Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Porn-Loving People vs. Noam Chomsky
Trawling YouTube's daily list of top "activism" videos, I found this wonderful, horrible clip of Noam Chomsky pontificating on the evils of pornography. Chomsky first defends himself against the charge that he himself is complicit in promoting pornography because, back in 2004, he was interviewed by Hustler magazine. But, he tells his interrogator, he "had never heard of The Hustler" until someone told him "what The Hustler was." Chomsky, a prolific emailer, apparently didn't know that The Google could have provided him with much information on The Hustler and its filthy contents.
Pornography, says the sage of MIT, is "disgraceful," "a humiliation and degradation of women." Does it matter, the interviewer wonders, that most porn performers "choose to do the job and get paid?" Chomsky offers this labored analogy in response: "The fact that women agreed to it and are paid is about as convincing as the fact that we should be in favor of sweatshops in China where woman are locked into the factory and work fifteen hours a day and then the factory burns down and they all die. They were paid and they consented, but it doesn't make me in favor of it." And for all of you porn consumers out there, Chomsky wants you to know that if you get "pleasure out of the humiliation of women [you] have a problem." So how do we improve the lot of porn performers? By banning "the degradation of woman" and "eliminating the conditions in which woman cannot get decent jobs; not permit abusive and destructive behavior."
For those of you who speak a Scandinavian language, you can find out just what Noam Chomsky thinks of me here, and just what I think of him here.
|7.24.08 @ 5:22PM|#
I'm just gleeful that a power-player in the Left has been shown
to be just as anti-pleasure and Puritanical as Falwell and
Robertson.
Almost like how the Enviros are over my shoulder going "What's the
carbon footprint of that food? That product?" "Oppression,
degradation, lack of respect for mother earth" are just lefty
buzzwords for "sin! sin! sin!"
|7.24.08 @ 5:26PM|#
Chomsky's getting to be fun in his old age--maybe Chomsky can be Nader's running mate?
jp|7.24.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Michael, you were too kind when you called that a "labored analogy." I'm almost embarrassed for the old guy.
Warty|7.24.08 @ 5:28PM|#
I can't believe that anyone ever listened to Chomsky about anything other than linguistics.
|7.24.08 @ 5:30PM|#
Someone, somewhere is doing something fun. It's not just for
conservatives any longer!
We need a Chomsky-Gravel Deathmatch. Two irrelevant men enter, one
leaves! Still irrelevant!
TallDave|7.24.08 @ 5:30PM|#
I think being a linguist who writes drivel about geopolitics is
disgraceful, a humiliation and degradation.
We need to ban this type of work so Mr. Chomsky is not forced to
degrade himself.
TallDave|7.24.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Oh, I forgot to add, his behavior is abusive and destructive, and we need to eliminate the conditions in which he cannot get a decent job such as working in a textile factory.
Mudkipz|7.24.08 @ 5:35PM|#
You know, I really like Chomsky when I go watch old YouTube clips of him debating Buckley back in 68, and then he goes and reminds me what a totalitarian weirdo he is when it comes to actual policy implementations. "Banning the degradation of women," indeed; will Sex in the City get the axe? I'd love to see him provide the details of how this will all be enforced and to what it will apply.
Mudkipz|7.24.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Also, I'd be curious to know if Chomsky thinks about anything when he masturbates, but I'm not sure how I would go about phrasing the question even if I had the gumption to ask him.
|7.24.08 @ 5:40PM|#
Womens' tennis and volleyball also exploit women for profit, and I sometimes get mild sexual pleasure from watching them. Should they also be Banned?
|7.24.08 @ 5:43PM|#
The fact that women agreed to it and are paid is about as
convincing as the fact that we should be in favor of sweatshops in
China where woman are locked into the factory and work fifteen
hours a day...
Because it so much better when they were hooking for a living,
instead of having a real, steady job. Now that the hooker market
has contracted, I think Noam is pissed because he doesn't like
paying so much for his Asian meat puppets.
|7.24.08 @ 5:44PM|#
There are and have been societies with equally advanced views on women and autonomy. The best thing that can be said about such societies is that they would likely stone Chomsky to death for one reason or another.
NoStar|7.24.08 @ 5:44PM|#
Having spoken with Mr. Chomskey, I can tell you that he is "a humorless fuck."
NoStar|7.24.08 @ 5:47PM|#
Pardon me. When speaking of the worlds most cunning linguist one should refer to him as "an humorless fuck."
Neu Mejican|7.24.08 @ 5:48PM|#
I can't believe that anyone ever listened to Chomsky about
anything other than linguistics.
You really shouldn't listen to him on linguistics, fwiw.
|7.24.08 @ 5:49PM|#
This is the guy who is supposedly one of our great modern thinkers? I guess I should go read some of his work, but I find his resorting to strawman arguments to be lacking intellectual weight.
|7.24.08 @ 5:49PM|#
"a humiliation and degradation of women."
I have not WTFV yet, so I am sure it is full of really intelligent
insight on how the following humiliates and degrades women:
San Francisco lesbian porn financed, made and consumed entirely by
women;
Gay porn financed, made and consumed entirely by men;
Heterosexual women who enjoy heterosexual pornography.
The Chinese factory analogy is just about the stupidest thing I
have ever heard from a man who is allegedly an intellectual.
Neu Mejican|7.24.08 @ 5:54PM|#
This is the guy who is supposedly one of our great modern
thinkers?
He is of almost unmatched importance in the development of
linguistics and psychology...but that doesn't mean his ideas are
correct.
He's like Freud that way.
Proving him incorrect has advanced the field mightily.
If he was a sloppier thinker, his arguments would have been easier
to refute and we wouldn't know what we know today.
R. Totale|7.24.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Michael,
For us that don't speak a Scandinavian language, could you give us
the gist of what Noam said about you in that article?
|7.24.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Chomsky wants you to know that if you get "pleasure out of
the humiliation of women [you] have a problem."
No argument there!
Is it still a problem if I enjoy and take pleasure out of the
humiliation of Chomsky?
|7.24.08 @ 5:55PM|#
How, exactly, is porn more denigrating to the women involved
than the man?
Seems like Chomsky's reflecting some cultural misogyny himself- the
idea that sex is "bad" for women but somehow not so for the
man.
ghoti|7.24.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Chomsky wants you to know that if you get "pleasure out of
the humiliation of women [you] have a problem."
No argument there!
Seconded.
As to whether porn can be defined as "the humiliation of women",
well...
|7.24.08 @ 5:58PM|#
Why is the woman degraded, but not the man? Does gay (male) porn
degrade men? Inquiring minds want to know.
Chomsky may be an arrogant douche, but he is an arrogant douche who
is against blocking fire exits. Give the man some credit.
Paul|7.24.08 @ 6:00PM|#
interviewer wonders, that most porn performers "choose to do the job and get paid?"
You don't ask Noam Chomsky how he would respond to the fact that
someone chose to do a job and got paid. There's this little
conspiracy theory he lives by called "manufactured consent".
Paul|7.24.08 @ 6:03PM|#
You really shouldn't listen to him on linguistics,
fwiw.
Why? My understanding is that despite his antiquated, and laughable
politics, he is quite a ground-breaking thinker in this field,
no?
Djyrn|7.24.08 @ 6:05PM|#
Out of concern I checked several website with naked women on them. None of them looked very humiliated. On the contrary they looked quite lovely.
|7.24.08 @ 6:06PM|#
Chomsky wants you to know that if you get "pleasure out of
the humiliation of women [you] have a problem."
I get it: BDSM is OK with Noam, as long as the man is the sub.
Neu Mejican|7.24.08 @ 6:08PM|#
Why? My understanding is that despite his antiquated, and
laughable politics, he is quite a ground-breaking thinker in this
field, no?
See my comment up-thread.
Yes. Groundbreaking.
Correct?
Not so much.
Debunking his groundbreaking theories has advanced the field a
great deal.
He made some very plausible sounding conjectures back in the day,
based on no empirical evidence (there was none available).
The evidence gathered since then does not support most of those
conjectures.
His important contribution to linguistics was to reframe the
questions...but his answers have not held up to empirical scrutiny
(for the most part).
|7.24.08 @ 6:09PM|#
Old fart, huh? ;-)
Me too.
Just recorded another annual event. There aren't any more
milestones for the next 23 years. Not that I'll be able to stop
working then, since the government is working so feverishly to make
sure my 401k is worthless by the time I need it.
|7.24.08 @ 6:09PM|#
"The fact that women agreed to it and are paid is about as
convincing as the fact that we should be in favor of sweatshops in
China where woman are locked into the factory and work fifteen
hours a day and then the factory burns down and they all die. They
were paid and they consented, but it doesn't make me in favor of
it."
Did the woman in that case actually consent to be locked in, and be
unable to get out in the event of a fire? Or did they only consent
to work for long hours (but still expect that they could get out if
there was a fire).
" So how do we improve the lot of porn performers? By banning
"the degradation of woman" and "eliminating the conditions in which
woman cannot get decent jobs...."
I disagree with the first one, but I agree with the second one.
(Actually that is my main answer to sweatshop labor as well, go
figure). Of course, its easier said than done.
And of course, some women will still want to be porn stars, even if
they have other decent options (which is good).
Rhywun|7.24.08 @ 6:12PM|#
My linguistics degree has left me with only the vaguest
recollection of what Chomsky was all about... something about...
"transformative grammar"? Sheesh. I forgot most of it.
On the other hand, I've read some of his stuff about American
shenanigans around the world - he can be a prude at the same time
as advocating that America stop interfering everywhere for all I
care.
Elemenope|7.24.08 @ 6:13PM|#
Debunking his groundbreaking theories has advanced the field
a great deal.
That makes him the Freud (or Jung, if you prefer) of lingusitics.
Which is still pretty damn prestigious, FWIW.
We still read Plato in Philosophy for a reason.
|7.24.08 @ 6:14PM|#
Pardon me. When speaking of the worlds most cunning linguist
one should refer to him as "an humorless fuck."
Not unless your tongue is cut off or you're british - the first
sound in "humorless" is not a vowel sound, so you use "a humorless
fuck."
Correct
Noam Chomsky is a Douchebag
I am hung like an NBA player
Incorrect
I wish I was an dead person
An European stole my purse.
What are you, a idiot?
"pleasure out of the humiliation of women [you] have a
problem."
What if the woman finds pleasure in the humiliation? I'm just
saying.
|7.24.08 @ 6:20PM|#
Pornography, says the sage of MIT, is "disgraceful," "a humiliation and degradation of women."
But what about gay porn? Is that humiliating and degrading to men?
Methinks he just doesn't like porn and is using a shallow ideology
as an excuse.
But it's par for the Chomsky course. He claims to be a anarchist,
yet he wants to ban porn. How are you going to ban it without a
government to do the banning? You can try to claim that no one in
an anarchist society will voluntarily produce or consume porn, but
what if they don't?
Neu Mejican|7.24.08 @ 6:23PM|#
LMNOP,
Beat you to it.
Neu Mejican | July 24, 2008, 5:54pm | #
...
He's like Freud that way.
Geoff Nathan|7.24.08 @ 6:27PM|#
I think I'm the only practicing linguist left on this blog (I
haven't heard from "Linguist" in a while) so I guess I better
comment...
For the majority of American and Western European linguists,
Chomsky is still considered the original authority on linguistic
theory. But there is a sizable minority who adhere to alternative
theories (if you want the gory details about phonology you can read
the papers on my website, above--and my book, now in proofs, but
supposedly out in September-October..)
Chomsky's arguments for innateness, the independence of grammar
from the rest of cognition (the autonomy theory) are currently
under attack from a number of directions, but there's no doubt that
he had an incredible effect on the field that still, 51 years after
his first book, reverberates.
Neu Mejican|7.24.08 @ 6:29PM|#
LNMOP,
We still read Plato in Philosophy for a reason.
Chomsky's ideas flow directly from Plato (particularly The
Meno).
He even used the term "Plato's problem" to describe the gap between
a person's experience of language and their knowledge of
language.
One of the things he was wrong about was that there is insufficient
information in the language signal to learn its rules. This poverty
of stimulus was a key point in his attack on the behaviorist view
of language acquisition.
Elemenope|7.24.08 @ 6:42PM|#
Beat you to it.
Neu Mejican | July 24, 2008, 5:54pm | #
KHAN!!!!
One of the things he was wrong about was that there is
insufficient information in the language signal to learn its rules.
This poverty of stimulus was a key point in his attack on the
behaviorist view of language acquisition.
That strikes me as either trivially true or intuitively wrong.
Trivially true in the sense that even practiced experts in any
language will invariably make syntax and symbol errors from time to
time; everyone's learned language acquisition and processing
algorithm is imperfect, due at least in part to the data set
including a plethora of irreducible amphibologies.
Intuitively wrong in the sense that the data stream for
natural-spoken language is rich, and does not in most languages I'm
aware of vary in sturcture all that much from one usage to the
next. A heuristic of decent efficiency being run on a decently
powerful processor (like, say, a human brain) should be able to
pull out stable patterns from the set with a decently low error
rate.
But hey, I'm a dilletante in the field, doing a drive-by posting.
;)
Colin|7.24.08 @ 6:50PM|#
Chomsky was a fantastic linguist, whose research has touched
modern life more than one might think.
But on any other subject, he's a complete moron who should be
arbitrarily ignored.
Franklin Harris|7.24.08 @ 6:52PM|#
Chomsky wants you to know that if you get "pleasure out of the humiliation of women [you] have a problem."
What if I get pleasure out of the humiliation of men and women?
Elemenope|7.24.08 @ 6:53PM|#
Chomsky is pro-rape. Anyone who is anti-porn is pro-rape.
Period.
Well, at least we have a symmetry of stupid, here.
It's not every day that we can get "all porn is evil exploitation"
and "anti-porn folk want little Jinny to get poked" in such a nice
neat package.
Travis|7.24.08 @ 6:55PM|#
"He claims to be a anarchist, yet he wants to ban porn. How are
you going to ban it without a government to do the banning? You can
try to claim that no one in an anarchist society will voluntarily
produce or consume porn, but what if they don't?"
"A Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is as false a
figure as could be invented"
Benjamin Tucker.
Franklin Harris|7.24.08 @ 6:56PM|#
Chomsky was a fantastic linguist, whose research has touched modern life more than one might think.
And his linguistic theories dovetail nicely with what Hayek has to
say about knowledge and how the mind works. (Hint: Pinker likes
them both.) But only one of them has anything not crazy to say
about politics, and it ain't Noam.
weird biz|7.24.08 @ 7:14PM|#
I'm a big fan of Noam. And I agree with him on principle. But I am not for laws which regulate "right & wrong." And I think any law against porn would be just that. I watch porn - but I don't feel good about it really - it is sad. But... I think it's also human nature. I just don't think ol' Noam has near the sex drive of the average male.
|7.24.08 @ 7:18PM|#
I think Chomsky was one of the linguists who said language is
innate.
Like if two babies somehow survived on an island all alone they
would as they grew up invent language without prompting and in fact
that language they invent would have characteristics similar to all
other human language.
A metaphor would be we have blue print of language premade in our
minds before we ever speak a word.
Carrie, a girl friend I had in college, really got pissed at me for
telling her this. Not that Chomsky was involved just that language
was innate.
The funny thing is now I am sure she thinks Chomsky is right on his
politics but thinks he is wrong on linguistics (though she probably
does not know about the linguistics part comes from Chomsky) while
i think he is full of shit on his politics and is right about
language being innate.
a girl|7.24.08 @ 7:19PM|#
At the risk of having all you men-people boo me away, I just
wanted to add my woman-thoughts to the whole porn discussion.
As one who used to view porn a whole lot (but not anymore), I
wouldn't really say that the women are "exploited" as Chomsky
posits--nor do I advocate that it be illegal. However, what I don't
really like about porn is how it makes me, as a woman, feel about
myself in relation to my husband. I'm your average woman--not a
movie star, but not bad to look at, either. It's really hard as an
average woman to "compete", so to speak, with porn stars. If your
spouse is constantly viewing porn (with or without you), it's hard
to feel sexy when you know you don't look like that. I'll never
have huge boobs, will never be a size 2 (though I'm not obese or
anything), and I'll never be 20 again. It's like if you were in a
polygamous relationship, and you were the old wife and there's a
new 18-year-old wife in the house--just no way to compete.
Now, I know my husband loves me and finds me sexy, but it's hard
for ME to feel that way in comparison to the women he can see
online.
I know, I know, that's my problem, but I think a lot of women feel
this way.
Again, not advocating banning it or anything, just sayin'.
|7.24.08 @ 7:34PM|#
@a girl: they make porn with average joes/janes. even with gasp! "ugly" people. the rise of amateur stuff is supposedly one of the reasons for the porn industry's troubles.
mariko|7.24.08 @ 7:37PM|#
I think everything he said is right on.
Anti-pornography and anti-sex and are NOT the same thing. So quit
it with the lame accusations of prudery, or (and I can't believe
this was even written by a commenter here) "pussy."
"Banning the degradation of women," indeed; will Sex in the
City get the axe? I'd love to see him provide the details of how
this will all be enforced and to what it will apply.
For starters? How about ending human trafficking, alleviating
poverty (which always disproportionately hurts women), eliminating
legislation that restricts women's reproductive freedom and
endangers their reproductive health, the replacement of marriage
with civil unions (in this country), or in some countries,
eliminating the
conditions that render a wife essentially the property of her
husband, and
actually enforcing rape laws? Oh, and so much more.
Aside from these political changes, we can start personally by
trying to change a culture that sees women as nothing more than
objects to titillate men and/or embryo receptacles. We can start
this (right now!) by ending our consumption of pornography,
cosmetic plastic surgery, fashion, celebrity culture, pretty much
anything on E! and Axe body spray.
Finally, and this has always been a peeve of mine with people who
attack Chomsky, why can't someone who happens to do their
professional work in linguistics (or any field) also write about
politics, culture and other issues, provided the arguments are
valid and well-supported? All you really need to do that is the
ability to read, write, and think critically. So enough attacks on
his purported lack of credentials to talk about anything other than
universal grammar and A-movement. Actually address his arguments
instead.
|7.24.08 @ 7:51PM|#
alleviating poverty
Why is it that there is more porn produced and consumed in rich
countries than in poor countries? Why is there so much porn in the
US, Europe and Japan, and so very little of it in Africa, and Latin
and South America?
Travis|7.24.08 @ 7:54PM|#
mariko, you're such a pussy.
p.s. I was just kidding in case you turn out to be real. You never
know these days someone might actually hate Axe body spray.
Elemenope|7.24.08 @ 7:55PM|#
mariko --
You are confusing the arguments. It's not that people around here
are (generally) all about the degradation of women. I think the
point of disconnect is that nearly nobody here thinks that porn,
ipso facto, is degradation.
Most of the stuff you list (human trafficking, reproductive
freedom, marriage equality, enforcement of rape laws) is obviously
aimed at preventing the degradation of women, and so lumping
fighting porn in with them is engaging in a
"one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others" fallacy, which
undoubtedly has a fancy Latin name that I can't bring myself to
look up at the moment.
FWIW, I agree with you that a person's occupation should not
disqualify them from engaging in politics and political commentary;
politics by its very nature is *everyone's* business.
Doesn't make him even remotely close to right, though.
Paul|7.24.08 @ 7:56PM|#
Finally, and this has always been a peeve of mine with
people who attack Chomsky, why can't someone who happens to do
their professional work in linguistics (or any field) also write
about politics, culture and other issues, provided the arguments
are valid and well-supported?
Many of us do, here on Hit & Run. And frankly, many of us make
better arguments than Chomsky does.
We can start this (right now!) by ending our consumption of
pornography, cosmetic plastic surgery, fashion, celebrity culture,
pretty much anything on E! and Axe body spray.
Methinks a ministry of culture could fix all of these ills. I take
it you'd run for the job?
Elemenope|7.24.08 @ 7:57PM|#
Why is there so much porn in the US, Europe and Japan, and
so very little of it in Africa, and Latin and South
America?
You are clearly far behind on Latin and South America.
Argentina and Brazil in particular have thriving (should we say
throbbing?) porn industries.
Travis|7.24.08 @ 8:00PM|#
a girl,
Unfortunately for me you & my girlfriend are of the same
opiniion. Now I can't watch porn without feeling guilty because she
says it's cheating.
mariko|7.24.08 @ 8:03PM|#
Why is it that there is more porn produced and consumed in rich countries than in poor countries? Why is there so much porn in the US, Europe and Japan, and so very little of it in Africa, and Latin and South America?
Got any sources for that?
Of course rich countries are going to be on the demand side for
porn, because, well, they have the money. (What's the name of this
magazine again?) In fact, some of the biggest distributors of porn
are our
very own hotel chains, with their late-nite adult entertainment
options available in nearly every hotel room in the world.
Actually,
China earns the most revenue from porn than any country. I'm
not sure about Africa, but tons of porn comes from Latin and South
America. Sao Paulo is quickly becoming
one of the porn capitals of the world.
Paul|7.24.08 @ 8:07PM|#
However, what I don't really like about porn is how it makes
me, as a woman, feel about myself in relation to my husband. I'm
your average woman--not a movie star, but not bad to look at,
either. It's really hard as an average woman to "compete", so to
speak, with porn stars.
You know, I'm getting a bit tired of this "how can I live up to
this fantasy ideal" business.
guess what, it works both ways. Everytime I turn on tv, I'm faced
with iron-jawed men with ripped chests, a wiry shock of full-headed
hair and a blinding ray of light everytime they open their mouths.
I work in a company almost entirely peopled by women- including in
the management- and I get to hear stories about which guy they all
think is teh hawte as they flip through Us or
People on their lunch breaks.
It doesn't offend me. One. Bit.
I'm sorry if you feel less attractive than the false-breasted,
bronze-skinned babe with perfect hair. Get in line.
Travis|7.24.08 @ 8:11PM|#
"Why is there so much porn in the US, Europe and Japan, and so
very little of it in Africa"
You need a tv or a computer to watch it. How much is a television
in Zimbabwe dollars.
Boston|7.24.08 @ 8:13PM|#
alleviating poverty (which always disproportionately
hurts women)
How is this?
Paul|7.24.08 @ 8:15PM|#
Sao Paulo is quickly becoming one of the porn capitals of
the world.
I know, it's great isn't it? Man those Brazilian women...
Latin oscualtes my G-spot|7.24.08 @ 8:16PM|#
nearly nobody here thinks that porn, ipso facto, is degradation
Better would be ea ipsa.
Paul|7.24.08 @ 8:17PM|#
alleviating poverty (which always disproportionately hurts women)
How is this?
Because the End Of The World(tm) always affects women and
minorities more.
I'm getting a strong whiff of Women's Studies talking points which
are usually without any empirical foundation.
|7.24.08 @ 8:17PM|#
a girl
Well, I guess you can't help if you "feel" something like what you
described. Good luck working around that whole thing mentally, so
that it doesn't stop you from enjoying yourself.
And its good that you are being reasonable about the thing you
describe, as opposed to adopting some kind of vindictive anti-porn
position.
mariko
I can generally agree with this kind of stuff:
For starters? How about ending human trafficking, alleviating
poverty (which always disproportionately hurts women), eliminating
legislation that restricts women's reproductive freedom and
endangers their reproductive health, the replacement of marriage
with civil unions (in this country), or in some countries,
eliminating the conditions that render a wife essentially the
property of her husband, and actually enforcing rape laws? Oh, and
so much more.
For starters? How about ending human trafficking, alleviating
poverty (which always disproportionately hurts women), eliminating
legislation that restricts women's reproductive freedom and
endangers their reproductive health, the replacement of marriage
with civil unions (in this country), or in some countries,
eliminating the conditions that render a wife essentially the
property of her husband, and actually enforcing rape laws? Oh, and
so much more.
but for this:
We can start this (right now!) by ending our consumption of
pornography, cosmetic plastic surgery, fashion, celebrity culture,
pretty much anything on E! and Axe body spray.
I use axe body spray and I don't plan on stopping (athough I will
say its not as good as the commercials suggest).
Some people like those things you describe. I really don't see why
you are so uptight about that stuff. I stand by my position that
porn can be a good thing.
Travis|7.24.08 @ 8:18PM|#
"Actually, China earns the most revenue from porn than any
country."
I'm not suprised the Chinese government's one child policy &
the chinese tradtion of wanting baby boys more baby girls has
created lots & lots of unhappy single men.
Paul|7.24.08 @ 8:19PM|#
fact, some of the biggest distributors of porn are our very
own hotel chains, with their late-nite adult entertainment options
available in nearly every hotel room in the world.
Everyone stay frosty. I feel a link to "Who Killed the Electric
Car" coming any second now.
|7.24.08 @ 8:21PM|#
My comment was too long to preview. But I only meant to post
this once:
For starters? How about ending human trafficking, alleviating
poverty (which always disproportionately hurts women), eliminating
legislation that restricts women's reproductive freedom and
endangers their reproductive health, the replacement of marriage
with civil unions (in this country), or in some countries,
eliminating the conditions that render a wife essentially the
property of her husband, and actually enforcing rape laws? Oh, and
so much more.
Paul|7.24.08 @ 8:23PM|#
Also, I'd be curious to know if Chomsky thinks about
anything when he masturbates
Chomsky doesn't masturbate. Whenever he gets "that feeling", he
turns his thoughts to the Israel/Palestine conflict and writes an
essay.
C|7.24.08 @ 8:28PM|#
Porn isn't any different from Hollywood, it packages up fantasy and sells it to morons who buy into it. It shouldn't be banned any more than drugs should be, but anyone with half a brain that they'd like to keep out of the reach of marketing men stays well away. Do those morons willingly buy into it? Of course, but people still willingly buy houses in floodplains too. Buyer beware is all I'm saying.
stinky|7.24.08 @ 8:31PM|#
btw - somewhat translated:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.se%2Fdebatt%2F1.699355&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=sv&tl=en
Travis|7.24.08 @ 8:42PM|#
I'm not suprised the Chinese government's one child policy & the chinese tradtion of wanting baby boys more THAN baby girls has created lots & lots of unhappy single men.
Elemenope|7.24.08 @ 8:45PM|#
I'm getting a strong whiff of Women's Studies talking points
which are usually without any empirical foundation.
Unless you've gone through the Women's Studies paces, or at least a
class or two, it's hard for me to take this comment even a little
seriously.
Yeah, they take the identity stuff pretty far, perhaps too far. But
every once in a while, and this may blow you away, they're
*right*.
In most cultures (until recently, *all* cultures) traditional
women's labor was undercompensated. I'm not talking about equal
wages; I'm talking about the labor that goes into child-rearing,
cleaning the domicile, etc.. The compensation is always in trade
(never in wages), and is usually bound to a contractual arrangement
that may or may not have been consensual (namely, marriage
contract).
A single woman (esp. with kids) in a poor country *is fucked*, and
not in the good way.
Elemenope|7.24.08 @ 8:53PM|#
nearly nobody here thinks that porn, ipso facto, is
degradation
Better would be ea ipsa.
No, it wouldn't. "ipso facto" is, IIRC, an Ablative Absolute
phrase, and so it is correctly declined as shown in the
original.
mariko|7.24.08 @ 8:59PM|#
You are confusing the arguments. It's not that people around here are (generally) all about the degradation of women. I think the point of disconnect is that nearly nobody here thinks that porn, ipso facto, is degradation.
I see what you're saying, but I'm not confusing the arguments. I
was writing in response to how we'd go about ending degradation.
This is a separate point from the one you raise, namely, if
pornography is always degradation.
I don't think many of us can argue that the production side of
porn, in the large number of cases, there is abuse and exploitation
going on. Let's assume for the moment that everyone participating
in porn was not physically coerced, well-paid, disease free, etc.
Let's also set aside dealing with the whole question of what should
and shouldn't be legal.
The fact remains that what's being sold in pornography is not sex,
it's domination. It's dangerous because it conflates sex with at
best humiliation and at worst, violence (ever heard of Max
Hardcore?).
Here's an analogy: imagine if an industry existed that thrived off
of the production and distribution of videos that depicted whites
shouting racial epithets and generally humiliating non-whites. Even
if everyone involved in the production of these videos was
complicit, well-paid, and safe, would it still be acceptable? And
should I be considered some crazy uptight bitch for not wanting to
have anything to do with people who get off on watching that kind
of thing?
There is a discussion to be had about whether, in some weird
alternate universe where women and their desires are actually
valued and respected, some version of erotica could exist.
Unfortunately, we don't live in that world, and these discussions
will remain hypothetical.
If my arguments are phrased too flimsily for you (they may well be,
I'm just killing time while traffic clears out) I urge you to do a
quick Google search for some peer-reviewed feminist philosophy.
Perhaps Chomsky's colleague at the MIT Ling/Phil department, Judith
Jarvis Thompson? Or hell, even Wikipedia.
a girl:
I used to feel the same way, until I realized it's not my job to
fufill some porn addict's crazed vision of what sex should be and
how women should act. I have better things to do! Like sloppily
paraphrasing basic feminist philosophy on a libertarian blog!
Oh, Paul:
Where to begin. I can't really do anything other than laugh at your
assertion that men face just as much pressure to look HAWT as women
do, and that the penalties for non-compliance are just as
steep.
BG:
Some people just like racist jokes. Why do others get so uptight
about it?
|7.24.08 @ 9:06PM|#
Here's an analogy: imagine if an industry existed that thrived off of the production and distribution of videos that depicted whites shouting racial epithets and generally humiliating non-whites. Even if everyone involved in the production of these videos was complicit, well-paid, and safe, would it still be acceptable? And should I be considered some crazy uptight bitch for not wanting to have anything to do with people who get off on watching that kind of thing?
What the hell kind of fucked up analogy is that?
Comparing sex to racial degradation strikes me as revealing a
sexual dysfunction on your part that's far more disturbing than
some guy who opts to wank off to a clip posted on Red Tube.
|7.24.08 @ 9:09PM|#
a girl, cry me river already. If men had feelings we would feel
a lot worse when it comes to making "average joe vs. porn star"
comparisons. There is a huge difference between average male
anatomy and a porn star's package, and that difference is actually
meaningful in terms of pleasing a partner. Boobs are pretty to
touch and rub your face on and hold and hold and touch and touch
and hold and...oh yeah, but they do not make or break good sex.
Some men actually prefer smaller ones, or small but real over big
but fake. Ron Jeremy - there's proof that sausage size counts above
all else.
If you really doubt men feel real bad from watching porn, I've got
anecdotal proof. Every time I watch porn, I need to keep kleenex
handy.
mariko|7.24.08 @ 9:09PM|#
Comparing sex to racial degradation strikes me as revealing a sexual dysfunction on your part that's far more disturbing than some guy who opts to wank off to a clip posted on Red Tube.
Again, you're making the same blunder I've already written about,
namely, immediately making the giant leap from sex to porn. As I've
probably eloquently tried to say above, they are NOT the same
thing.
|7.24.08 @ 9:15PM|#
Maybe if all porn were of the variety that this Max Hardcore guy creates, you'd have a point.
mariko|7.24.08 @ 9:18PM|#
Maybe if all porn were of the variety that this Max Hardcore guy creates, you'd have a point.
It is. Max Hardcore is just the most exxxxxtreme version of it.
Elemenope|7.24.08 @ 9:30PM|#
I see what you're saying, but I'm not confusing the
arguments. I was writing in response to how we'd go about ending
degradation. This is a separate point from the one you raise,
namely, if pornography is always degradation.
Fair enough.
I don't think many of us can argue that the production side of
porn, in the large number of cases, there is abuse and exploitation
going on. Let's assume for the moment that everyone participating
in porn was not physically coerced, well-paid, disease free, etc.
Let's also set aside dealing with the whole question of what should
and shouldn't be legal.
I'm fairly certain that on the supply side of the Fresh Produce,
Automobile, Footware, and Narcotics industries, there is a great
deal of abuse and exploitation going on. Violations of personal
dignity and/or violence and implied violence are really rather
industry agnostic. If the production is going on in a nasty place,
there will be nasty conditions.
The fact remains that what's being sold in pornography is not
sex, it's domination. It's dangerous because it conflates sex with
at best humiliation and at worst, violence (ever heard of Max
Hardcore?).
When I was in Women's Studies 135, I tore a feminist blog a new
asshole in an assignment for making precisely this mistake. There
are, quite literally, billions of porn productions in existence,
and they range in quality and comportment very widely. Some are
about domination ,some about beauty, some are even about art. Some
are about pain, and some are about *feet*.
Some, *gasp* even have the women on top. ;)
They do all, however, involve regard of one or several acts of
sexual intercourse. How that is not at least at the most literal
level *about sex* is quite beyond me.
Here's an analogy: imagine if an industry existed that thrived
off of the production and distribution of videos that depicted
whites shouting racial epithets and generally humiliating
non-whites. Even if everyone involved in the production of these
videos was complicit, well-paid, and safe, would it still be
acceptable? And should I be considered some crazy uptight bitch for
not wanting to have anything to do with people who get off on
watching that kind of thing?
There are all sorts of reasons, artistic and otherwise, how this
might be acceptable as a product. People consume media for a
variety of reasons, ranging from search for catharsis to
titillation to entertainment, education, edification of curiosity,
aesthetic pleasure, and background noise.
No, you are not a crazy bitch for wanting to choose with whom you
want to associate. The jury would perpetually be out on "uptight",
however.
There is a discussion to be had about whether, in some weird
alternate universe where women and their desires are actually
valued and respected, some version of erotica could exist.
Unfortunately, we don't live in that world, and these discussions
will remain hypothetical.
As I understand it, they have porn in Sweden and a majority-female
legislature.
If my arguments are phrased too flimsily for you (they may well
be, I'm just killing time while traffic clears out) I urge you to
do a quick Google search for some peer-reviewed feminist
philosophy. Perhaps Chomsky's colleague at the MIT Ling/Phil
department, Judith Jarvis Thompson? Or hell, even
Wikipedia.
I'm quite familiar with 1st and 2nd wave feminist criticism and
philosophy. Occupational hazard. I think that taking gender into
account when judging and constructing frames of reference has a
great deal to speak for it, but it is as yet a young, incomplete
method of analysis.
JB|7.24.08 @ 9:49PM|#
Elemenope, porn is a vital instrument in keeping me from going
out and committing rape. I'm sure that's true for many men. Rape is
sometimes about power, but most of the times it's about the sex
(ahem, date rape). It's something half the species doesn't
understand since they don't have testosterone constantly flowing in
their bloodstream.
The surest way to increase rape is to get rid of porn. Therefore if
you are anti-porn, you are pro-rape.
First they come for the guns, then they come for your money, and
then they come for your porn. They can try to pry it from my warm,
Rosy palms.
Elemenope|7.24.08 @ 9:52PM|#
JB --
I'm a guy, and I don't buy it. Testosterone does not, so far as I
know, overwhelm the inhibitory mechanisms in the brain to the
extent that a moral actor cannot possibly help but rape someone
else.
If porn makes it *easier* to not rape, then that's great and more
power to ya. But I don't buy the causative "no porn == more rape"
formula for a second.
As an *empirical* fact, it is arguably possible. But we don't
prosecute crimes through social averages. They are, ultimately,
individuals acting upon individuals.
mariko|7.24.08 @ 9:58PM|#
Elemenope, thanks for your civil response.
I'm fairly certain that on the supply side of the Fresh Produce, Automobile, Footware, and Narcotics industries, there is a great deal of abuse and exploitation going on. Violations of personal dignity and/or violence and implied violence are really rather industry agnostic. If the production is going on in a nasty place, there will be nasty conditions.
This is why labor rights is also a feminist issue. Although I'd
like to point out that in contrast to these examples, the abuse
associated with the production of porn is often sexual in nature,
making it a completely different beast. But I'm not going to get
bent out of shape about that at the moment.
There are, quite literally, billions of porn productions in existence, and they range in quality and comportment very widely. Some are about domination ,some about beauty, some are even about art. Some are about pain, and some are about *feet*.
Yet the majority of porn continues to be of the variety of Mr.
Hardcore, Joe Francis and their ilk. In fact, this stuff is so
pervasive, that I'd be willing to wager most people would not
regard the things you describe as porn at all.
In other words, when you take away the degradation and humiliation,
it's no longer porn. It becomes "art" or "erotica" or something
else entirely.
There are all sorts of reasons, artistic and otherwise, how this might be acceptable as a product. People consume media for a variety of reasons, ranging from search for catharsis to titillation to entertainment, education, edification of curiosity, aesthetic pleasure, and background noise.
Let's not pretend, though, that the number one reason for the
existence of porn (and the reason it's a gazillion dollar industry
and the reason it's 99.99999 percent of the freakin' Internet),
yesterday, today, and forever, isn't to get guys off.
As I understand it, they have porn in Sweden and a majority-female legislature.
While this is awesome, having affluent women in positions of power
in the developed world doesn't magically eradicate male privilege
from the planet.
JB|7.24.08 @ 9:58PM|#
And there will be more of those individuals acting upon
individuals. Look at the Africa example cited above. A serious lack
of porn and a serious problem with rape. There are loads of other
factors, but access to porn is definitely one.
People should stay out of my sex life, out of my porn, and out of
my wallet.
mariko|7.24.08 @ 10:02PM|#
JB, if I were a man I'd be pretty offended that you'd assume I'm a rapist just ready to leap out of the shadows and attack at any moment. That is, unless I get my newest Girls Gone Wild video in the mail.
Postfeminist|7.24.08 @ 10:05PM|#
Feminist critiques of porn are locked into a heteronormative worldview which, when shattered, reveals them to be nonsense. The existence of gay porn produced by men, starring men, for men, and lesbian porn produced by women, starring women, for women, completely invalidate feminist claims about what "all porn" is, by sidestepping the male-female dynamic on which feminist theories are founded.
Boston|7.24.08 @ 10:11PM|#
mariko,
What about sites that feature amateur people engaging in
intercourse (totally NSFW). That isn't porn?
JB|7.24.08 @ 10:18PM|#
mariko, it's one factor and one you really wouldn't understand
unless you are a man.
If all the porn disappeared tonight, I guarantee you there would be
more rapes the following month.
|7.24.08 @ 10:24PM|#
Ah, so from a hetero-feminist perspective, it's alright for
lesbians to watch porn together.
And, of course, gay men are really outside of the bounds of the
topic of feminism, so I guess they don't count.
But as soon as a man sits down to watch a spank-vid, he's
automatically engaging in the domination and humiliation of women
simply by watching. Thus there is not even any point to debating
the various genres of erotic and/or pornographic materials
available.
|7.24.08 @ 10:25PM|#
JB, dude, seriously, if porn is all that's stopping you from raping some chick, maybe you ought to move to Saudi Arabia or something.
|7.24.08 @ 10:31PM|#
Some people just like racist jokes. Why do others get so
uptight about it?
Well, I might have talked about how there is something wrong with
racism in the abstract, but nothing wrong with sex in the abstract.
But you also wrote this:
The fact remains that what's being sold in pornography is not
sex, it's domination. It's dangerous because it conflates sex with
at best humiliation and at worst, violence (ever heard of Max
Hardcore?).
When Elemenope pointed out that there are many different kinds of
porn out there, and that they can't reasonable all be described as
being "about domination", you wrote:
Yet the majority of porn continues to be of the variety of Mr.
Hardcore, Joe Francis and their ilk. In fact, this stuff is so
pervasive, that I'd be willing to wager most people would not
regard the things you describe as porn at all.
In other words, when you take away the degradation and humiliation,
it's no longer porn. It becomes "art" or "erotica" or something
else entirely.
I disagree. If I do a google search for the word "porn" and worked
from there I am sure I could find plenty of websites that are
obviously not about domination, as well as a variety of category
links (some of which are domination-themed categories; some of
which are not). I highly doubt that most porn out there is "about
domination".
Toto too|7.24.08 @ 10:33PM|#
LMNO, the suggestion was directed not to case, but to selection (and gender) of the expression in toto.
Chris S.|7.24.08 @ 10:39PM|#
But what does Noam Chomsky think about doujinshi? Inquiring minds want to know!
|7.24.08 @ 10:41PM|#
Also, I am still not clear on why mariko is opposed to axe body
spray. Is it the commercials, or the product itself, or something
else?
And am I complicit in oppressing women because I use it?
|7.24.08 @ 10:44PM|#
I am still not clear on why mariko is opposed to axe body spray.
"Only douchebags from New Jersey wear Axe. Get something classy
that doesn't make you smell like a schmuck."
- A Close Female Friend of Mine
THE MOOK|7.24.08 @ 10:44PM|#
Wimmin that have a problem with the pretty young things that
comprise the world of porn have it all wrong.
Guess what? Too bad . . . you're right when you say that you'll
never be what those other wimmin are. If you are upset that your
man is looking at what is pleasing to the eye, then you have a
mighty big problem to contend with . . . it's called human
nature.
Now, if he romances and/or inserts his penis into any other
creature, then you've a right to be upset. Otheriwse, stop punching
the wind - it's best to leave your man alone.
e|7.24.08 @ 10:46PM|#
Is sum uv deez wimens bilingual?
"well,
'ow would you feel if someone called YOU bilingual?"
|7.24.08 @ 10:47PM|#
Only douchebags from New Jersey wear Axe
I resent that.
I'll have you know I'm a douchebag from New York. :)
mariko|7.24.08 @ 10:51PM|#
mediageek, you're putting words in my mouth. My comment was
simply meant to show that just by saying "what about gay porn!?!"
you don't completely sidestep that whole "male-female dynamic"
thing that Postfeminist described.
I've gotten the "what about amateur porn!?!" line often too. Even
if you're 100 percent sure that what you're watching was produced
coercion-free (and, let's face it, you're not), the fact remains
that its content continues to fetishize dominance and submission.
And, as with all porn, the primary beneficiaries of this stuff are
men.
BG, the Axe thing was a joke. I thought feminists were supposed to
be the humorless ones? But their commercials do kind of suck.
I'm off for a run. If you're still curious about what I think, just
mosey on down to one of the many fantastic feminist blogs, just a
few mouse clicks away! Big up yo self!
e|7.24.08 @ 10:52PM|#
People should stay out of my sex life, out of my porn..
I don't know, I like attractive people in my sex life and
my porn..
Boston|7.24.08 @ 10:55PM|#
the fact remains that its content continues to fetishize
dominance and submission.
Um, Sure i guess that proves it.
|7.24.08 @ 11:04PM|#
"We still read Plato in Philosophy for a reason."
Yeah, so we can learn about the roots of fascism.
Elemenope|7.24.08 @ 11:06PM|#
And, of course, gay men are really outside of the bounds of
the topic of feminism, so I guess they don't count.
Mediageek, not even *close* to correct. Gay men are very much in
the bounds of the topic of feminist critique and philosophy; in my
opinion (and actually many others), it suffers merely from a poor
name. What we call "feminism" is really "gender studies" and has
been that for close to a century.
This is why labor rights is also a feminist issue. Although I'd
like to point out that in contrast to these examples, the abuse
associated with the production of porn is often sexual in nature,
making it a completely different beast. But I'm not going to get
bent out of shape about that at the moment.
I have minor quibbles with defining sexual violence as different in
*nature* from other types of non-consensual force. But none
significant enough to provide some real oomph to my argument.
Suffice it to say that getting beaten up by thugs every day is as
degrading as being raped by said thugs. The same powerlessness and
pain is present, as well as mockery and domination. The only thing
that differs is physical penetration which has some psychosomatic
factors peculiar to it, but no different in degree than the PTSD
that develops in any comparable case.
Yet the majority of porn continues to be of the variety of Mr.
Hardcore, Joe Francis and their ilk. In fact, this stuff is so
pervasive, that I'd be willing to wager most people would not
regard the things you describe as porn at all.
This would not surprise me at all, and does not really address the
argument. In every media industry, Sturgeon's Law applies: 90% of
everything is crap. This is true regardless of format, content, or
genre. However, people generally seek to watch higher quality when
available (excluding voyeuristic aesthetic and/or psycho-historical
explorations, i.e. art-house films) to better inform whatever
purpose they seek to fulfill. I would hazard to say that 10% of the
films in any genre get 90% of the viewers in that genre. So, the
mere production or presence of inartful crap does not by itself
lead inexorably to the conclusion that inartful crap is what people
are/want to watch(ing).
In other words, when you take away the degradation and
humiliation, it's no longer porn. It becomes "art" or "erotica" or
something else entirely.
This is the Potter Stewart standard for defining porn. It's not a
good one. To define genre, one must look to patterns and
similarities. "If it's good, it's not porn" is a fairly
self-serving as well as circular definition.
Let's not pretend, though, that the number one reason for the
existence of porn (and the reason it's a gazillion dollar industry
and the reason it's 99.99999 percent of the freakin' Internet),
yesterday, today, and forever, isn't to get guys off.
Of course. Thrash metal does not exist for the purpose of
lullabies, and hip-hop is not the preferred medium for race
relations. Mediums and genres are distinguishable precisely because
they fulfill some need or desire apart from the others.
Pornography, or if you like, "erotica" exists primarily to
influence/stimulate/satisfy the sexual urges of its viewers.
Because sex in the human animal is tightly bound up with issues of
power and violence, it is no surprise that the genre serving that
desire is as well.
What i have a problem with is deriving a normative principle from
this observation, that because sex is complicated by power and
violence, this somehow leads to visual exploration or aid of such
is dangerous and/or dirty.
While this is awesome, having affluent women in positions of
power in the developed world doesn't magically eradicate male
privilege from the planet.
But it does indicate something about Sweden. Your original claim
revolved around a speculation about the existence of and nature of
pornography in a society that is not dominated by male power.
Sweden comes close to being such a society. Hence, it is useful for
exploring your hypothetical.
|7.24.08 @ 11:09PM|#
mediageek, you're putting words in my mouth. My comment was simply meant to show that just by saying "what about gay porn!?!" you don't completely sidestep that whole "male-female dynamic" thing that Postfeminist described.
And you failed to respond to my post in any substantive way. Is a
straight man engaging in the oppression of women simply by watching
a porn vid?
Even if you're 100 percent sure that what you're watching was produced coercion-free (and, let's face it, you're not), the fact remains that its content continues to fetishize dominance and ubmission.
Uh, sure, whatever you say. All I see here is an attempt to inflict
guilt on those who engage in an activity that is perfectly legal
when conducted between consenting adults (the performers in the
video and the viewer.)
What you're peddling is fundamentally no different than the form of
guilt-mongering practiced by large religious organizations.
And even if some porn is about dominance or submission, what of it?
After all, there are surely plenty of people who get off on that
sort of thing.
And, as with all porn, the primary beneficiaries of this stuff are men.
OH NOES!
What of bodice rippers? Those sure aren't marketed to men.
I'm off for a run.
Good for you. I'm going to spend the next hour or so oppressing some womyn.
If you're still curious about what I think, just mosey on down to one of the many fantastic feminist blogs, just a few mouse clicks away! Big up yo self!
I'm always up for being entertained by displays of nattering insanity. Please feel free to post links.
|7.24.08 @ 11:13PM|#
Speaking of abuse, I think I've just abused the everliving snot out of the blockquote tag...
Elemenope|7.24.08 @ 11:26PM|#
BG, the Axe thing was a joke. I thought feminists were
supposed to be the humorless ones? But their commercials do kind of
suck.
I dunno. I find depictions of women as ravenous sexual predators as
strangely hilarious.
Not because I don't know women like that, but because I do.
And, for the record, critical analysis first and foremost is great
for a complete humordectomy. Doesn't matter whether it's feminist,
marxist, conservative, or whatever.
Elemenope|7.24.08 @ 11:43PM|#
You rarely hear a word about female porn: romance novels and
soap operas.
Well, for one, I'm pretty sure it *doesn't* exist to prevent roving
packs of women from going about at night raping men who have
wandered astray by slaking their insatiable estrogen-powered
lusts.
Or maybe it does and that is the *big secret* of Western society.
:)
Rimfax|7.25.08 @ 12:05AM|#
Even if you're 100 percent sure that what you're watching was produced coercion-free (and, let's face it, you're not), the fact remains that its content continues to fetishize dominance and submission. And, as with all porn, the primary beneficiaries of this stuff are men.
By this logic, if I record the porn myself with enthusiastic
participants who I personally know, it still fetishizes dominance.
Therefore, all sex with the lights on fetishizes dominance.
And fetishizing dominances is bad (um-kay), because men are likely
to get some wood over it and when men get aroused by fetishized
dominance....does that cause global warming or something?
So, what does that make the Women-Only SIG at The Black Rose? Gender traitors?
Paul|7.25.08 @ 12:21AM|#
that its content continues to fetishize dominance and
submission.
No it doesn't. Just because you say it, or your "gender studies"
prof said it does, doesn't mean it does. Try harder.
Paul|7.25.08 @ 12:22AM|#
If you're still curious about what I think, just mosey on
down to one of the many fantastic feminist blogs
We've seen the feminist blogs, we know what you think.
Paul|7.25.08 @ 12:35AM|#
Yeah, they take the identity stuff pretty far, perhaps too
far. But every once in a while, and this may blow you away, they're
*right*.
As a broken clock is?
Sorry LMNOP, didn't mean to offend something you feel strongly
about, but gender studies is jargon riddled tribalism on steroids.
And "perhaps too far" is a gross understatement.
And getting something *right* every once in a while does not
validate an entire course of study. Blathering neo-cons
occasionally get stuff *right*. George Bush gets stuff *right* on
occasion. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al get stuff *right* on
occasion. So what? They built financial empires based on the fact
that black folks most definitely were, and sometimes are oppressed.
It doesn't mean their approach should be given the attention and
value it gets.
Paul|7.25.08 @ 12:36AM|#
A single woman (esp. with kids) in a poor country *is
fucked*, and not in the good way.
According to this thread topic, *is [sic] fucked* seems to be the
problem, especially when on camera.
Elemenope|7.25.08 @ 12:48AM|#
According to this thread topic, *is [sic] fucked* seems to
be the problem, especially when on camera.
Yes, Paul, in a poor country with no employment prospects and scant
rule of law, it is one of the problems that face women; sexual
victimization and exploitation by force. A property taking and a
labor taking without decision of polity or consent. Isn't this the
sort of stuff Libertarians are supposed to care about...you know,
in theory?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? "occasionally right" was
litotes, BTW. Many people become willfully thick when
someone dares to suggest that gender might have a role to play in
the structure of society and the distribution of its fruits.
I know that feminism provokes an allergy in liberty-loving
individuals because it's normative bent tends towards unwarranted
intervention. But that is certainly no good excuse to reject its
productive *descriptive* tools.
Paul|7.25.08 @ 12:53AM|#
Oh, Paul:
Where to begin. I can't really do anything other than laugh at your
assertion that men face just as much pressure to look HAWT as women
do, and that the penalties for non-compliance are just as
steep.
I never asserted any such thing. Any. Such. Thing. Reading
comprehension not the strong point, I take.
Where to begin is right. You have no idea. What you missed entirely
is that there aren't any such penalties for either gender
except the ones you construct in your own psyche. I don't care how
many refrains of "I learned the truth at seventeen" you sing, what
you take from an image is not a societal problem, it's your
problem. I don't care how many images of skinny, "perfect" women
are plastered up on billboards (an image proliferated mainly by a
fashion industry largely defined by
gay men and women, btw) it is, in the end, a product of a free
system of expression, something that offends the cultural scolds of
the world.
|7.25.08 @ 12:59AM|#
Yeah, they take the identity stuff pretty far, perhaps too far. But every once in a while, and this may blow you away, they're *right*.
But as a university degree?!?! As a literature
major myself, I encourage liberal arts degrees. But Womyns' Studies
is 99% bullshit.
JB|7.25.08 @ 1:15AM|#
Elemenope, women are different than men. Plus, since they can
live out their fantasies with soaps or romance novels then maybe
fewer of them are out there emotionally raping guys (leading guys
on, etc.)
I do have to say that porn is better for my mental health than 90%
of the female prospects I meet.
I should mention that if you are anti-porn, then you are pro-murder
as well. Guys need to get their jollies out some way. Fuck or fight
is a definite male reflex.
Paul|7.25.08 @ 1:18AM|#
Yes, Paul, in a poor country with no employment prospects
and scant rule of law, it is one of the problems that face women;
sexual victimization and exploitation by force. A property taking
and a labor taking without decision of polity or consent. Isn't
this the sort of stuff Libertarians are supposed to care
about...you know, in theory?
Are you trying to pull me into a thread-jack? A poor country with
scant rule of law provides many problems for all of its
citizens. The problem with the "gender studies angle" is it creates
a tribal niche of "special" oppression which often willfully
ignores the larger problems of said poor country-- a place where
often there are atrocities are committed against many of the
citizens for a wide
array of reasons.
The underlying issue is "scant rule of law" as you rightly point
out, not merely a problem of disrespecting women. The disrespect of
women is often (although not always, but often) a byproduct of a
countries larger problems. It's almost as if the "gender studies
angle" believes that the oppression of women can be corrected by
addressing the oppression of women. That is actually the
wrong approach. You don't fix tribalism with more
tribalism. You attack the 'scant rule of law' problem and often,
everything else follows. Maybe not at the speed at which gender
studies proponents would like.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about
the portrayal and consumption of pornographic imagry in an
industrialized, free society. I hear-tell there are even feminist/pro
gender studies porn actresses who ::rolleyes:: at the depiction
of pornography that mariko holds dear.
In the words of Porn Actress Nina Hartley:
Professor Sun's criticisms of pornography , though jazzed up with some contemporary media theory, are little different form those posed by the first round of anti-sex feminists I came across at the NOW conventions I attended the mid-1980's. The gender bias, anti-male hostility, neo-Victorian erotophobia and unacknowledged class prejudice are all too familiar. Having been told to my face, in the company of twelve other, like-minded women, that I was either a shill for or a victim of patriarchal domination, I know how powerful the angry denial of feminist porn-bashers can be.
ew|7.25.08 @ 3:23AM|#
This debate goes beyond pornography. When I studied linguistics,
I heard a story about Noam Chomsky that goes like this: Noam and
another linguist were sharing a room while attending a conference.
Noam's roommate went out and got a shoeshine. When he came back,
Noam asked him where he went and the other linguist told him. Noam
got upset that the other linguist would let someone shine his
shoes, asserting that certain jobs were beneath anyone's dignity.
The other linguist argued with Noam for awhile, claiming the act
was consensual and that he was afterall paying the guy to shine his
shoes. Noam responded, "Would you pay someone to wipe your ass!!??
(never mind that nurse's aides and orderlies are actually paid to
do this).
In short, Chomsky thinks that there needs to be some committee of
occupational mandarins (among other mandarins) that should decide
what two adults can and cannot do for a living (or probably
anything else) depending on whether the occupational mandarins
(most likely in accordance with Chomsky's worldview) view the
prospective occupation as decent or not.
In short, Chomsky's spiritual bretheren are the Taliban.
Les|7.25.08 @ 3:41AM|#
In short, Chomsky's spiritual bretheren are the
Taliban.
More like Christian fundamentalists in this country. Chomsky might
be a wrong as he can be on many topics (just like Christian
fundamentalists), but he probably doesn't believe in executing
people for making or watching porn.
|7.25.08 @ 4:29AM|#
The other linguist argued with Noam for awhile, claiming the
act was consensual and that he was afterall paying the guy to shine
his shoes. Noam responded, "Would you pay someone to wipe your
ass!!??"
The only proper answer to this kind of attitude, is to respond
"Sure. And there ain't a thing you could do to stop me."
Works everytime.
GILMORE|7.25.08 @ 7:12AM|#
Chomsky wants you to know that if you get "pleasure out of
the humiliation of women [you] have a problem."
Hmm.
so... we're supposed to stick to gay porn now?
GILMORE|7.25.08 @ 7:17AM|#
Mariko =
" It's really hard as an average woman to "compete", so to speak,
with porn stars. "
It's not competition, silly!
I dont compete with michael jordan when i shoot hoops. I just try
to "be like Mike."
So, think of it as, "sucking dick like jenna jameson is a worthy
aspiration". We can all try harder!
Elemenope|7.25.08 @ 7:26AM|#
The underlying issue is "scant rule of law" as you rightly
point out, not merely a problem of disrespecting women. The
disrespect of women is often (although not always, but often) a
byproduct of a countries larger problems. It's almost as if the
"gender studies angle" believes that the oppression of women can be
corrected by addressing the oppression of women. That is actually
the wrong approach. You don't fix tribalism with more tribalism.
You attack the 'scant rule of law' problem and often, everything
else follows. Maybe not at the speed at which gender studies
proponents would like.
Agreed.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking
about the portrayal and consumption of pornographic imagery in an
industrialized, free society. I hear-tell there are even
feminist/pro gender studies porn actresses who ::rolleyes:: at the
depiction of pornography that mariko holds dear.
Not so fast. We are talking about *consumption* of pornography in
the context of a free, industrialized society, but it has already
been rightly pointed out that the *supply* end of that equation is
often fulfilled by people in places that do not have such
protections and privileges. If the exploitation is on the supply
side, it really doesn't matter, morally, if the person on the
demand side lives in Burundi or in Boston.
Pornography is one of those industries that could benefit (in this
country, and probably worldwide) from unionization. (*That*, BTW,
is a thread-jack! Learn it, love it, use it!)
|7.25.08 @ 8:00AM|#
I hesitate to defend Chomsky...but...I think if you were to give
him the benefit of the doubt his position would not so much be that
there should be a police that prevented people from entering into
consensual agreements to wipe asses or shine shoes for money but
that he thinks that given greater equality and income for everyone
that then no one would be "coerced" by their financial situation to
enter into agreements to shine shoes or wipe asses for money.
LMNOP-don't mind if I do take up your offer! I was thinking the
other day of how on many threads (and you'll remember some of
these) some people here went on and on about how the U.S. would be
arrogant to try to impose its labor standards on other nations as a
condition for trade. They claimed that, after all, the peasants in
3rd world nations and the factory owners all consensualy agreed to
their conditions and so everything was therefore cool. I argued
against this on many grounds, but it later occurred to me that when
when people talk about labor standards, at least in regards to
unions, no one is saying that the 3rd workers MUST unionize, they
are arguing for conditions that ALLOW unionization. The workers in
the 3rd world are free to vote down unions, and if the people here
defending the sweatshop conditions as the product of consensual
agreements are right, then surely they would choose the agreements
they already have (after all, they were not coereced in ANY way,
right?), so what's the problem? Methinks down deep they really
acknowledge that these peasants make these "consensual agreements"
due to a weakened bargaining position and that if anything existed
to level that bargaining position they in fact would not choose
what they have. In other words, the agreements are not as
consensual as they argue they are...
Elemenope|7.25.08 @ 8:21AM|#
Methinks down deep they really acknowledge that these
peasants make these "consensual agreements" due to a weakened
bargaining position and that if anything existed to level that
bargaining position they in fact would not choose what they have.
In other words, the agreements are not as consensual as they argue
they are...
That's the winner, right there. I have never understood why
Libertarians so often oppose unionization *in principle* (I get
clearly why they oppose it in practice, I do in many industries
too, esp. professional unions/associations). I mean, labor is a
valuable commodity; producers of tangible goods are allowed to pool
their capital to improve their bargaining position...why not
laborers?
I think that deep down some people are afraid that Chavez is gonna
take away all their precious grapes. And, frankly, it's just silly;
laborers only benefit if the product gets sold, just like
management.
|7.25.08 @ 10:10AM|#
I have never understood why Libertarians so often oppose
unionization *in principle*
Because a union has no teeth and might as well not exist if it is
formulated in a way that is acceptable to libertarians / free
market capitalists. (i.e. Labor is free to join a union and the
employer is free to fire them all.) Do you really think that is
what leftists conceptualize when they support widespread
unionization?
Elemenope|7.25.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Labor is free to join a union and the employer is free to
fire them all.
That's, um, how it is. Unless the employer is stupid enough to
enter into an exclusive labor contract with a union, thus
legitimizing its power over hiring and firing, an employer is free
to shitcan the lot of 'em. Most states, IIRC, are at-will
states.
If he has a hard time finding employees afterwards, that's his
problem. And there ain't nothin' wrong with fired union laborers
exercising their rights to association and speech making faces and
waving meanly-worded signs in front of the employer's factory,
urging peopl to show and work elsewhere.
As for intimidation and assault, well those are already illegal.
That's an enforcement problem, and has nothing to do with unions
*in principle*.
Xaq Fixx|7.25.08 @ 10:37AM|#
I work in porn, so I am getting a kick out of this. I am the market research manager for the global leader in Adult Video on Demand, because of this I attend many of the porn industry trade shows and have developed friendships with several directors, stars, etc. The claims of degrading are true in some cases, there are some sleazy directors out there, on the other hand I know several directors that will try to talk girls out of doing their first film, and warn them about the social stigmas that come with working in the industry. There are also many female stars and directors that view it as female empowerment, especially in the fetish and Alt Porn communities.
Salvius|7.25.08 @ 10:43AM|#
Yet the majority of porn continues to be of the variety of
Mr. Hardcore, Joe Francis and their ilk. In fact, this stuff is so
pervasive, that I'd be willing to wager most people would not
regard the things you describe as porn at all.
In other words, when you take away the degradation and humiliation,
it's no longer porn. It becomes "art" or "erotica" or something
else entirely.
You can't define some bad characteristic as an essential component
of some thing, and then turn around and use the pervasiveness of
that bad characteristic as an argument that the thing itself is
inherently bad. For example:
The majority of feminism continues to be man-hating castration
fantasy. In fact, this stuff is so pervasive, that I'd be willing
to wager most people would not regard less extremist writings as
feminism at all.
In other words, when you take away the man-hating and castration
fantasies, it's no longer feminism. It becomes "gender studies" or
"equal rights" or something else entirely.
See the problem?
|7.25.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Elemenope,
You'll find that many union contracts were either created by force
of law or are perpetuated by same. There are many areas of the
economy where you can't fire everyone and start all over. The
auto-industry and some aspects of the coal mining industry spring
to mind. Hell, not even Reagan could get away with firing the
air-traffic controllers, most of them eventually came back to their
jobs.
Elemenope|7.25.08 @ 10:59AM|#
You'll find that many union contracts were either created by
force of law or are perpetuated by same.
And I certainly have a problem with that, same as you. But history
suggests that long before unions had the endorsement and backing of
the state, they were quite powerful and effective at defending
their workers.
The state need only go so far as to say a collective bargaining
organization is legitimate (and can contract and act as an entity)
much as a limited liability corporation is. Beyond that, it should
be only enforcement of legitimate contracts.
|7.25.08 @ 11:12AM|#
But history suggests that long before unions had the
endorsement and backing of the state, they were quite powerful and
effective at defending their workers.
But they did it through force and blackmail (i.e. violent strikes.)
In Libertopia unions have no teeth, and AnarchoCapitaltopia they
are just another thuggish gang you pay protection to.
We aren't really disagreeing much, but the question remains: Do you
really think a non-coercive union is what leftists are
advocating?
Objecting to something in principle that is so flawed that it can
never be put in practice in an acceptable way is not much of a
sin.
|7.25.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Mariko seems like a really bad date.
Feminism has turned into old fashioned authoritarianism with a
vagina. It didn't have to be this way. Maximizing freedom is a path
to equality too, and doesn't have to involve building an armature
of reverse-sexism to support it.
|7.25.08 @ 11:19AM|#
mariko, I am pleased to present to you today's "No True Scotsman" Award for definitional gymnastics.
Elemenope|7.25.08 @ 11:51AM|#
We aren't really disagreeing much, but the question remains:
Do you really think a non-coercive union is what leftists are
advocating?
Who honestly knows what exists in the minds of leftists. Honestly,
I think many of them just believe in *unions*, the undifferentiated
fuzzy concept, and do not much care what form it eventually takes,
much like those on the right cuddle up next to undifferentiated
fuzzy patriotism.
The rank and file want their unions, with or without ice
cream.
Objecting to something in principle that is so flawed that it
can never be put in practice in an acceptable way is not much of a
sin.
There were non-violent unions that were effective, though I concede
they were not *as* effective as the violent ones. Either way, it
certainly isn't a *mortal* sin to poo-pooh a concept for its
implementations. I do find it helpful to separate ideas from their
implementations in order to grapple more clearly with the idea
itself.
|7.25.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Who honestly knows what exists in the minds of
leftists.
Especially the ones who cheat on their taxes. I can't wrap my mind
around that one.
|7.25.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Nutrasweet,
"Hell, not even Reagan could get away with firing the air-traffic
controllers, most of them eventually came back to their
jobs."
Sure, if by most you mean about 10%. PATCO was pretty much screwed.
Their contract prohibited them from striking. They struck, and the
POTUS fired them. Hard to get more directly behind the 8 ball than
that.
|7.25.08 @ 12:12PM|#
There are 2 general arguments against "expolitative" consensual
employment arrangments.
One is the paternalistic argument: "We have to protect people from
their own decisions to work in these situations even if they are
consenting adults."
The other is the "unfair circumstances" argument: "They only
consented because they have no good options and this was the least
bad option. People deserve to have better alternatives than either
starving to death or working for low wages under bad
conditions."
I reject the first one, but I think there is something to the
second one.
The question for me is "What is the best way to ensure that people
will have the option to keep themselves alive with an "acceptable"
standard of living, without having to enter into any kind of very
bad situation or employment arrangement?". There are 2 things that
come to mind, particularly or the 3rd world:
1 - Have societies operate with a strong rule of law and a high
degree of individual freedom.
2 - Have some kind of poverty alleviatoin program, though I'm not
sure exactly what form it would take. One idea would be to have
some public land set aside, such that anyone who wants to is free
to go there and engage in subsistence farming in common with others
who are doing the same. One wouldn't obtain a very affluent
lifestyle this way. But if the options available to workers get
really bad, or if one has no job options and is facing
starvation, this would at least provide some alternative. Another
idea is to have a garunteed minimum income available to everyone
(whether you have no job, or only a very low-paying job). This
would probably have to be funded through taxes paid by those who
can afford it. (Hence I part ways with libertarians in thinking
this might ne desirable, to some extent).
On a global level, it is probably not practical to have such a
program bring everyone up to the standard of living xpected in
first world countries through such a program. But at least the very
worst situations of poverty and "no good options" could be
eliminated. And this would not require restricting trade or freedom
of contract between consenting adults.
dhex|7.25.08 @ 12:16PM|#
i am juxtaposing this thread with every reason "ZOMG ITS A GURL"
thread and getting only giggles in return.
as luke ford once said, porn really is a bit like cigarettes for
the soul. it's probably worst for males who are either lonely or
haven't yet cashed the v-card. but such is life.
|7.25.08 @ 12:17PM|#
jasa,
I stand corrected. I thought they just came back eventually. That's
what I get for relying of hazy kid memories.
PATCO was pretty much screwed. Their contract prohibited them
from striking. They struck, and the POTUS fired them. Hard to get
more directly behind the 8 ball than that.
So Reagan finally got one right, huh? Stopped clocks and all
that.
|7.25.08 @ 12:27PM|#
dhex,
Since you want to be all on-topic...
The only woman who can righteously object to her man watching porn
and/or masturbating is the one who has never turned him down for
sex. Just one instance of refusing his sexual advances and she
needs to STFU about porn for the rest of their relationship.
|7.25.08 @ 12:31PM|#
don't fret people, you don't have to worry about waht Chomsky says, he is old and his ideas are old fashion. keep living your life of instant gratification and hyper stimulation, you porn advocates are in fact very enlightened people, I mean the fact that you have an addiction to watching woman doing dirty things only means you are a bunch of pussies who don't know how to interact with real women in the real world.
Salvius|7.25.08 @ 12:42PM|#
The price of freedom is that some people will actually exercise their freedom to be pussies who don't know how to interact with real women in the real world. The price of losing that freedom is still higher.
dhex|7.25.08 @ 12:44PM|#
The only woman who can righteously object to her man
watching porn and/or masturbating is the one who has never turned
him down for sex. Just one instance of refusing his sexual advances
and she needs to STFU about porn for the rest of their
relationship.
if that street flows both ways, i guess. i agree that people do not
own their partner(s) sexual outlets (unless they've set things up
that way) but that doesn't mean someone can't object to the spank
material they consume in some fashion. it doesn't mean they get to
control it, but to give you an example, a friend of mine really
likes gay porn, but her boyfriend is grossed out by it. so they
worked out an agreement on times and places and everyone is largely
happy.
but the way you put it makes it seem like a ultimatum. that's not
particularly healthy, either.
on the other hand, if it's true about the whole
dhex|7.25.08 @ 12:46PM|#
oh crap it ate the rest of my thing
i was going to say if it's true about the whole under ten minutes
to orgasm thing for american males, it barely seems worth the
effort, no?
|7.25.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Chomsky wants you to know that if you get "pleasure out of the humiliation of women [you] have a problem."
Humiliation of women?? But she's the one with the whip calling him
butt-boy...
|7.25.08 @ 1:00PM|#
dhex,
It came off a little more angry than I meant. It seems that a lot
of women attempt to equate masturbation (and the facilitation of it
through porn) as some form of cheating. Live up to your
commitments, but don't kick about something you aren't prepared to
do anything about. Monogamy has a implied contract of sexual
stewardship; if women don't want to hold up their end, the contract
gets renegotiated. (The same goes for men, of course.) And if you
aren't happy and can't come to an accommodation, get the fuck out
of the relationship.
Sal's just mad they don't make his favorite gay rim-job porn
anymore. He's bitter and clinging to his glans.
Salvius|7.25.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Sure, she's the one with the whip calling him butt-boy, but he
likes that, so really, she exists only to fulfill his
desires. Therefore, it is inherently degrading to the woman for her
to be forced to humiliate a submissive man.
Of course, swap the roles, and the converse argument does not
apply, because no woman could possibly enjoy being called
butt-girl. Therefore, it is also inherently degrading to
the woman for her to be humiliated by a dominant man.
Therefore, pornography is inherently degrading to women, regardless
of whether they take a submissive or a dominant role in it.
How'm I doing?
Postfeminist|7.25.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Mariko, men watch "lesbian" porn, porn produced by men, starring
women, for men. The esthetics are very different from the genuinely
lesbian porn produced by, starring, and marketed to women. Are
there some male watchers of genuine lesbian porn? Oh,
sure. Just like there are some female watchers of gay porn
by, starring, and marketed to men.
The point is, porn that is made by one sex, starring that same sex,
and marketed to that same sex cannot be reasonably claimed
to be designed to humiliate or denigrate women for the pleasure of
men. Therefore, theories that claim porn is about the humiliation
of women for the pleasure of men are incorrect in their fundamental
assessment of pornography.
There are two possibilities as to why feminists are so blind to
this error. The first is an unconscious personal heteronormative
bias, where male-male and female-female relationships are dismissed
by the feminist as abnormal or unreal, and thus irrelevant. The
second is the structural heteronormative bias of feminism, which
refuses to admit there are any male-male or female-female
interactions which are not "really" about a male-female dynamic,
and thus the evidence of single-sex interactions is
irrelevant.
(You want to see the consequences of that structural
heteronormative bias of feminism? Look at the LUGs on your local
college campuses. Never had a crush on a girl in high school;
"discover" they're lesbians upon taking a Women's Studies class;
then come to their senses when removed from college and its
feminist professors.)
(Well, a few of them, since they go to graduate school and then
into academia, never figure out that they're ideology-blinded
heterosexuals. Getting into a relationship with one of them is
hell; they never stop resenting the fact that you don't have a
penis, even though the only reason they're willing to be in the
relationship is that you don't have one.)
dhex|7.25.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Monogamy has a implied contract of sexual stewardship; if
women don't want to hold up their end, the contract gets
renegotiated.
while i am definitely weirded out by those people* who think solo
masturbation activities are some kind of violation of sanctity, i
don't think women are responsible for keeping men sexually
satisfied, or vice versa. it's kinda up to everyone to seek their
own soul's delight; calling it stewardship seems just plain wrong,
really. not everyone gets what they want when they want because sex
is not - or rather, should not - be a simple single-way street of
demands. there's another person (or persons) involved.
that may be the biggest problem with porn and men; it is conducive
to the kind of sexual monomania we all felt starting around age 12
until about 25 or so when things calm down a bit (if only a bit).
that monomania is great, or at least unavoidable, for some portion
of our lives; but it's a bad template for dealing with everyone, i
think.
or at the very least, it is not a healthy template.
*(as well as the people who bother getting involved with those
people; it makes me wonder what's missing from their lives, or why
they didn't discuss these things with someone who's supposed to be
their closest ally in the war of all against all, but that's
neither here nor there.)
|7.25.08 @ 1:18PM|#
mariko's argument is easy to understand when you consider that
her brand of feminism is really just about opposing anything that
most or many straight white men like.
Here's is the furthest I've ever seen it taken:
NYT makes
me never want to wear a dress again
"that was sickly, not only do i not want to wear a dress ever again
-- i want to become a butch lesbian."
"That article is disgusting. gross. sexist. UGHHHH"
"This article is absolutely sickening."
"That is NOT ok."
What caused this torrent of invective? A guy wrote an article about
liking spring because women started wearing dresses when it is
warm.
What a fucking asshole!
|7.25.08 @ 1:22PM|#
SugarFree, just to let you know, I'm on your side and I have much sympathy for you and your position, hopefully you can free yourself from your ineptitude with women. I know, its a daunting task, but when you can summon up the courage I'll be there cheering for you. Always remember: its a beasutiful and natural thing.
dhex|7.25.08 @ 1:23PM|#
to be fair to the feministing crowd - a difficult task when it
comes to the commentariat sometimes, to be sure - the catcalling
and general hey baby baby / oye mami type stuff is omnipresent. and
ridiculous.
it's sort of interesting to watch in a sociological sense, because
it's clearly more about fucking with someone than reaching out for
some love and a male bonding ritual to boot, but it's also
unacceptable behavior.
|7.25.08 @ 1:25PM|#
dhex,
I'm not against working out an accommodation, I'm against people
telling other people that masturbation is cheating.
Yes, stewardship is a bad word for what I'm trying to get at. It is
about communication as I see it as well. I think I'm coming off as
a completely different sort of weirdo than I actually am. I'm
trying to suggest that if your partner has no interest in trying to
keep you sexually happy, then it's time to talk, if that doesn't
help, it's time to break-up / divorce / get the fuck out. Monogamy
shouldn't be about that other person being able to make you
miserable (unless you gt off on that sort of thing.)
|7.25.08 @ 1:26PM|#
hopefully you can free yourself from your ineptitude with
women.
I thought SugarFree was a woman.
|7.25.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Sal,
My wife is more than capable of kicking your ass, and three more
like you.
But keep talking; trolls like you always do.
dhex|7.25.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Monogamy shouldn't be about that other person being able to
make you miserable
word up.
/terrorist fist bump
|7.25.08 @ 1:30PM|#
All man, baby. Bearded, sweating, over-weight diabetic
man.
Opps.
my dad is diabetic
|7.25.08 @ 1:34PM|#
and ridiculous.
Completely agreed. But not wanting to wear a dress ever again
because a man might find you attractive in it? That's just
hating on straight men, plain and simple.
The funny part is, hate on men all you fucking want... but don't
lie and say you don't hate men when you clearly do. It's the
hypocrisy of feministing feminism that galls me so deeply.
dhex|7.25.08 @ 1:38PM|#
i can see hating those guys, all not knowing english when i come
on by but when my wife walks by oh...fuck...
LoneWacko may have StumbledUpon the
MexicanHarassmentGovernmentConspiracy!
|7.25.08 @ 1:40PM|#
joshua corning,
It's OK. It's not like "SugarFree" is a heavily gendered Nom de
comment.
Straight white male, 38, married for 14 years. She's so much better
looking than me, people do a double-take when I introduce her.
dhex|7.25.08 @ 1:40PM|#
on a more serious note, i don't give a shit if people hate men
or not; they're not going to do anything about it anyway. some
people are just hatey and shit.
and i can see why the op ed was creepy. newsflash: straight dudes
generally like pretty girls in revealing outfits.
and at the top of the hour: water, wet or merely liquidy?
|7.25.08 @ 1:54PM|#
i don't give a shit if people hate men or not; they're not
going to do anything about it anyway.
First they came for the leerers, and I said nothing...
[retarded winky face emoticon]
Mr anonymous|7.25.08 @ 2:12PM|#
to be fair to the feministing crowd - a difficult task when
it comes to the commentariat sometimes, to be sure - the catcalling
and general hey baby baby / oye mami type stuff is omnipresent. and
ridiculous.
I seem to remember reading that the British just arrested a few
college girls for catcalling some construction workers (talk about
man bites dog), so at least they've banned something annoying, but,
in my world, non-criminal, on an equal basis.
adsfa|7.25.08 @ 3:25PM|#
if you guys think a big element of degradation/humiliation isn't part of the appeal of most porn, just scan the titles on youporn sometime. or, save 2 minutes and just stop lying to yourself.
vinny gates|7.25.08 @ 3:30PM|#
so noam chomksy hates axe body spray, but likes being butt-boy. got it.
Mr anonymous|7.25.08 @ 4:25PM|#
if you guys think a big element of degradation/humiliation isn't part of the appeal of most porn, just scan the titles on youporn sometime.
In turn, you could ask yourself if, perhaps,
degradation/humiliation is part of the porn's appeal for the sorts
of people who film their disgusting selves having sex and post it
on the internet with no hope of monetary return. Or you could save
2 seconds and just stop generalizing where no such generalization
exists.
a|7.25.08 @ 4:48PM|#
Mariko seems like a really bad date.
So, everyone is cool with this? Only response to it so far is
supportive. Let's see some rejecting and denouncing here.
Salvius|7.25.08 @ 5:20PM|#
if you guys think a big element of degradation/humiliation
isn't part of the appeal of most porn
Some porn, certainly. Much porn, sure. But I'm
not comfortable throwing around objectively-verifiable terms like
"most" unless I've got some basis for it, either a statistical
survey or extensive personal knowledge.
Even then, how do you define "porn"? If we use Mariko's definition,
then degradation/humiliation is an element of all porn,
because that definition says that anything that lacks that element
isn't porn. Which makes it true, but utterly useless as a
measure of how common degradation/humiliation is in men's wank
fodder.
For that matter, how do you define "most"? Measuring by weight, or
by volume? What's the individual quantum unit of porn, so you can
count them up and see whether most fall on the degrading or the
non-degrading side? Looking only at video footage, do you count DVD
titles, individual scenes, running time, number sold, profits made,
# files uploaded to the net, # times those files are
downloaded/viewed, etc.? Precisely what yardstick are you using,
and why is it the most valid measurement?
Gram Ponante|7.25.08 @ 5:55PM|#
As someone who works in the porn business and who knows the
"stars" as well as the people who work once and whose aliases are
never heard from again, I can say firsthand that most of the
corporate porn from the larger companies is only degrading to the
audience.
The viewer is asked to sit through tired (if any) plotlines, five
sex scenes per movie containing the same three positions and
partner configurations, and pay for the privilege of seeing his/her
favorite performers' names spelled differently on the box than in
the credits. He is asked by directors who think they're cutting
edge to submit to bad dialogue and poor production just to have 30
uninterrupted seconds with the body part(s) for which he bought the
video.
The performers, meanwhile, have indeed consented and have indeed
been paid, and they know that whatever fantastical depredations
they've endured on film have nothing to do with who they are, what
they do in "real life," or, if they do, do not scar or torment
them, because they know they are performing in service to someone
else's fantasy.
Sure there are scenarios and services they wouldn't perform if it
weren't for the money, but a better analogy than Professor
Chomsky's is to compare this to why I choose to no longer write for
"The Real World" or Hallmark Greetings; the porn that people not
familiar with it call "degrading" is really just another hack job,
nothing more.
Every struggling actor in Hollywood waiting tables and buying new
headshots every two months undergoes far more degradation than your
average porn performer, who can at least put money away for nursing
school.*
*top post-porn career, BTW
|7.25.08 @ 11:34PM|#
200 comments on this. Who would have thought.
Well I guess that either porn or Chomsky would generate alot of
comments on their own. So pit them aganist eachother and you get a
thread with alot of momentum.
durian|7.26.08 @ 12:38AM|#
Chomsky might not want to stone people literally for their
decisions that disagree with his, but by demanding all decisions be
decided politically, in fact you'd get a lot of worse situations
and degradation than anything you can imagine in the porn industry.
Note that Chomsky's responses to the crimes of Pol Pot started out
in denial and moved to rationalizations.
I expect that the fact porn is so stigmatized (and that America was
settled by puritans - an influence that has trickled down the the
left and right today) is mainly the reason why it is viewed as
degrading, creating a circular situation. Suppose construction work
or pro football, the latter especially being hard on the body were
viewed this way? I'm guessing then that the good citizens of
Chomskyville and Pat Robertson Land would deem those occupations
degrading to men.
JB|7.26.08 @ 1:50AM|#
"Mariko seems like a really bad date."
Boring and tedious and likely not good in bed.
dpsc|7.26.08 @ 3:05AM|#
I think one of the big reasons I didn't get into MIT is that my
admission essay was about why I wanted to wrap a tire iron around
Noam's head.
Actually, that's a lie- I couldn't afford the tuition. But I am
barred from his building for life. Well, that's not true either,
actually. But it is true that I don't like him very much.
It is true that I am barred from the University of Vermont's campus
in perpetuity, though they have failed to cross-reference that to
such a degree that they have paid me significant sums (relatively
speaking) to play in their Ethan Allen chapel since then. It has
the best acoustics of any small hall I've ever played.
dpsc|7.26.08 @ 5:26AM|#
Gram says "...nursing school [which is a] top post-porn
career, BTW"
Well, duh. They already know how to change in and out of the
uniform pretty fast. How much of a stretch is it to go from being a
naughty nurse to being a nurse? And, the next time I'm
hospitalized, who do I have to pay to get a naughty one?
I've never worked in porn (though I do have an extraordinarily
large penis), but I don't work much anymore due to profits made
from doing internet work for porn businesses. While I did that I
used to go to porn conventions to network, so I met some porn
girls.
My impression is that the fucked up girls were completely fucked up
before they got into porn. And the normal girls were.. well, who am
I kidding? normal girls don't allow people to film a complete
stranger massaging her tonsils with his penis, particularly if said
penis gains entrance through her ass. So, basically, all the porn
girls were fucked up well before they did porn.
The normal girls were the "models". Girls who pose naked but refuse
to do actual porn (Erica Campbell, for instance, is just a nice
sweet girl who is fun to hang out with, has enormous breasts, and
poses naked a lot). I can see some of them being decent
nurses.
But, and I know this might be an unpopular opinion, I would not
want any actual porn stars to have anything to do with my medical
treatment. Seriously. It would be like asking a Hell's Angel to be
your doctor.
kyle foley|7.26.08 @ 11:19AM|#
on first looking into chomsky's understanding power
much have i traveled in libraries of wonder,
and many ideas of immenso-jazz encountered,
within many countries had i visited
and there met the angels of surprise,
and there discoursed with the lions of wisdom,
oft had i read our culture's history,
and considered myself its master,
accounted myself astute, robust,
up to date on all the latest thought,
abreast of movements, traffic, conspiracy,
yet never did i feel closer to the truth
till i heard chomsky speak loud and bold.
when i first read understanding power
my whole being convulsed!
the san andreas fault of my soul shook!
my imprisoned mind electro-warped!
how delectolicious was it then to realize
that all my life the monster of fallacy
myself attacked and barred!
that my whole existence was deeply
married to the razor-error and the ignored tragedy!
what shimmeradise to have the veil removed!
the wool from one's eyes extracted!
one's corpus from plato's cave exiled!
to realize that things are radically different
from what one has been told again and again!
to see the whole panorama of history
painted not as delacroix would have it,
but as picasso's morbid fascino would!
when i first read understanding power
i quickly understood that a ravenous bezerkum
pervaded, lecherized and prowled!
i rapidly grasped that halo-souls
were needed a dread-scarred status quo to heal!
that it was incumbent on activists
to rouse themselves from the oil-fen of apathy,
the sewer-sloth of indifference,
energize, and labor ceaselessly suffering to lessen!
ante chomsky i had been rummaging
through arcane poems, esoteric elucidation,
researching proust, joyce's mind-twist,
the nearly impossible syntax of ancient greek,
my heart in fang by the lorelei lacerated,
but post chomsky i joyously
confronted challenge in all its shimmerating halluco!
i wildly encountered dilemma
equipped with its paratroopers of blade!
i cheerfully took on the mantle of purpose,
i eagerly affixed my eyes on the mangle of corruption
and resolved its junk-jaws to curtail!
ante chomsky i was much like that mythical hobbit,
forever contenting himself in his home,
continually smoking his pipe, purposeless,
but post chomsky the gandalf of wisdom
violently invaded my home,
roused myself from complacency's antarticum,
and urged me to come join him
in his quest the smaug of corruption to combat,
the plutocratic warlocks' cabal to unveil,
the self-absorbed hydras of finance to waylay.
and now two years thence
a disturbing question remains:
if one veil from my mind has been removed,
what other veils presently my intellect hinder?
what other illusions dictate my routes and excursions?
if i have been brought out of one of plato's caves
how am i to know that
there are not more caves that remain.
dtw|7.26.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Porn is for guys who need to masterbate because they can't get laid. Get off your couch, put down the mouse and the KY and go live your own damn fantasy.
Alan|7.26.08 @ 10:28PM|#
The article notes that Noam Chomsky is a prolific emailer, and
in fact I once had an email conversation with him.
I sent him email after watching a documentary which managed to
overlook his many flaws and made him appear reasonable. It did not
take long for him to convince me that - well-meaning as he is - the
policies he wants implemented would lead to (conservatively)
hundreds of millions of needless deaths.
Noam Chomsky is an idiot-savant who ought to stick to
linguistics.
|7.27.08 @ 12:36AM|#
if you guys think a big element of degradation/humiliation
isn't part of the appeal of most porn, just scan the titles on
youporn sometime.
From the porn titles I've scanned, I conclude that the
biggest part of the appeal of most porn is puns and
wordplay.
can\'tgetmeno|7.27.08 @ 7:12AM|#
Golly, dtw, that was mean. Where's your compassion? Maybe not everyone can get laid.
|7.27.08 @ 11:10AM|#
Pornography is daft. It's like eating a meal that looks like
food, tastes like food, smells like food, but actually isn't food
at all, and has absolutely no nutritious value whatsoever.
Pornography is for people who want to fool their minds and bodies
about reality. It's self deception, bullshit, self abuse, and a con
trick against your own body.
Pornography is like taking shit, plastering it with MSG, and
thinking it's good for you because it tastes good.
Pornography is for wankers.
|7.27.08 @ 5:52PM|#
"Pornography is for wankers"
That is deft, m'man. And I'm guessing you don't usually go by
"Jack."
dredge|7.28.08 @ 3:43AM|#
I happen to agree with Chomsky here. There really are certain occupations that are so degrading that no human should be allowed to do them: insurance salesman, postal worker, and legislator to name a few. Why even linguistics seems to fit this category as many linguistics, after an initial enthusiasm, lose their interest in the field and spend most of their time (as long as they have tenure) dabbling in other interests. Chomsky is a good example of this. He's a linguistic whore, along with many others I have met in the field, who is simply plying his trade because it pays the bills. Therefore, as my first order of business as occupation czar, I would declare linguistics to be an exploitive field and one that should be outlawed. Of course, if we truly had a system of perfect equality of wages, no one would have to lower themselves for years on end in such drudgery - in this anarchic utopia, no one would be forced by circumstances to do one more day's work in linguistics and instead could be free to pursue their true passions.
|7.28.08 @ 5:44AM|#
"Pornography is daft. It's like eating a meal that looks
like food, tastes like food, smells like food, but actually isn't
food at all, and has absolutely no nutritious value
whatsoever."
And I'll be selling loads of it for years and years, whether you
like it or not.
sara|7.29.08 @ 1:45AM|#
I have a problem with porn that degrades women, too.
But I love all other kinds!
|7.30.08 @ 1:43PM|#
I was browsing a website called imagefap.com earlier today,
looking for some teen whores in schoolgirl uniforms. (a popular
porn niche).
One picture shows a bound girl with a fat man pressing down on her
with his cock in her mouth.
The comments from viewers underneath the picture were like:
"Yesssss! Skullfuck that bitch"
and
"Little slut loves her daddies cum"
Which are in no way degrading to women, you feminist lesbian
bitches.
I loooooooooooove it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245