Poll: Can pornography exist in a sexism free society?

[Something Amyss]

Hey, it saved Pete Townshend's ass.

Someone used that line and it actually worked....? Not sure who that is granted.[/quote]

Pete Townshend of The Who was busted with child pornography. In fairness, while I made a crack about how the "research" line worked, he had apparently been working with police of at least one country and some sexual abuse activist group, which is the actual reason he got off the charges. So it's not that scary, because it probably was "research."

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Pornography isn't sexist. 2 consenting adults having sex in front of few cameras for monetary compensation isn't sexist.
Sexism is discrimination against someone based solely on the sex.
As long as it's legal, it's okay. Forcing someone to do porn still wouldn't be sexist. It would be bad, it would be illegal, but it wouldn't be sexist.

 

[Something Amyss]

Ah I see. That explains that so benefit of the doubt 'n all.

Makes the album Tommy all that creepier, though.

 

[Ramzal]

Many of the portrayals of women and men in pornography, especially hardcore pornography, are sexist and objectifying in nature. It's okay to say that they are and discuss why this is. It's also perfectly fine to state that, just because a portrayal is sexist/objectifying that it is also perfectly okay. Not every instance of sexism or objectification is inherently morally or ethically wrong.

To you it is sexist/objectifying so yes, it is okay to state that. To some people it is simply attracting/pleasing. Since this becomes a matter of perspective. I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing it necessarily. I think the problem was that I flew off the handle and took it as another example of someone saying "Porn is sexist and it can only exist in a society with sexism". So my fault big time there and very, very stupid of me for doing it.

Pornography frequently involves acts of abuse and mistreatment of the actors and actresses. When the poll says that porn should stay as it is, does that mean including that?

There are people who are happy to work in porn, yes. There are also plenty of people who are not.

This sounds like a personal problem. Generally if I am unhappy at the job I work at, I find a new one and quit the old one. I worked at Walmart for all of 2 days and the BS there was not my cup of tea so I moved on.

Yes, and that choice is especially evident when someone tries to get out of porn and can't find employment elsewhere. Or when they lose current jobs for being discovered. Or when they enter the field due solely to financial hardship, which can lead to the other two.

Funny how "choice" starts to break down in the real world.

Again, this falls within the choice category. The people in pornography--and we're talking legit pornography and not home/real sick stuff involving those who are not of legal age--are legal voting adults who have made a decision. And much like any other decision that an adult makes, they must deal with the consequences of those decisions and the repercussions. Now here is where I think me and you agree:

It is not acceptable for someone to have to feel that they have to stay in a profession they do not feel happy in be it they felt happy one day and just don't anymore or do it because they need money. It's a bad situation to be in and it's only made worse as the possibility of losing another job is there due to being in porn. So I think we agree that situation is pretty bad. So this leads to the next topic of the discussion: A feasible solution.

After all we argue all day about the situation but I think it would be more productive to come to a solution to the problem--otherwise it just becomes a yelling contest. But the only solution I can think of is one where employers would be decent people to acknowledge that what their workers do on their own time is their own business as long as it does not interrupt their company/industry/whatever.

 

[Duster]

I think this entire topic is comedy gold.

 

[Dagda Mor]

I think you worded the poll choices poorly. You should ask if it WOULD exist in a sexism-free society--the first option should say, "Pornography would exist as it does now," the second, "Pornography would exist, but some types wouldn't," and the third, "Pornography wouldn't exist at all."

As for my opinion on the matter, sometimes people want to be seen as a sex object. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that people don't want to NEVER be seen as a sex object, but that they should only be seen as a sex object when they want to.

 

[Shadow flame master]

Porn is going to exist even after the eventual heat-death of the universe, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. People might make it harder to watch it, but seeing as it is nothing more as a fantasy that MANY people enjoy, people will find a way to make it and watch it.

People enjoyed it in the past, are enjoying now, and will enjoy it in a sexism free society. (I also have doubts that there will ever be a truly sexism free society, let alone a racism free one.)

 

[Gorrath]

Many of the portrayals of women and men in pornography, especially hardcore pornography, are sexist and objectifying in nature. It's okay to say that they are and discuss why this is. It's also perfectly fine to state that, just because a portrayal is sexist/objectifying that it is also perfectly okay. Not every instance of sexism or objectification is inherently morally or ethically wrong.

To you it is sexist/objectifying so yes, it is okay to state that. To some people it is simply attracting/pleasing. Since this becomes a matter of perspective. I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing it necessarily. I think the problem was that I flew off the handle and took it as another example of someone saying "Porn is sexist and it can only exist in a society with sexism". So my fault big time there and very, very stupid of me for doing it.

Actually, I'd say it is often both. Sexism and objectification to many people is attractive and pleasing. To say it is sexist or objectifying isn't simply a matter of perspective I think, since there's a lot of porn which is explicitly designed with sexism and/or objectification as major themes. One would be hard pressed to argue that a porn production who's central theme includes objectification is not objectifying; it's tautological. But we can and should differentiate between systemic sexism in broader society and specific sexism that might exist in media. The former is almost always an ethical issue while the latter often isn't.

I think a lot of people link sexism with ethical issues automatically. That tends to make people view all sexism as something that needs to be fought against. This also tends to make people react defensively when something they enjoy is accused of being sexist. That reaction is a reasonable one if there's an ethical problem at stake. That's why I've taken to highlighting, as often as is appropriate, that sexism and objectification are not inherently problematic. Anyone who wishes to claim that something is sexist and ethically problematic needs to do more than just call something sexist.

To address your last line specifically, sexism can exist in a society that does not engage in systemic sexism, and that's why porn can be sexist and still be a-ok. Thanks for your level headed response, I appreciate you taking the time. Cheers!

 

[loa]

I don't see how a "sexism free society" would mean everyone magically loses their sex drive.

Outright banning pornography might be extreme, I realize, but perhaps making more forms of it illegal and punishable much like child pornography would be the way to go? For example, porn that simulates a women being raped/sexually assaulted by a man would be illegal due to concerns that men who view it might think of women more as sexual objects versus people.

Careful there.
The reason why child pornography is illegal is because to make it, a child has to be abused.
There is no "moral" reason behind its ban based on the subject matter alone no matter how much you kick and scream that it is so.
NO simulation should be banned. That thought crime stuff belongs into 1984, not in the real world.

 

[AtomChicken]

Porn is porn, and important, it has been held as First Amendment speech repeatedly.

I think it's important to realize that while Porn maybe distasteful to some along ethical grounds, doesn't mean it should be banned. Unless its the deplorable and actually illegal stuff, then Porn has every right to exist as a statement of sex and free speech.

 

[Amir Kondori]

You can get very different results depending on how you word a question. There is a whole science to it. To whit, the second option, "Pornography can exist, but certain types should be outlawed", saw a very small percentage of people pick as their response, yet if the same statement were reworded to say "Pornography can exist, but certain types, such as child pornography, should be outlawed" I believe it would have received the most votes.

To the question at hand, pornography involving consenting people of age should be a-ok in a free society. A free society should have a light approach to regulating morality. As long as children are not featured, as our society believes children are not developed enough to fully render consent, nor animals, which obviously cannot render consent in any verifiable way, then I am all for a free for all.

Now society does have an interest in regulating the production of pornography, i.e. mandatory testing of actors, in order to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. That, along with consent, is where regulation should end.

 

[vid87]

... I don't really know how to answer the question as given.

To be honest, I used to be a lot more relaxed about porn than I am now.

Can't look at it myself, or at least, haven't found any that doesn't usually make me feel slightly sick, rather than aroused, but that's a minor issue.

What really made me aware of why perhaps it's more of an issue than I originally thought is... Because I was abused (arguably even raped) by a guy... Who for some reason I let come back anyway.
It was actually possible to have a reasonable conversation with him though, and ironically I wouldn't say he's a horrible person... But what I did come to understand was largely from a moment he decided to try and show me porn...
I'm sure he was hoping it would excite me somehow, but instead it just caused me to have a sudden realisation.
His lack of regard for my feelings, and weird ideas of what was possible to do sexually (many of which made me quite uncomfortable) were quite clearly related to the porn he had been watching.
It became obvious he had unrealistic expectations about sex, because he was assuming that what he saw in porn could be applied directly to reality. (When in fact porn is in many ways just as fake as any other kind of 'entertainment' media)...

That realisation really forced me to stop and think about this...

However, all it's really done is left me rather confused. I don't like banning things as a principle, yet I can see, and have first-hand experience of the subtle negative effects it can have...

I just... Don't know what to think, at this point.

That unfortunately seems to be a lack of perspective on the guy's part if he's so tunnel-visioned that he can't acknowledge other people's feelings. It's hard to say what causes that kind of mentality but I believe there are studies that conclude far too much porn viewing causes changes in the brain I believe similar to drug use in that it alters brain sensitivity to neurotransmitters. How it could go about altering perception and attitudes I'm can't say for sure, but too much of something without perspective is never a good thing. I agree with you that banning and censorship do little good in principle, but there are things that, left unchecked, can indeed cause harm. It's definitely confusing and doesn't have a clear answer, but it's why we should be having this debate.


CAPTCHA - "Open Wide" ...must you, here?

 

[CaitSeith]

I think pornography would exist, because in a society without any real sexism, sex wouldn't be something to be ashamed of. Of course that would be an utopia where everybody gets treated fair and everybody can reach the happiness they desire, without thinking if they neighbours have more than they deserve.

PS catpcha: agree to disagree No more to say...

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

The way I see it, pornography centers around objectification. For the time you're viewing whatever form of pornography you're looking at, the person/people you're viewing exists soley for your sexual gratification.

Bullshit.

By that logic, any actor in any media only exists to be objectified. Clark Gregg who plays Coleson on Agents of Shield only exists for my personal entertainment. Not to make art, not to play a role - because I enjoy his acting, I objectify him.

I don't think anyone would agree that Clark Gregg - or any other actor - only exists as an object - a source of entertainment. Therefore, the idea that a woman (or man) in a porno only exists to be objectified is equally absurd.

This is one of my many, many problems with that particular Second Wave philosophy. The one objectifying porn actors are the people who think that it is impossible to view them without objectifying them.

That said, would I like to see more protections in place to help porn actors? Sure. Would I like to see more sex-positive features in porn? Sure.

I'd also like to live in a society where being a porn actor wasn't considered shameful. Where people didn't feel the need to hide their sexual desires, but were open and honest about them. Fix that, and you won't have to worry about the rest - it will fix itself.

tl;dr: A truly sexism free society would have MORE porn, not less, because no one would find sex shameful.

 

[HardkorSB]

With the discussion about sexism/objectification in society fair hot nowadays, there's a question I've been wondering about that I've never seen brought up before. Namely, is it possible for a form of media whose entire existence centers around sexual objectification properly exist in a society that is either free of sexim, or desires to be?

I think that most people rambling about a "sexism free world" don't know anything about human biology and how sex drive works.
Being attracted to a person's body is a normal natural thing.
Our genes are basically telling us that that particular person is good for mating.
The only way people will stop doing that is if you change human DNA and by doing that you could possibly remove our desire to reproduce and end our species.

I know putting a ban on porn would go about as well as Prohibition in the 1930s, but think about this concept in a more ideal form versus an actual form.

It would be worse.
Alcohol isn't needed to survive, sex is.

Outright banning pornography might be extreme, I realize, but perhaps making more forms of it illegal and punishable much like child pornography would be the way to go? For example, porn that simulates a women being raped/sexually assaulted by a man would be illegal due to concerns that men who view it might think of women more as sexual objects versus people.

Regarding child pornography, I honestly don't have any problems with animated stuff.
No child is being harmed and the people who are attracted to kids can get off without harming anyone.
With simulated rape, the key word is SIMULATED. It's not real so what's the problem?
We watch movies and play games with simulated murder and we don't turn to murderers because of it.

Final note, a lot of people don't have sexual partners yet they still want to satisfy their sex drives.
That's what masturbation is for and porn makes masturbating more pleasant.
If we could just have sex anytime and any place with anyone, we wouldn't need porn but we can't so we do need it.

 

[babinro]

Can it? Of course...I'm sure plenty of it already exists. Simply display the genuine affections of two consenting partners doing whatever they want to each other.

A lot porn tends to objectify both making one appear superior often through social stereotypes. Sexism seems to exist in nearly all sexual fantasies since they often focus on one persons power over another.

Out of curiosity though, do you find the second part of your statement to be a problem? A lot of people seem to think any objectification or sexism in media is automatically an ethical problem. It's a position I've argued against before. I just can't tell from your statement if you do or do not think it's a problem in this instance.

Personally, not at all.
My view may be overly simplistic but I simply see this as a fantasy.

This is not a display of sexism that is trying to teach us a moral or ethical lesson. I don't really know how to explain myself here other than to say it's the same way I view gaming. I can play God of War and accept that Kratos is not morally justified in murdering 100's of people yet I'll have fun with it because it's for entertainment. I don't feel the need to invoke real life morals and ethics to gaming, movies, books or t.v because they are portraying a fantasy.