|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The government, porn and censorship
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
This writer has a a few interesting comments on the filter.
He makes the point that anti-filtering technology will be enhanced by people immediately figuring out ways to get around the opt-in system.
I think the techies are loving this, as they will have a good market in teaching people how to set up proxy breakers, VPNs, and so on; not that they're that difficult to do. Most kids will work it out in about ten minutes.
And probably private porn networks will proliferate - I suppose privatization is a Tory hard-on!
I think people in the Middle East use this stuff to get around internet blocks. Maybe China as well.
Last year, I did switch on my broadband's filter, not to stop porn, but I'd had a horrible malware attack. However, the filter was appalling, and proceeded to block tons of innocent stuff, and slowed everything down. Absolutely useless.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There is an interesting argument that Christianity (and other religions) have contributed to the development of porn.
The argument is roughly like this: Christianity has viewed sex and the human body with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it has celebrated sex in marriage, but none the less, feelings of fear, shame and guilt have surrounded sexual feelings and sexual activity.
Thus, such feelings and fantasies have been repressed. Freud has the interesting phrase 'the return of the repressed', which means roughly that although you can shove stuff down into the unconscious, and forget it, it always comes back to you.
Hence, porn shows the return of the stuff, which religions have repressed.
This is expressed fairly crudely, and leaves out more refined arguments - for example, it is arguable that concealment is linked to revealing - for example, that clothing both conceals and reveals; hence, you could argue that hiding something is part of the sexual charge, (or if you like, that repression valorizes). Well, OK, but this does't affect the main argument.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The BBFC is not the government. They don't also control the police and armed forces, and they have no jurisdiction over anything other than movies. To compare the two is ludicrous.
Sounds like you're imagining the government will do the porn classification and banning themselves. As though Dave has nothing better to do than sit writing algorithms and rating websites. I'm not sure why you're labouring under this misunderstanding. The way it will work in the UK is to get the industry to regulate themselves with a non-governmental organisation. This is how it currently works with films, video games and television. It's the go-to model with all industry regulations and from Dave's actions recently it looks like he's aiming for exactly the same model for the internet, if he can ever get any agreement on it.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And by the way, they don't censor films, they merely give them a rating that says which age group is allowed to watch.
And they censor films by either rating them R - to only be sold in licensed sex shops, or by not awarding them a rating, making it illegal to sell them entirely.
For more information on the BBFC and their own dealings with the wonderful world of sex and censorship, read this article from Empire Film magazine.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hawk,
The conversation has been going on for centuries. Nothing has changed.
This is not about ending pornography, the sex-slave trade or anything else. Except cheap, political points.
I'm pretty sure lots of things have changed in the last couple of centuries, especially in regards to sex and censorship. The invention of the internet has changed things even more. I'm really not sure what you mean here.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yet Dave already seems to be exempting various kinds of images, such as page 3 girls, written porn such as '50 Shades', and presumably the Daily Mail brand of 'oops, here's an actress with her bra falling off' article.
I guess then that Dave is working with some kind of criteria in mind - I wonder if he is going to share them with us?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
Of course, it's quite possible that there won't be an agreed standard about what constitutes porn. 'All' ISPs will be required to block porn, but will be left to their own devices to define it.
They aren't actually being required to do it. They're being politely asked to. Hence there can be a lack of clarity about what they've been asked to do. And Dave, inaccurately, believes they've agreed.
And it only affects the set of ISPs that currently use the IWF's services. Smaller ISPs aren't affected as the Government can't be bothered to talk to them.
And this will end up being just like the IWF's list for child porn. It's not designed to protect children, it's designed to protect ISPs. Everyone knows it won't stop most of the stuff you might expect it to stop. Everyone knows it can be worked round. But that's only a problem if you think its job is to block stuff. Its job is to prove that the ISP has made industry standard best efforts to block stuff.
Quetzalcotl raises a good point about false positives. Any discussion of porn blocking that doesn't raise the question of what other stuff will be blocked by accident is clearly dominated by people who don't understand technology.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
In relation to the "What should Christians think of porn" line of thought, why is there any difference between looking at a picture of a consenting person with his clothes off and imagining a consenting person with his clothes off?
I tend to take the view that the man who preached the Sermon on the Mount wouldn't make distinctions between these. The point is that viewing a person purely as on object of lust - and using that perspective for sexual stimulation - is wrong whether it's a real person, an imaginary person or a picture of a person.
The existence of porn is a symptom of our rejection of that teaching, not the cause of it.
So I'm comfortable that someone who identifies as Christian can think that the important issue here is preventing government censorship, while at the same time looking to do far more effective things to address the root causes, rather than the symptom.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yet Dave already seems to be exempting various kinds of images, such as page 3 girls, written porn such as '50 Shades', and presumably the Daily Mail brand of 'oops, here's an actress with her bra falling off' article.
I guess then that Dave is working with some kind of criteria in mind - I wonder if he is going to share them with us?
I think he's just guessing. He has no criteria himself and he's probably just reacting to Daily Mail headlines for ideas. Since the Mail is schizophrenic about it (hating porn for degrading women while posting pics leering at women in bikinis and sunbathing) he's probably not going to be very consistent.
Basically though, all he can do is guess what the ISPs are going to do, rather than saying what the criteria he's going to implement is. Since he has no powers to censor anything himself, and he isn't looking to write any into law.
[ 24. July 2013, 10:51: Message edited by: Hawk ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Of course, it's quite possible that there won't be an agreed standard about what constitutes porn. 'All' ISPs will be required to block porn, but will be left to their own devices to define it.
They aren't actually being required to do it. They're being politely asked to. Hence there can be a lack of clarity about what they've been asked to do. And Dave, inaccurately, believes they've agreed.
And it only affects the set of ISPs that currently use the IWF's services. Smaller ISPs aren't affected as the Government can't be bothered to talk to them.
And this will end up being just like the IWF's list for child porn. It's not designed to protect children, it's designed to protect ISPs. Everyone knows it won't stop most of the stuff you might expect it to stop. Everyone knows it can be worked round. But that's only a problem if you think its job is to block stuff. Its job is to prove that the ISP has made industry standard best efforts to block stuff.
Quetzalcotl raises a good point about false positives. Any discussion of porn blocking that doesn't raise the question of what other stuff will be blocked by accident is clearly dominated by people who don't understand technology.
Well, a friend of mine who is a pagan has her own web-site blocked, as it's 'the occult'. OK, at the moment, that is the decision of a private company to do that. But is the government now saying that they prefer such filters to be on? But the filters block perfectly legal material.
Of course, some people argue that it's paranoid to worry about censorship, and the possibility of mission creep. Is it?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yet Dave already seems to be exempting various kinds of images, such as page 3 girls, written porn such as '50 Shades', and presumably the Daily Mail brand of 'oops, here's an actress with her bra falling off' article.
I guess then that Dave is working with some kind of criteria in mind - I wonder if he is going to share them with us?
Most of the concern we hear about relates to images and videos of sexual acts, some of them extreme, that are easily accessed by children. Mere nakedness isn't the issue, as far as I understand. '50 Shades' doesn't contain any images. And Page 3 isn't an image of a sexual act, but of a woman in a fairly benign pose.
I'm not sure if there's much more to be said on this subject, really. We live in sexualised society, and most of us know full well that whatever our personal morality or ideology is, that's not really going to change. Informed and empowered parents will do okay; the rest will just be humoured by politicians occasionally. The strong will survive, as ever.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, Svitlana, that is a reasonable distinction, but Cameron seems to be operating with a covert set of criteria. He may well be using that kind of distinction - harmless nudity, versus harmful sex acts - but maybe this should be made explicit, and also openly and widely discussed? Do we just take it on trust that the government knows best? Are his views based on actual research, or on Daily Mail editorials?
I think an earlier poster said something like, 'it disgusts me, therefore it should be banned'. I'm afraid I don't find that very reassuring as the foundation for censorship.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
There's a reasonable article on how the page blocking will work here
The most interesting news is that the government most likely to end up with a list of every website you visit is the Chinese one, not ours. All ISPs seem keen to point out that it's easy to turn off. It's also easy to circumvent.
It also seems very clear that the government has, by and large, 'forced' the ISPs to do something they'd already independently decided to do anyway. (And only 'forced' them after checking they were already going to do it)
The definition of 'porn' will be up to ISPs. Whose main concern is actually profitability (i.e. whatever definition is cheapest to run is the one that will be used)
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was chatting with my wife about this, and she got very angry, and said that she thought that page 3 girls and the Daily Mail sleaze was worse than porn, as it normalized the regulation of female sexuality and female bodies. In other words, the fact that Cameron said, 'oh, this stuff is OK', is part of the problem.
I have no idea if this is correct or not - but it's an interesting view. I suppose porn has traditionally been seen as deviant, (but maybe not now), whereas the danger in the 'soft' stuff is that it inculcates certain attitudes to sexuality, without us really realizing it. We spot porn, but do we spot the covert regulation of female and male sexuality in the culture at large? Does Cameron?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I would agree with your wife. (That's a statement, not necessarily advice, BTW ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I can see that. The thing about porn actors is that they've agreed to have their bodies scrutinised - that's the job that they do. What probably has a more harmful effect on women in general is the way in which the media routinely judges every woman's appearance whether it's relevant to her job or not. The Daily Mail is particularly awful when it comes to keeping women in line by posting snarky comments about any woman in the public eye who dares not be young, skinny and beautiful in an unthreatening way.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I can see that. The thing about porn actors is that they've agreed to have their bodies scrutinised - that's the job that they do. What probably has a more harmful effect on women in general is the way in which the media routinely judges every woman's appearance whether it's relevant to her job or not. The Daily Mail is particularly awful when it comes to keeping women in line by posting snarky comments about any woman in the public eye who dares not be young, skinny and beautiful in an unthreatening way.
Yes, you could see the outrage over porn by right-wing people as a smoke-screen, which disguises the normative regulation of female sexuality and female bodies. This is just fed to people via the popular media, and it's really only feminists and maybe some lefties who analyze it.
Of course, a page 3 girl or the Daily Mail 'here's another girl with a bra bulging in the wrong places', just seems mild and unexceptional, yet that is the problem.
Another point is that much porn is fantasy; whereas the soft stuff is more like ordinary reality, and therefore, possibly, more damaging to women. I would also add a point here about male bodies being fetishized also, but I don't want to head off in another direction, (but they are).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I don't think this is a right-wing issue. Go to the Guardian, read some of the articles in Comment is Free and see what is being said. Plenty of articles criticising porn use and advocating its restriction because it is harmful to women. Yes, there are "think of the children" articles too; but they merely express the perspective that exposing children to porn damages equal rights for women.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Hmm. I think there is certainly a section of the right-wing press behind this, but I share Cod's reserve about labelling the whole thing "right-wing". It seems to transcend several boundaries, the political being one of them.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I didn't think I was saying that whole thing is right-wing. I said 'you could see the outrage over porn by right-wing people as a smoke-screen'.
That to me does not suggest that only outraged right-wing people object to porn.
The Daily Mail and Cameron strike me as fairly right-wing!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
OK quetzalcoatl, it probably just came over that way because you've posted on it several times. Though there were also some famous names in second-wave feminism (so-called) who had pretty uncompromising views on pornography and controlling pretty well all sexuality. I suppose there is a case for calling them aberrant right-wingers though I'm not sure I would buy that.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, but that particular post was a reply to Liopleurodon, who had commented that the Daily Mail was notoriously critical of women's bodies. So I was making the point that the right wing get very uptight about porn - see the DM front page this week over Cameron's plans - yet ignore the everyday regulation of female sexuality which can be found throughout society.
Now, yes, there are also liberal opponents of porn, and probably left-wing opponents, and non-political ones, and maybe anarchist ones, and so on.
But I didn't think that I was saying 'all opposition to porn is right-wing'.
I mean I've been talking mainly about Cameron and the Daily Mail - surely it's reasonable to say that they are right-wing?
If I'd wanted to talk about Guardian readers' opposition to porn, I would not have called them right-wing at all.
It's just that if one spells out all these details explicitly, posts become huge, as this one is threatening to do.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I don't think this is a right-wing issue. Go to the Guardian, read some of the articles in Comment is Free and see what is being said. Plenty of articles criticising porn use and advocating its restriction because it is harmful to women. Yes, there are "think of the children" articles too; but they merely express the perspective that exposing children to porn damages equal rights for women.
Well, I might as well be thorough about this. Why do you think that I was saying that anti-porn is only a right-wing issue?
I can't see how you get that from my post above. I was replying to Liopleurodon, who had made some comments about the Daily Mail, which is surely right-wing?
Of course, there are non-right-wing opponents of porn - I know that very well, as I took part in the Great Porn Wars in the late 80s and early 90s, when the anti-porn movement was very wide in political terms, and it still is.
My point was that the right-wing make a hue and cry about porn, but ignore (and in fact, support) the widespread regulation of female sexuality found in society.
Now again, I'm not saying that other opponents of porn don't also ignore (and support) this. But this week, I've been talking mainly about Cameron and the Daily Mail, who to me are right-wing.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Of course, there are non-right-wing opponents of porn - I know that very well, as I took part in the Great Porn Wars in the late 80s and early 90s, when the anti-porn movement was very wide in political terms, and it still is.
I came of age politically in late-80s Canada, and I can say that, at least in left-wing circles(closely analagous to British Labour), it was pretty much a given that you were supposed to be anti-pornography.
Of course, people tried to do the old trick with the cake by claiming a distinction between erotica and pornography, and saying they had no problem with the former. But insofar as we were talking about anything in the general vicinity of Playboy, Penthoouse, or even the local strip joint, you were generally expected to register an unambiguously negative opinion.
Years later, I got into reading some of the anti-porn Second Wave feminists like Dworkin and Robin Morgan. One of the themes I picked up was that the feminist anti-pornography movement emerged in large part as a reaction to allegedly misogynistic tendencies on the New Left, ie. guys using "free love" rhetoric as a cover for sexual harassment and exploitation. This probably accounted at least in part for the willingness of some feminists to ally with the right on pornography, since, from their perspective, the left was no better, and probably worse.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Goodbye To All That
Robin Morgan's attack on left-wing misogyny, especially in the "underground" press.
In 2008, Morgan wrote a sequel, published in the Guardian, using the same analysis in support of Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama. Which I suppose might give some hint as to the kind of left-wing politics she espouses.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I remember that in left-wing groups in the 70s, women were asked to make the tea. That did change!
The right-wing are hypocritical about porn, since they routinely support the regulation of female sexuality. I assume that liberals and left-wing anti-porn people are less hypocritical.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I assume that liberals and left-wing anti-porn people are less hypocritical.
Well, except for the aformentioned distinction between porn(which was bad), and erotica(which was good; "healthy" being the commonly applied adjective). That always struck me as a lot of special pleading.
I suppose the people who made the distinction might have sincerely believed it. By the same token, though, a Daily Mail reader might sincerely believe that the photo of Lady Gaga qualifies as newsworthy, whereas a similar photo on an "adult" site would qualify as child-endangering smut.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, Kenneth Clark, the art historian was given this question as to how porn is defined, and of course, he had written a very famous book on 'The Nude', which had the interesting sub-title, 'a study in ideal form'. Anyway, in this interview, Clark had a stab at defining porn, and made the usual points about it arousing sexual feelings, whereas the nude was a contemplative art form!
However, this distinction begins to sag a bit, when you look at some Victorian paintings, which to us look semi-pornographic, yet also beautiful. See for example, the stuff by Waterhouse, as in this legendary painting of St Eulalia, an amazing picture, in terms of composition and colouring, but none the less, a picture of a semi-naked teenage girl.
Well, porn is the for the plebs; erotica is for posh people.
http://tinyurl.com/l2klvmr
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
See for example, the stuff by Waterhouse, as in this legendary painting of St Eulalia, an amazing picture, in terms of composition and colouring, but none the less, a picture of a semi-naked teenage girl.
Hmm, yeah. And if read about what was done to her before that scene took place, the painting could qualify as rather violent. Whether it's "violent porn" or "violent contemplative art" I will leave to Professor Clark!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Actually, she's supposed to be 12. It is a very beautiful painting, I sometimes look at it in the Tate, the colour of browney purple is picked up in her hair and clothes, and then at the back; plus the snow falling, and the pigeons (representing her soul, I suppose), and the Roman soldier framing the right-hand side. Awesome really.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I don't think this is a right-wing issue. Go to the Guardian, read some of the articles in Comment is Free and see what is being said. Plenty of articles criticising porn use and advocating its restriction because it is harmful to women. Yes, there are "think of the children" articles too; but they merely express the perspective that exposing children to porn damages equal rights for women.
Well, I might as well be thorough about this. Why do you think that I was saying that anti-porn is only a right-wing issue?
I can't see how you get that from my post above. I was replying to Liopleurodon, who had made some comments about the Daily Mail, which is surely right-wing?
I didn't have you in mind. However, I went back through your numerous and entertaining posts on this thread, and observed a repeated thrust noting this was driven by the Tory right wing. I don't think only right-wingers get exited about porn. Certainly Tory ones probably prefer receiving a good old-fashioned beating. The porn debate doesn't concern the political left or right hand. Feminists on the left are against it. Libertarians on the right aren't. Many parents on both left and right are against it; others, probably a bit quieter, don't mind. AFAIK Labour also support Cameron's proposed policy. The political climate is that it's a bit indecent not to support it.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Fair enough. The point I was making to Liopeurodon was that Cameron and the Daily Mail combine a hostility to porn with a disregard for the 'normal' ways in which female sexuality, female bodies, and in fact, female identity, are regulated and degraded in society. I suppose this is why Cameron could shrug off comments about page 3 girls. In fact, they would probably see that critique as raving mad left-wing nonsense, wouldn't they? What's wrong with a bit of tits 'n' ass on the 'sidebar of shame'?
I suppose one could list all the ways in which various groups, such as left-wing feminists, and right wing libertarians, do or don't match up to these criteria, but 'twould be tedious.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Not all left-wing feminists are opposed to porn!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good point. In the 90s, there was an anti-anti-porn movement amongst some feminists, for example, Lynne Segal and Linda Williams. Actually, they published some excellent analyses of porn, a bit more sophisticated than the usual 'it objectifies women' kind of stuff.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Not just the 90s. There is still a "Feminists against Censorship" group (which I think Lynne Segal might be associated with though I'm not sure)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Good point. In the 90s, there was an anti-anti-porn movement amongst some feminists, for example, Lynne Segal and Linda Williams. Actually, they published some excellent analyses of porn, a bit more sophisticated than the usual 'it objectifies women' kind of stuff.
The academic groups and protest groups are in wild disagreement about the effects of porn. It is a contentious topic as can be seen from this article from the Guardian. Personally I believe the anti-porn campaigners such as Gail Dines more than the pro position.
What can easily be seen is that any study carried out in the 90's or before is so out of date it probably isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The type, degree, and availability of porn has exploded and massively changed only in the last few years.
quote:
What people don't realise, she says, is how much pornographic material now is violent. Rape Crisis South London carried out simple research that involved typing "rape porn" into Google and then quantified the results: 86% of sites that came up advertised videos depicting the rape of under-18s, 75% involved guns or knives, 43% showed the woman drugged, and 46% purported to be incest rape.
All but one of the top five results on Google are for mainstream porn sites that host videos – ...Some of the videos are "simulated", acted, and some of them aren't. They show actual women being actually raped...
"Rape porn", and then two clicks of the mouse, and that's what's there. It's not skulking in some dark recess of the internet, it's a dropdown box on one the most popular porn sites in the world, but my experience – of not knowing, and not really wanting to know – is not unusual. There's a collective, willed ignorance of porn.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's also notorious that everybody finds what they want to about porn. So many studies seem biased to me, either already predisposed to find it violent and harmful; or predisposed to find it mild and non-harmful.
I get tired of 'simple research', which usually amounts to lots of Googling.
What's really interesting is how you would set up a non-biased study, and what methodology you would use. It's not an easy thing to set up at all, as first, you need to sit down, as a team, and discuss the hidden prejudices of the team, and how they are to be counteracted.
Of course, then you might go on to define what porn is, and what it isn't, and then the real arguments begin! I spent some time in a gender studies group, and there are formidable obstacles for anyone wanting to study porn.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
You can't have an unbiased or remotely scientific study into such things. No chance.
Also the argument isn't really, or isn't only, about how bad porn is. It's about how bad censorship is. Authoritarian-minded people might have a much lower threshold of harm before they feel they want censorship. (Giveaway clue: the "decent people have no need to worry about this law" argument)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, agree. I think the argument is about authoritarianism, not porn.
Every night, my TV screen is filled with simulated scenes of killings, torture, violence, often macabre and ghoulish, and this is in mainstream TV thrillers. I find this amazing and puzzling - but do I want it censored? No thank you.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, agree. I think the argument is about authoritarianism, not porn.
Every night, my TV screen is filled with simulated scenes of killings, torture, violence, often macabre and ghoulish, and this is in mainstream TV thrillers. I find this amazing and puzzling - but do I want it censored? No thank you.
What if that stuff wasn't fictional simulations of such acts but recordings of real people being tortured, killed and beaten? What if the revenue from those recordings meant more and more people were being tortured, killed and beaten as a result since it is such big business?
Personally I'd want that censored.
We're not just talking about the right of the viewer to watch, think, or do what they choose. On the other end is the big business of woman and men being paid to demean, degrade and physically injure themselves, sometimes fatally (i.e. HIV infections) for money.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That's a strange 'what if' argument. Thrillers are fictional. Also, I realized a while ago, that my TV has this built-in filter - called an off switch.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Also, I realized a while ago, that my TV has this built-in filter - called an off switch.
My TV has an even better filter — I don't have one.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I always think there's an element of pseudo-argument which goes on about porn. Some people just don't like it, or find it disgusting, or whatever. And some of them think it should either be illegal, or they like Cameron's 'default-on' idea.
Well, that's fair enough. My own view is that I don't like censorship. I remember the trial of 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' and it was kind of embarrassing that this great novelist (then dead, of course) was subject to this farcical trial, including the prosecutor asking the jury if they would allow their wives or servants to read it.
Christianity has helped to produce porn, for God's sake, because of its dislike of sex and the human body. Repression leads to derepression.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally quoted by Hawk:
quote:
What people don't realise, she says, is how much pornographic material now is violent. Rape Crisis South London carried out simple research that involved typing "rape porn" into Google and then quantified the results: 86% of sites that came up advertised videos depicting the rape of under-18s,
And right there, I'm going to call bullshit. 86% of sites that can be found through a simple Google search are showing illegal pornographic images of minors? Yeah right. Police forces the world over have whole departments devoted to finding and shutting dowm child pornography rings, and this person is trying to tell us that if they just did a Google search they'd find thousands? That's not even slightly credible.
quote:
quote:
75% involved guns or knives, 43% showed the woman drugged, and 46% purported to be incest rape.
That might be what they claim to be, but it doesn't mean they are. Unless Lord of the Rings means Elijah Wood really is a sword-wielding, ring-bearing hobbit.
quote:
quote:
All but one of the top five results on Google are for mainstream porn sites that host videos – ...Some of the videos are "simulated", acted, and some of them aren't. They show actual women being actually raped...
Again, I am highly dubious. For a start, there is a whole subindustry called "reality porn" that claims to show "normal" people in various pornographic situations, but it's all just as scripted and acted as any of the rest of the industry. Secondly, if they were genuine rapes and the videos are so easily available why are they not being used to prosecute the offenders? Surely the police could just log on, save a copy of the latest videos then pop out and arrest the men concerned?
I do not find this quoted account credible in the slightest.
[ 25. July 2013, 15:15: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What if that stuff wasn't fictional simulations of such acts but recordings of real people being tortured, killed and beaten? What if the revenue from those recordings meant more and more people were being tortured, killed and beaten as a result since it is such big business?
Personally I'd want that censored.
...
Given that all those acts are already illegal, isn't censoring them just closing the barn door after the horse kicks you to death?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's a strange 'what if' argument. Thrillers are fictional. Also, I realized a while ago, that my TV has this built-in filter - called an off switch.
I think you probably just misunderstand my 'what if'. I was asking what if the TV violence you claim to abhor was actually the same thing as pornography rather than apples and oranges. If it was the same then it would be real people doing real things. Since TV violence is not the same, and only fiction, then your argument about personal choice to watch or not watch fiction isn't applicable.
The anti-authoritarian argument is blinkered and too narrow for the question IMO. Using it in this situation ignores the suffering of others to stand on the principle of one's own freedom to enjoy the products of that suffering. Hardly a moral argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally quoted by Hawk:
quote:
What people don't realise, she says, is how much pornographic material now is violent. Rape Crisis South London carried out simple research that involved typing "rape porn" into Google and then quantified the results: 86% of sites that came up advertised videos depicting the rape of under-18s,
And right there, I'm going to call bullshit. 86% of sites that can be found through a simple Google search are showing illegal pornographic images of minors? Yeah right. Police forces the world over have whole departments devoted to finding and shutting dowm child pornography rings, and this person is trying to tell us that if they just did a Google search they'd find thousands? That's not even slightly credible.
That's not what it said. It says that's what's advertised. As you go on to say, it's largely (I'd like to believe solely, but its hard to tell for sure) simulated. It may be illegal if they are really under 18 or really being raped, but if its a young-looking 19 year old dressed in school clothes so they look like children its perfectly legal. And very profitable.
The argument being made in the article isn't that these are real videos and that makes them bad. It's that they are propogating and stimulating a dangerous fantasy.
The evidence that this prevelence of rape fantasy actually incites, influences, or causes rape is questionable though. There is a correlation perhaps but not causation. I don't think this is the reason to oppose pornography though. For me, pornography is primarily a bad thing because of its appalling working practices and the effects it has on the performers rather than the influence it has on the viewer.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What if that stuff wasn't fictional simulations of such acts but recordings of real people being tortured, killed and beaten? What if the revenue from those recordings meant more and more people were being tortured, killed and beaten as a result since it is such big business?
Personally I'd want that censored.
...
Given that all those acts are already illegal, isn't censoring them just closing the barn door after the horse kicks you to death?
Bringing the analogy back to porn, the acts are taking place in a jurisdiction where they are legal, and it would be impossible to enforce any ban. But censoring would decrease the profit of the companies carrying out the acts and hopefully discourage the continuation of their business financially. It's not perfect but it's the best that can be done.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One thing I will say for porn today, compared with 20 years ago, is that it has become diversity affirmative!
Whereas the old magazine porn involved a lot of similar looking actors, today you can find a huge spread of stuff - fat porn, hairy porn, old porn, disabled porn, gay porn, lesbian porn, straight female porn, small dick porn, big dick porn, smoking porn, blah blah blah.
I guess this is the result of equal opportunities or something.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I am really out of touch with developments in feminism today. Anyway, is this a fair assessment of currents view of porn in feminism?
1. Those feminists who see porn as objectifying and degrading women and want it banned.
2. Liberals, who don't like porn, but see it as a free speech issue.
3. Pro-sex feminists who want a pornography made by women for women, and see it as potentially liberating of female sexuality.
I guess there are many overlaps here and fusions, but any corrections gratefully accepted.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One thing I will say for porn today, compared with 20 years ago, is that it has become diversity affirmative!
Whereas the old magazine porn involved a lot of similar looking actors, today you can find a huge spread of stuff - fat porn, hairy porn, old porn, disabled porn, gay porn, lesbian porn, straight female porn, small dick porn, big dick porn, smoking porn, blah blah blah.
I guess this is the result of equal opportunities or something.
Or the ability of Internet content providers to gauge demand and supply accordingly.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Years later, I got into reading some of the anti-porn Second Wave feminists like Dworkin and Robin Morgan. One of the themes I picked up was that the feminist anti-pornography movement emerged in large part as a reaction to allegedly misogynistic tendencies on the New Left, ie. guys using "free love" rhetoric as a cover for sexual harassment and exploitation. This probably accounted at least in part for the willingness of some feminists to ally with the right on pornography, since, from their perspective, the left was no better, and probably worse.
I think what changed that was that most feminists were appalled once they realized that for the religious Right, banning pornography went hand-in-glove with criminalizing gay sex, restricting access to birth control, and overturning Roe v. Wade.
For me, although I realize that those things are social evils to one extent or another, I balk at the idea that we have to enlist the repressive force of the government to stop them. It doesn't seem to have been very successful in doing so in the past, and there tends to be a lot of collateral damage which doesn't serve the cause of justice.
Besides which, forcing people to behave like Christians doesn't make them Christian.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
