pornography in so far as I have come across survivor experiences. That is, its pretty seamless.

Were you trying to explain to me that the relationship between rape and pornography is seamless? Two parts of one indivisible whole? Was that it?

If so, I don't understand how that isn't a conflation of pornography and rape. Because it is one. If that's wrong, could you please clarify it?
______________________


So. Please take as much time as you need. Clarify yourself one point at a time, if you prefer. Feel free to use as much scratch paper as you like.

Thanks again for your candor and grace.

ON EDIT: Multiple typos and missing words fixed, my apologies.

[compared2what?]

I'd like to explain something to you, blanc.

I abhor rape under all circumstances, including pornographic circumstances. Because it's always rape. Rape is a deplorably under-reported and under-prosecuted crime. Its real prevalence is either misunderstood or poorly understood by most people, in part because their are a lot of moral crusaders out there who don't want anyone to think or talk about it in any way that doesn't advance their sundry causes.

I don't really know what they hope to gain by that, quite frankly. It seems to me that such an approach can only lead to more confusion, not more clarity.

That's not something I'd like to explain to you about anything you wrote, btw. It's just something I'd like to explain to you.

[compared2what?]

and as far as i can tell, there are some things she has said that even those who are certain she is insane approve of. seems to me at least that there might be some common ground there. if that means anything.

There are definitely some things she said about pornography that I do agree with. And have agreed with. On this thread.

Yet Andrea Dworkin and I do not meaningfully share any common ground. Because I do not agree that the aims she was pursuing when she said the things I agree with were justified by them. Or by anything else. Her agenda was dangerous. The parts of it that she succeeded in realizing did real harm. And there isn't really anything she said that many other, less seriously flawed thinkers haven't also said. As one might expect, since a lot of what she said was pretty boilerplate feminist rhetoric. When you get right down to it.

Anyway. I don't see why this whole partial-agreement-without-real-common-ground thing should be such an outlandish or difficult-to-process concept, really.

I mean, there are definitely some things the Women's Christian Temperance Movement lobbied for that I agree were worth lobbying for. Women's suffrage, for example. But since their lobbying for women's suffrage wasn't due to their commitment to political independence for women, but rather to the prohibition campaign's need for female voters, I and the women's temperance movement don't really have any meaningful common ground.

And they too sincerely sought to protect women from socially sanctioned iniquity and injury.

So it's really a pretty good fit, as analogies go.