BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Porn Free: Attitudes to Pornography

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:40 / 14.05.02
I'm reading "The Reader, The Author, His Woman and Her Lover" at present and it has got me thinking (logically enough) about porn, and particularly "mainstream" porn.

Essentially, this is an inquiry thread, since my top-shelf knowledge is not as finely-honed as once it may have been, and I hope that the responses will then lead to a variety of discussions. Grab anything you find interesting, or spin off new ideas yoursen...

Rangefinding

What do you think of when you think of pornography? (and pleasse note that this is not an excuse to locate whatever you wank over to "erotica" and everything else as "porn" - that's a topic for another thread, possibly called "Porn or Erotica - how do you tell them apart"?) How do you encounter pornography, and how do you recognise it as such?

The Consumer

Do you consume pornography? In particular, the newsstand variety? If so, do you find purchasing it a furtive or embarrassing activity? Is this because of the assumption that it will be used for masturbation, or the fact that it is sexual material (arguably), the semiology of the material or the semiology of its consumers? Whether or not you consume porn, how do you think about people who do?

Pornography and its practitioners

This is sort of where softcore is more interesting than hardcore, where the question "what are the participants doing" is usually pretty easy to answer. As far as I can tell, softcore by definition does *not* involve people having sex, but instead a series of systems of exchange with a symbolic relationship both to sexual expressions and the sexual act. So, what is the relationship of porn and sex? And how does pornography construct its practitioners? Amateurs, office workers, secretaries, art students - why is nobody ever identified as "softcore pornographic model" in their descriptions? And what the hell is going on with all those stockings and garterbelts? Do certain poses/styles recur, and why?

Pornography and Feminism

You knew it had to be here...Is McKinnon right to suggest that the link between pornography and sexual violence against women has been proven? Does such a link exist?

For that matter, is Skordaki right when she says that pornographic narratives depend for their sense on either a whore, a sexually available woman who initiates sexual contact in a "taboo-breaking" fashion, or a "virgin", a "good girl" who is made suddenly aware of her sexual needs and is overborne by the desire for sex? What does that say?

And, while we're at it, is it possible to make pornography (in particular, het pornography) that is not anti-feminist? How? Should there be "safe spaces" for expressions of (particularly lesbian/bisexual) pornography not aimed at the usual "target market" (thinking of a queer friend describing her confusion at seeing a man leafing through 'On Our Backs' in a bookshop, and not knowing whether she should "correct" his understanding that it was for him to read)?

Is that enough to be going on with?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
12:22 / 15.05.02
The definitions of softcore and hardcore vary from country to country.

As I understand it England defines softcore roughly as no acts of sexual intercourse, sexual stimulation or evidence of sexual arousal.

North America, on the other hand differs from this, as I understand it, and draws the line at visible sexual contact of genitalia.

Someone else will probably be able to better able to comment but I'm sure that the definitions are different.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:35 / 15.05.02
I know. So what impact does that have on the effects/consumption/presentation of pornography, SPB? F'r example, does the fact that the gynecological viewpoints of, say Hustler allow "classy" productions like Playboy to establish more clear blue water between "pornography" and themselves (remember, kids, nobody wanks to Playboy)? It's notable that the Brit equivalents of Playboy, Penthouse and Mayfair(?) are both still very definitely stuck on the top shelf with the less "highbrow" porn (ie the stuff with lower production values, less editorial, and so on).

Is a subscriptuion to Playboy like a subscription to Hustler or a subscription to The New York Review of Books? How does the market sustain a magazine for people who like Norman Mailer and naked ladies?

Essentially, what do you think about pornography? Do you think about pornography?
 
 
Gibreel
12:41 / 15.05.02
How do you encounter pornography, and how do you recognise it as such?

Well if you define porn as material to fuel sexual fantasies / masturbation, then it can be anything. But:

a. Most men exhibit similar sexual fantasies (and you could go on at length here as to whether this is 'innate' or actively constructed or disciplined or whatever). Actually is this true?

b. Some material is specifically designed with this aim in mind. Yer top shelf jazz mag and yer hardcore video being the most obvious.

And point two is precidated in point one. Without a large, predictable (if segmented) market for this material it would be uneconomic to produce it.

So, what is the relationship of porn and sex? And how does >pornography construct its practitioners?

Well the sex is provided by the reader. Softcore does not show the sexual act. And if you think about, the actual site of production for most porn (even or especially hardcore) is not very 'sexy' - it's performers doing a repetitive, messy and tiring job.

You knew it had to be here...Is McKinnon right to suggest that the ?>link between pornography and sexual violence against women has been >proven? Does such a link exist?

My take on this is that it focuses too much on the porn. If the only information an adolescent male either receives or choses to take in about women comes from porn, then they're gonna be fucked up. Whether you can generalise this to the whole of society I don't know. In which case, you'd expect to find porn causing sexual assaults in repressive societies with widely available underground pornography. But how do you prove pornography consumption caused the sexual assault? Prior consumption of pornography? Enforcement of pornographic poses on the victim by the perp?

And, while we're at it, is it possible to make pornography (in >particular, het pornography) that is not anti-feminist?

Very, very tricky. I'd say yes but probably not in a male-dominated, male-oriented porn industry. How about a couple with a camera, doing what they want? How does home-made porn compare with the prepackaged stuff (in terms of politics, economics, semiotics, etc)?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
12:41 / 15.05.02
[ignorance trying tread carefully]

thinking of a queer friend describing her confusion at seeing a man leafing through 'On Our Backs' in a bookshop, and not knowing whether she should "correct" his understanding that it was for him to read

I understand that this publication is created by women with the intention of satisfying the needs of lesbians within the market.

However, excluding the possibility that your friend was making assumptions about the person you saw, is there a real problem with this mans actions? After all, he is at least looking at accurate material and probably of higher quality and taste.

I know full well that I'm missing a very obvious point here, I'm hoping that someone will couteously point it out to me.

[/ignorance treading carefully]
 
 
pacha perplexa
13:20 / 15.05.02
What do you think of when you think of pornography? How do you encounter pornography, and how do you recognise it as such?

First thing that comes to mind is 'people having sex which is shown in details, or described in details' ("radio/audio-pornography" that wasn't just plain description would sure be interesting).
Do details of anatomy count?

Do you consume pornography? In particular, the newsstand variety? If so, do you find purchasing it a furtive or embarrassing activity? Is this because of the assumption that it will be used for masturbation, or the fact that it is sexual material (arguably), the semiology of the material or the semiology of its consumers? Whether or not you consume porn, how do you think about people who do?

Wouldn't say "consume". From time to time (once a forthnight, usually)I find that having a look at comics (Carlos Zefiro), hentais, photographs (not the explicit ones, often so daft) and short-stories is a v. good way of boosting imagination, which reflects wonderfully in sexual life. I have no interest in the newsstand variety because it is, above all, boring (although I have to admit that, when I was a teenager, quality didn't make a difference when it came to masturbating).
Methinks porn, as everything pleasurable in life, is benefical if not in obssessive excess and if it's not an escape for people afraid of social contact.

So, what is the relationship of porn and sex?

Not sure it's a good answer, but I'd say porn improves or substitutes real sex life.

And how does pornography construct its practitioners? Amateurs, office workers, secretaries, art students - why is nobody ever identified as "softcore pornographic model" in their descriptions?

Mm. Because it's still an embarassing subject? I mean, even when people have conversations about porn, it's accompanied by giggles and jokes, as if dismissing any possible seriousness. And when people talk freely about it, it's in most cases a hype - I've seen women talking about it after reading articles about porn films in a Cosmo sortof mag - I can't think of it being spontaneous.
Also have read a webblog run by a group of 10 women about sex (especially their sex lives) in what would be considered a very shoking way, using porn slang and photos to make their points, sometimes. At the begining it was very entertaining, and gave a glimpse on how real people had kinky sex, what problems and compensations had they had with certain positions and practices, etc. But after some time it became a purposefully shoking series of rants, much less spontaneous (that was when the audience jumped to a thousand a day).

And what the hell is going on with all those stockings and garterbelts? Do certain poses/styles recur, and why?

Advertisers sometimes use sexual references (subliminar or not) because this has some kind of psychological effect on the public. It was just a matter of time before the fashion world took the idea of evoquing (sp?) porn. Another reason:
a) porn is (was?) part of a subculture, and the media love commercializing whatever is part of a subculture (= trend launcher) - eek, this was so 'no logo', sorry.
b) Argh! I forgot!

You knew it had to be here...Is McKinnon right to suggest that the link between pornography and sexual violence against women has been proven? Does such a link exist?

I don't have the theory to answer that, but don't think porn has to do with rape at all. First because, for what I read, sexual violence results more from a desire to hurt/dominate/humilliate than from sexual desire, which is the raison d'etre of most porn films/literature.

... either a whore, a sexually available woman who initiates sexual contact in a "taboo-breaking" fashion, or a "virgin", a "good girl" who is made suddenly aware of her sexual needs and is overborne by the desire for sex? What does that say?

[slightly off] She's probably not considering dominatrixes.[/]

There's something very erotic about corruption of purity and the discovery of sexuality related to women and/or teenage girls. I think that's because women and their bodies and sexual needs have been 'tabooed' for so long, and with such intensity, that this forbideness made the themes "sexually available woman who initiates sexual contact in a 'taboo-breaking' fashion", "virgin" and "good girl" atractive. Same thing happens with "teenage innocent boys". Dunno. Maybe I'm wrong, 'cause I can't avoid thinking of Anais Nin.
 
 
pacha perplexa
13:37 / 15.05.02
Oh, forgot to say why I think many porn materials are daft: they use a stereotyped vision of female/male body and behaviour directed specially to male audiences which often makes me laugh with their naivete and lack of subtlety/suggestion and originality (yes, I consider good the pornography with those characteristics). They picture wonderlands for the sexually aroused men, in which we women are accesible (and disposable) bimbos with perfect, often impossible and freakish, bodies - while men act like 1,75m penises. Nothing to do with real women or real sex, I'm afraid, but perfect for male masturbation purposes.
 
 
Chuckling Duck
13:42 / 15.05.02
You might find Echo Transgression an interesting talking point:

www.objectifyme.com
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:24 / 15.05.02
She's probably not considering dominatrixes

Or they are whores - women who demand sexual satisfaction. Ultimately, one could even argue, dominatrix porn is a way for the desire to be dominated to be controlled through capitalist process - I exchange money for this magazine, and can now look at a woman who, although notionally dominant, actually depends on people like me to pay for magazines to make a living. Which, incidentally, is sort of what I meant about "art strudents, secretaries, etc" - in softcore the models have a few paragraphs purporting to describe them (usually), and, although they are portrayed removing their clothes for display in a magazine, they are always given other jobs to talk about.

Which "authenticity" also factors into SPB's enquiry. I'm conflicted about the On our Backs case also - in general, queer publishing ventures need all the support they can get. However:

a) I find it interesting that the assumption is that picture sets in a lesbian porn mag will possess a higher "quality and taste" - the idea that it takes a cock to make a woman *really* dirty that permeates het porn (the mythic phallus).

b) Het porn uses lesbian tropes by inviting the viewer either to identify with one of the party (usually the one with the strap-on), or to identify as voyeur. And, if you are a man, sexual interaction with lesbianism outside or beyond those viewpoints is pretty difficult. So, if you are looking at lesbian pornography made for and by lesbians, you are inserting yourself into a scene where you have no place - like demanding entrance to a women-only club.

c) As described above, "authenticity" could be seen as a point of pornographic focus, be that real penetration, real readers' wives (the difference, perhaps, between Gibreel's - hi Gib, welcome back - couple with a camera and a top-shelf "readers' wives" magazine) or the idea that, rather than living in a hermetic world of nude modeling, the women in the pictures are in fact "normal" women who have wandered in off the street, been spotted by an eagle-eyed cameraman, etc. Therefore, the idea that these are "real lesbians", presented as a legitimation, a "seal of pornographic quality" (presented as "of higher quality", in fact), and thus recast not as a piece of community building but as a value offering to heterosexual men, could be seen as somewhat shuddersome.

This is far too big a topic - might perhaps be best to start side-threads on other forms of "porn", "erotica" etc, and focus here on newsstand softcore, which is for me the most semiologically intriguing.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
15:02 / 15.05.02
On point a. Your assumption of my assumption is wrong. I assume higher quality and taste based on alternative information. As I understand it, and I may very well be wrong, a majority of the lower quality/taste material in publication is simply made as low budget money spinners. With a magazine that was specifically designed and produced to meet a need as opposed to make money by people that I have heard entered into the venture to produce something of quality and taste (through recent media attention), I felt it was safe to assume that this magazine would be of higher taste and quality than the average.

Suprisingly enough there is het porn that is of both quality and taste and indeed a market for it.

On point b. You seem to contradict yourself a little but I think I get what you mean as most porn is to cater to a fantasy of interaction/replacement. Although if the man in question was a strict voyuer then I see no problems. Not that I want to enter into a minefield of categorisation and definition of sexual activity.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:24 / 15.05.02
. Although if the man in question was a strict voyuer then I see no problem.

Because lesbians love to be watched by a man?

I don't get it. Nor do I see the contradiction in my propositions.
 
 
grant
15:30 / 15.05.02
On the dom/sub porn/erotica edge, the "Creative Nonfiction" thread I put up on the Switchboard brought me to this book by Elissa Wald.

on another tack...

I wonder if some of the lesbian porn thoughts might be sidetracked into the idea of "documentary" porn: the "educational" titles as well as amateur porn. The idea of the "real" being the way to get off.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
16:06 / 15.05.02
Not because lesbians love to be watched by a man, although I won't exclude the possibility of some of the models feeling that way. More because while the material may be made by and for lesbians, it is published for what amounts to open circulation and given the subject matter I think that it would be safe to assume that anyone involved in its production would understand that it would receive attention from males. To continue involvement could be construed as an indicator of acceptance of this.

If the man is a strict voyuer then is not his gender irrelavent?

My mistake with the contradiction, I mis-parsed one of your statements.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
16:25 / 15.05.02
While we're on the topic hree is some interesting stuff from Eye's sex columnist, Sasha, which I think is relevant to the discussion.

-----------------------
I had a conversation about pornography with friends, and the general consensus of the women -- all of them western -- was that pornography is degrading, exploitative and primarily a profit endeavour. Furthermore, my women friends made the bold statement that women do not appreciate porn. I have my own criticisms of these views: yes, pornography is exploitative to women, but in what way is it different from all other capitalist industries -- in what way is it more humiliating than working in a sweatshop? But what bothers me the most is the determinist view that women are simply not into porn and men are. What are your views on that? VICTOR IN ASIA

Before people start making judgements about any industry, it behooves them to do some research. Have your friends ever met any women who work in the pornography business? There is no denying the fact that the industry is rife with problems: crappy working conditions, lousy pay for both sexes, the social stigma of being an adult entertainer, and the condescending attitudes from people who presume that women could only be involved in this line of work if they were being coerced. And yes, some have spoken out against it, one being the recently deceased Linda Lovelace in her book Ordeal. But the Web site www.rame.net (which I highly recommend) makes an interesting point: while Lovelace had a terrible time in the business, it was mainly at the hands of her shithead husband, Chuck Traynor. Linda's story actually makes more of a case against marriage.

Some women don't like porn, some are ambivalent, some just love it. Some don't like the imagery it conveys about female sexuality -- that we are always willing, that orgasms are not only effortless but cataclysmic. But I've said it before: porn's main objective is not to educate. And primarily a profit endeavour? Yeah, those bastards. When your friends start working for free and start respecting the choices of grown women, then we'll talk.

-----------------------------

I have recently hooked up with two other filmmakers (women) to make lesbian porn. We are based in Toronto and are looking for talent for our chick flicks. I have asked many lesbians if they feel the lesbian porn on the market is either sexy or erotic -- the answer is always no. We agree, and that is why we need some suggestions to help us discover talent. Also, we want to encourage women of all backgrounds, associations and persuasions. Can you suggest some places where we might advertise for performance artists/talent without attracting perverts or psychotics? Please contact us at dirtypillows@rogers.com. BMAUDLIN

Look, I'm going to publish this email address because I also totally agree with the fact that a lot of certified lesbian porn (actually a lot of radical porn in general) would be more appropriately filed under the category of political manifesto. Come As You Are (701 Queen W.) has a notice board where they allow people to post advertisements such as this.

It is not, however, Come As You Are's responsibility to weed out perverts for you -- and may I just say, you might be going about casting this at cross-purposes. The same goes for your comment about psychopaths -- what about this whole "women of different backgrounds, associations and persuasions" edict? Psychopaths often make excellent actors. But good luck, and please send me a copy when you're done. Oh, and don't forget to make a documentary of yourselves making the movie. That's even more the rage these days than porn itself.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
16:37 / 15.05.02
RE: Semiotics of Softcore porn -

Most Softcore pictorials are accompanied by text which has been called "Nursery Language." There are no women in porn, only "girls," and they can only be "innocent" or "naughty." The promise of sexual interaction with the pinup is couched in terms reminiscent of a grade-school playdate; some commonly found props in photos are "girl's" bedroom (always frilly and juvenile), stuffed animals, or that perennial favorite, the school girl skirt.

As for the poses themselves, I think a main difference between most "pornography" and "erotica" is the gaze of the subject. In porn (as in easel painting, Berger of course), the gaze of the subject is always directly at the camera (and thus the viewer), signifying submission or an invitation. Positioning of limbs also signify these things. Pictorials commonly follow a sequence that seems obvious (from clothed to unclothed) but is a process of submitting to the viewer's gaze. A woman in a softcore porn pictorial will look timid fully clothed, but as she doffs her gaze and demeanor become more emboldened.

Sorry if all this is rather obvious. Berger is a good place to look for reading these images (as Camille Paglia says, art is porn and porn is art), and Barthes mini-essay on the art of the Striptease in Mythologies (though it concentrates more on amateur v. professional issues) can shed some light on the temporal aspects of the porn pictorial.
 
 
Ierne
18:46 / 15.05.02
Essentially, this is an inquiry thread...Grab anything you find interesting...
Um, I thought about these questions during my lunch break – hope my responses are useful.

How do you encounter pornography, and how do you recognize it as such?
I encounter it when I'm actively looking for it, and I know I've found it when I feel that tingle in my crotch. It isn't always something that would be typically considered "porn" – for example, yesterday during lunch I was in the used bookstore and found a biography of architect/interior designer Eileen Gray. Her furniture designs were so very *exciting* I plunked down mad money for a huge hardcover book! And wished she were still alive to redecorate my new lovepad - er, flat!

Do you consume pornography? In particular, the newsstand variety?
I don't consume it that often. Most of the porn I purchase is in book form, not magazine form, so I don't go to newsstands or cornerstores for my porn. And I tend to keep the books I buy, so I don't need to be constantly buying more.

...do you find purchasing it a furtive or embarassing activity?
No, because I get my porn at either the not-so-local women's bookstore, one of the various sex paraphenalia shops that are woman-owned, or (see above!) my friendly used bookstore. I have a very high comfort level at these places. (And the cashiers are more concerned with making a sale than wondering what sort of pervert I am!)

So, what is the relationship of porn and sex?
Och. My gut response would be that pornography is a sort of marketing and/or promotional vehicle for sexual activity, and some types of sex are more agressively marketed than others. But I'd have to get back to you on why that is, and why I feel that way.

Do certain poses/styles recur, and why?
Yes. Because they sell. Why do they sell? Why is there a demand for certain types of porn over others? Oof – I need to think about that more as well...

Should there be "safe spaces" for expressions of (particularly lesbian/bisexual) pornography not aimed at the usual "target market"...?
Do you mean there should be safe places to buy non "target market" porn? Because where I live, there are, and I make use of them and give them my business.

If you mean that there are certain types of porn that the usual "target market" shouldn't have access to – well, I'm not sure it can work that way. Once something is published and put out, it's available for anyone to buy no matter who the intended demographic is.
 
 
grant
20:59 / 15.05.02
What do you think of when you think of pornography? How do you encounter pornography, and how do you recognise it as such?


Word association: reams of spam in my "Bulk Mail" folder.
( Farm girls seem to be rising once again, after last month's wave of Mature Amateurs. )

I also think of worn videotapes, passed hand to hand among a circle of mutual acquaintances.

All double entendres in the above answers intentional.

Also: sexy gifts from the better half. in this case, slickly produced and remarkably free of cringe factor.


Do you consume pornography? In particular, the newsstand variety? If so, do you find purchasing it a furtive or embarrassing activity? Is this because of the assumption that it will be used for masturbation, or the fact that it is sexual material (arguably), the semiology of the material or the semiology of its consumers?


Yep. Nope. Yep. Umm - b and d. It seems strangely intimate thing to involve gasoline station clerks with. God bless the brown wrapper and the internet.

Whether or not you consume porn, how do you think about people who do?

See answer to next question - all depends on moderation and geek-out factor.

So, what is the relationship of porn and sex?


Something along the lines of the relationship between science and science fiction.

And how does pornography construct its practitioners? Amateurs, office workers, secretaries, art students - why is nobody ever identified as "softcore pornographic model" in their descriptions?


One of the interesting things I've noticed lately among texts like Asia Carrera's website (which actually has a few pages you can access at work), DVD additional features, and documentaries like "Sex: The Annabel Chong Story" is that there's a growing subset of people who are proud to do porn. I think you'll find this less in the Playboy pinup set and more in the all-day-orgy-video-highlights set.

And what the hell is going on with all those stockings and garterbelts? Do certain poses/styles recur, and why?


I think poses recur (in hardcore porn, at least), because the pose or the frame of the action is only a distraction from what's really happening: two (or three or five) people are going to be giving each other (the appearance of) physical pleasure. Pose and setup are just another costuming.
In het softcore (as specified in this topic's abstract), I'm not so sure. There's something else at play that has to do with the sexiness of the unrevealed and ways of getting that unrevealed look.

You knew it had to be here...Is McKinnon right to suggest that the link between pornography and sexual violence against women has been proven? Does such a link exist?

There may be a link there, but I'm inclined to think you could find a similar link between sexual violence against women and (PG-rated)vampire movies, or V-8 internal combustion engines.
 
 
grant
21:04 / 15.05.02
Should there be "safe spaces" for expressions of (particularly lesbian/bisexual) pornography not aimed at the usual "target market"...?


Niche markets, maybe, but "safe spaces" I dunno. Can't justify that without thinking of safe spaces for Japanese stalker-rape video enthusiasts.
What would a "safe space" consist of?
And, given fluidity of gender and sexuality, how could one prove one wasn't really a bisexual woman wearing a male body? Is there some difference between the gaze of a het boy and the gaze of a dyke when neither are physically present during the act being viewed?
 
 
the Fool
23:05 / 15.05.02
Where does gay porn fit into all of this?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:21 / 15.05.02
Very good question, Fool, just waiting for a very good answer. Before attempting such, entertain the amusing statistical concept that for every magazine portraying naked men for the notional benefit of women, there are ten portraying naked men for the notional benefit of men, and a hundred portraying naked women for the notional benefit of men.

Then again, the last time I went porn shopping, it was with a fried for gay porn, so what does that mean? Search me. Roughly.
 
 
pacha perplexa
09:46 / 16.05.02
Eeek. I just realized I didn't understand half the questions.

Haus: >She's probably not considering dominatrixes

Or they are whores - women who demand sexual satisfaction.

I was thinking more along the lines of "powerful women that concede some of their precious time to be mean" with people that can't find this kind of sexual satisfaction in usual relationships. I don't know if they "demand sexual satisfaction" as much as having fun performing sadistic acts.

Ultimately, one could even argue, dominatrix porn is a way for the desire to be dominated to be controlled through capitalist process - I exchange money for this magazine, and can now look at a woman who, although notionally dominant, actually depends on people like me to pay for magazines to make a living.

But the 'reader' could be buying the magazine because he doesn't have resources or guts to face a dominatrix.
Erm... Wouldn't it be pushing too far to assume that dom porn readers could think the dominatrixes pictured depend on their money? I don't know.

Which, incidentally, is sort of what I meant about "art strudents, secretaries, etc" - in softcore the models have a few paragraphs purporting to describe them (usually), and, although they are portrayed removing their clothes for display in a magazine, they are always given other jobs to talk about.

Don't think I get it entirely. Will try to decipher and say something later.

Then again, the last time I went porn shopping, it was with a fried for gay porn, so what does that mean?

Could it be for the same reason why I love pictures of women and lesbian porn? Bissexual mind, it is.
Does this mean we have bissexual tendencies? Or we just admire the aesthetics (that's my best excuse for never having been in a relationship w/ a woman)?

Sorry, I'm confused now.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:10 / 16.05.02
Actually, the friend was on the hunt - I was his guide to the filthpits of Soho. He had just left a relationship and was working on getting his self-freak on.

On the secretaries bit...what I mean is that the models in softcore magazines have a description in text, which usually locates them in some everyday job, in a pparent defiance of the fact that they are taking their clothes off for money. Even the pros seem not to be allowed to be pros. Whereas in softcore videos (which seem to have to have plots and such nonsense), you get the curious inversion of porn pornographic actors *playing* at being "real people", while quite clearly being professional porn actors...Very peculiar...
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:52 / 16.05.02
I always feel that this sort of discussion is coloured by the notion that sexual acts are base and sordid. I certainly accept that there is exploitation in pornography and some of the images perpetuate unhelpful, perhaps insulting stereotypes about women. However, I think that pornography is a symptom more than a cause and particular set of values surround any discussion of it. Thus women who are pornographic models have somehow been besmirched although, as pointed out above, this seems unrelated to pay or conditions. Rather, sexual acts in themselves are seen to degrade. As noted above, the idea that women are exploited by performing for money seems a wholesale criticism of capitalism that is distortingly focused on the sex industry.

Similarly, many women express with pride their revulsion at the idea of pornography, declaring it is simply for men - we are to understand that men, perhaps as a gender, are sullied by their use of pornography. I hesitate to use the phrase "virgin/whore dichotomy" but in my experience, liberated women masturbate and are not averse to using some form of pornography to enhance the act.

I'm avoiding the use of the word "erotica" because I think the division between erotica and pornography is misleading and falls into the same trap. Erotica is clean, pornography is dirty. "Erotica is what turns me on. Pornography is what turns you on."

This revulsion of sexuality is accompanied by a particular revulsion of male sexuality. How many times have we heard that a penis is ugly or ridiculous? How often do we hear the statement that women are more aesthetically pleasing. It is strange that as a heterosexual male, I am less comfortable with these sentiments than many women. It is even suggested above (as a point of discussion, rather than a strongly held belief) that it is inappropriate for a man to view and buy lesbian pornography intended for lesbians. Heaven forbid that this man should masturbate to such images. The implication seems to be that women are soiled by a man masturbating to these images but liberated if a woman does so.

Thus what is seen as an expression of sexual independence in a woman - feminists maturbate - is seen as disgusting in men. Dirty men in anoraks masturbate. I could go on about this phenomenon in advertising and a string of anecdotes but I think it is so pervasive that I hardly need to. I'm not trying to suggest that men are particularly oppressed by this, but I am saying that true sexual liberation needs to be holistic.

As to where gay porn fits into this picture, I'd say it is largely irrelevant. I don't mean that as a dismissal, just that broad comments about the effects of pornography assume said pornography is for the consumption of het males.

In terms of my own tastes, I agree with many here that top shelf porn is facile and actually quite dull. I'm hesitant to be smug and superior about that however. After all, a het male who likes BDSM and Femdom is liable to be the brunt of a fair amount of ridicule.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:02 / 16.05.02
But you are conflating "pornography" with "masturbation", Lurid. And also with "sexual acts".

To return to the object an sich - why is softcore porn "facile and rather dull"? And what sort of pornography isn't?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
13:22 / 16.05.02
softcore porn, regardless of national definition, isn't nessecarily facile and dull.

There is some perfectly good work out there that is not hardcore and some very poor work that is not softcore.

When pornography, and indeed whether, is facile and dull (either soft or hard core)it's a product of two parties. Those being the creators and the viewers. If the creators simply place no creative effort, for want of a better phrase, into their work and are only churning out images that are pornographic by technicality and/or the viewers expectations/needs are not met then the work becomes facile and dull.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
13:26 / 16.05.02
To cover the second part of that question a little more adequately.

Porn of any nature, be it gay, lesbian, het and so on, is good, as in satisfying and not by an umbrella of standard crap, when it satisfies the viewer/consumer. Soft or hard core requirements, like fetish or kink requirements are set by the consumer and are to be met by the creators/producers. A classic example of a supply and demand market.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:50 / 16.05.02
My point is precisely that pornography is assessed according to values that pertain to the acts represented and the main purpose of that representation - material for masturbation. I'm not sure about how to address the attitudes surrounding pornography without talking about sexuality in general and masturbation specifically.

I've re-read my post and while I do digress a little, the intention is to provide some analysis for opinion. I should have made it clearer that the post should be read with the following question in mind, "Why is porn considered disgusting?". Its a touch harsh to imply I was off topic. I may never forgive you, Haus.

BTW, my comments about soft core porn were intended as an aside about my personal tastes rather than a deep analysis. It just doesn't do anything for me, but I'm not claiming that makes it bad. Does porn have to be facile and dull? No, absolutely not. But giving criteria whereby we may judge porn is as hard as aesthetics generally and probably beyond me. It might be possible to talk about this porn aesthetics in a meta sense, though I need to think hard else I'll just talk a lot of rubbish.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:02 / 16.05.02
I wasn't suggesting that you were off topic, Lurid. I was suggesting that you have assumed things which, although acculturated, are not necesarily inarguable. Personally, the more I hear about this, the less convinced I am that porn has anything much to do with sex...

Which is why a man masturbating over On Our Backs and a woman doing likewise may not necessarily be the same thing.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
14:06 / 16.05.02
But if the magazine is made publically accessible then is there justification when someone accesses it?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
14:14 / 16.05.02
Ooops, that should read "is there any justification in complaining when someone accesses it".

As an aside, can your friend claim to be accurate in knowing why the man was looking at the magazine.
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:14 / 16.05.02
Don't mean to be slow, but you've lost me Haus. Is your sentence structure wrong? "you have assumed things which...are not necesarily inarguable"

You are trying to say that I'm making unwarranted assumptions? Not sure which ones you mean.

Also, unless you expand on why a man masturbating over mag is different from a woman doing the same, I'll be unclear as to what you intend. In fact, wasn't that one of my points? Of course, I meant that as a criticism of prevailing attitudes which I suspect is not what you want to say.
 
 
Steve Block
15:04 / 16.05.02
Haus: why is nobody ever identified as "softcore pornographic model" in their descriptions

Is that because it taps into the fantasy part that the portion of the market the porn is being aimed at needs? There does seem to need to be some sort of dressing up of the object for a certain percentage of the market to get their kicks, otherwise surely just meat on a slab would have the required effect. Um...spinning off on a tangent, I'm thinking that maybe in the gaining of consciousness that humanity has, there is a trade off to being a slave to the base instincts, which means on some level we have overridden our ability to get easily aroused. So there has been a development of an area which allows us to more easily arouse ourselves, which would quantify in lines with cultural expectations, in that they would be shaped by/with the culture.

I guess on another level I'm saying porn exists to satiate the sexual desire, and because we live in a capitalist society, the market dictates what sells.

Not sure how constructive I've been here. Is there more to porn than just arousal?

To answer other questions in your initial post...

I don't have much experience with porn nowadays, besides the top shelf to which my mind occasionally, and consciously flicks, and sometimes flicking on to a late night movie on Channel 5, again consciously. I don't really think much about it, I think I've hot a very love/hate relationship with it, in that I like it but I feel ashamed of that fact.

I haven't bought a porn mag, so I'm not a consumer of porn on that level.

The relationship between porn and sex? Are you seperating the state of arousal from the act of sex? If so, then I doubt porn has very much to do with sex, but more to do with the exploitation of the state of arousal.

And if you aren't making a distinction between erotca and porn, then Skodarki (whoever that is) is wrong, in that I got kicks when I was a teen from the dirty bits in horror novels like Shaun Hutson and James Herbert, which didn't really fit either of her categories, being just descriptions of sex between couples.

And I think that also means the link between porn and sexual violence isn't proven, in that if porn is whatever turns you on, then if sexual violence turns you on, it is porn, and if it doesn't, it isn't. A liking for a certain area of porn may well be a sign that someone also has a liking for sexual violence, but that doesn't mean it causes it. Although I'm not sure in what sense McKinnon meant it, I'm assuming he/she meant it in the sense that porn leads you onto sexual violence. I'd guess there's a link in the same way that if you like gun magazines it means you like guns, which means there is more chance of you shooting someone than if you don't like gun magazines. Um...I guess I'm coming at it from a statistical point, like the chance of dying in a plane crash is greatly reduced if you never fly.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:07 / 16.05.02
Is your sentence structure wrong?

Now you're just being silly.

I said that you are assuming things which, although acculturated, are not necessarily inarguable. Such as that pornography and sexual acts are in some way intimately connected. And thus that disapproval of pornography is based on or inspired by a revulsion at the idea of sexual acts.

Also, your claims for the beauty of the penis seem to have rather blinded you to the idea that men employing lesbian pornography (as in made for lesbians) might be dubious or objectionable for reasons other than hidebound ideas about the comparative attractiveness of men and women masturbating (which, ironically, is a very softcore ideology).

Essentially, you are accepting an acculturated and apparently unexamined ideology of pornography, thus:

Pornography is a commutative means whereby sexual acts can be transferred between the originators and the reader (in the act of masturbation) through the text. In effect, the sexual act, the pornogrpahic representation and the masturbation at the other end are the same thing. As such, women who disapprove of pornography are ipso facto disapproving also of the idea of sex and of (male) masturbation, and are therefore by implication sexually repressed. By contrast, "liberated" women enjoy both masturbation and pornography, and by implication the sexual act. It is worth noting that one of the tropes of softcore pornography is the "nice girl" being made aware of her sexual urges (often for lesbian lovin') by coming upon, first figuratively and then literally, a misaddressed/discarded/otherwise unespectedly available piece of pornography. A reader's letter describing how the author and his girlfriend like to share their pornography as also a useful indicator that the girlfriend is a "goer" - liberated. In one paradigm porn is used as a signifier of liberation, in the other it is the performer of an *act* of liberation. Since the act of liberation usually involves either being driven by these strange new feelings to masturbate (in pornography female masturbation within the text, asopposed to male masturbation outside it, could be seen as a sex act, as the reader is a voyeuristic participant), have sex with the next man who comes along, or both, once again we see that the pornogrpahic *object* is seen as interchangeable with and inextricably connected to the sexual act. So pornography legitimates itself within itself, by precisely the association of its consumption as a sign of "liberation".

So, you seem to be confused because the basic tenets of your arguments - that porn is about sex on one end and masturbation at the other, that female disapproval of pornography is a function of a lack of liberation, because to disapprove of porn is to disapprove of sex...the logical inference being that porn *is* sex - are so deep-rooted you cannot recognise them as anything other than a part of the background. Institutionalised porno, if you will.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
15:52 / 16.05.02
unsepectedly - is that unexpectedly or another word?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
15:54 / 16.05.02
or even unespectedly - oddly enough the irony may prove to be sickening.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply