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.

Advertisement

NEXT: Anti-Heroin Hero Explains Why Afghan Flop Is Everyone Else's Fault

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ha ha ha ha ha
    What a pussy

    1. I have to agree, kinda slack to the old guy but still he’s a big girl

  2. Apparently Chomsky’s been watching some weird-ass porn.

  3. This is like taking dating tips from your grandmother.

  4. 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!”

  5. Chomsky’s getting to be fun in his old age–maybe Chomsky can be Nader’s running mate?

  6. Michael, you were too kind when you called that a “labored analogy.” I’m almost embarrassed for the old guy.

  7. I can’t believe that anyone ever listened to Chomsky about anything other than linguistics.

  8. 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!

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. Oh yes! Scandinavia and porn! I remember Seka!

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. Womens’ tennis and volleyball also exploit women for profit, and I sometimes get mild sexual pleasure from watching them. Should they also be Banned?

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. Having spoken with Mr. Chomskey, I can tell you that he is “a humorless fuck.”

  18. Pardon me. When speaking of the worlds most cunning linguist one should refer to him as “an humorless fuck.”

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. Oh yes! Scandinavia and porn! I remember Seka!

    Old fart, huh? ๐Ÿ˜‰
    Me too.

  22. “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.

  23. Is sum uv deez wimens bilingual?

  24. 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.

  25. 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?

  26. 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?

  27. 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.

  28. 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…

  29. 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.

  30. 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”.

  31. September 2005, not September 2004.

  32. 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?

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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).

  36. Old fart, huh? ๐Ÿ˜‰
    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.

  37. “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).

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. So I guess he’s ok with all male gay porn.

  42. 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?

  43. LMNOP,

    Beat you to it.

    Neu Mejican | July 24, 2008, 5:54pm | #

    He’s like Freud that way.

  44. Or maybe anything with women, high heels, gag balls and whips.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  48. Chomsky is pro-rape. Anyone who is anti-porn is pro-rape. Period.

  49. 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.

  50. 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?

  51. 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.

  52. “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.

  53. I wonder if joe will stop watching porn now.

  54. 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.

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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’.

  58. @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.

  59. 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.

  60. 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?

  61. 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.

  62. 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.

  63. 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?

  64. 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.

  65. 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.

  66. 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.

  67. 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.

  68. “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.

  69. alleviating poverty (which always disproportionately hurts women)

    How is this?

  70. 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…

  71. nearly nobody here thinks that porn, ipso facto, is degradation

    Better would be ea ipsa.

  72. osculates, even

  73. 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.

  74. 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.

  75. “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.

  76. 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.

  77. 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.

  78. 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.

  79. Brazil is ahead of the US. Fart Porn no. 1

  80. 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.

  81. 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.

  82. 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.

  83. 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.

  84. 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?

  85. 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.

  86. 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.

  87. 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.

  88. I meant ineloquently, duh.

  89. Maybe if all porn were of the variety that this Max Hardcore guy creates, you’d have a point.

  90. 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.

  91. 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. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    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.

  92. uh-huh

  93. It is. Max Hardcore is just the most exxxxxtreme version of it.

    uh-huh

  94. 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.

  95. 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.

  96. 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.

  97. 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.

  98. 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.

  99. 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.

  100. Right, Postfeminist, because men *never* watch lesbian porn.

  101. mariko,

    What about sites that feature amateur people engaging in intercourse (totally NSFW). That isn’t porn?

  102. 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.

  103. 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.

  104. 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.

  105. 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”.

  106. LMNO, the suggestion was directed not to case, but to selection (and gender) of the expression in toto.

  107. But what does Noam Chomsky think about doujinshi? Inquiring minds want to know!

  108. 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?

  109. 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

  110. 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.

  111. *otherwise*

  112. Only douchebags from New Jersey wear Axe

    I resent that.

    I’ll have you know I’m a douchebag from New York. ๐Ÿ™‚

  113. 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!


  114. 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..

  115. the fact remains that its content continues to fetishize dominance and submission.

    Um, Sure i guess that proves it.

  116. “We still read Plato in Philosophy for a reason.”

    Yeah, so we can learn about the roots of fascism.

  117. 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.

  118. e, most people are not attractive, they just think they are. Big difference.

  119. 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.

  120. Speaking of abuse, I think I’ve just abused the everliving snot out of the blockquote tag…

  121. MG,

    I’m sure we can all agree on that.

  122. I shall feel appropriately guilty.

  123. 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.

  124. You rarely hear a word about female porn: romance novels and soap operas.

  125. 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. ๐Ÿ™‚

  126. 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?

  127. 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.

  128. 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.

  129. 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.

  130. 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.

  131. 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.

  132. 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.

  133. 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.

  134. LMNO, litotes : tease :: Rubens : porn

  135. 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.

  136. 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.

  137. This is simply a front for Noam Chomsky’s contempt for the internet.

  138. 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.

  139. 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.

  140. 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.

  141. 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?

  142. 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!

  143. 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!)

  144. 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…

  145. 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.

  146. 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?

  147. 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*.

  148. 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.

  149. that should be:

    …urging people to shop and work elsewhere…

  150. 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?

  151. 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.

  152. 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.

  153. Mariko seems like a really bad date.

  154. 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.

  155. 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.

  156. mariko, I am pleased to present to you today’s “No True Scotsman” Award for definitional gymnastics.

  157. 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.

  158. 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.

  159. Boy, she’s really been on her run for a long time…

  160. 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.

  161. 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.

  162. 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.

  163. 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.

  164. 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.

  165. 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.

  166. 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.

  167. 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

  168. 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?

  169. 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…

  170. 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.

  171. 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?

  172. 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.)

  173. 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.)

  174. 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!

  175. 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.

  176. 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.

  177. 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.)

  178. hopefully you can free yourself from your ineptitude with women.

    I thought SugarFree was a woman.

  179. Sal,

    My wife is more than capable of kicking your ass, and three more like you.

    But keep talking; trolls like you always do.

  180. All man, baby. Bearded, sweating, over-weight diabetic man.

  181. Monogamy shouldn’t be about that other person being able to make you miserable

    word up.

    /terrorist fist bump

  182. All man, baby. Bearded, sweating, over-weight diabetic man.

    Opps.

    my dad is diabetic

  183. 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.

  184. 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!

  185. 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.

  186. 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?

  187. 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]

  188. 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.

  189. 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.

  190. so noam chomksy hates axe body spray, but likes being butt-boy. got it.

  191. 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.

  192. 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.

  193. 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?

  194. 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

  195. wow Gram Ponante on Reason. Its like my two worlds just collided

  196. top post-porn career, BTW

    And are they studying to be…..Naughty Nurses?

  197. 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.

  198. 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.

  199. “Mariko seems like a really bad date.”

    Boring and tedious and likely not good in bed.

  200. 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.

  201. 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.

  202. 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.

  203. 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.

  204. 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.

  205. 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.

  206. Golly, dtw, that was mean. Where’s your compassion? Maybe not everyone can get laid.

  207. 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.

  208. “Pornography is for wankers”

    That is deft, m’man. And I’m guessing you don’t usually go by “Jack.”

  209. Wankers for Pornography, Unleash Your Hands and Unite!

  210. 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.

  211. “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.

  212. I have a problem with porn that degrades women, too.

    But I love all other kinds!

  213. 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.

  214. Ah, the limits of free speech, alas! It’s good to know that a classical libertarian such as Professor Chomsky willfully admits and places in its proper context of the mass degradation women. Nobody ever said a free society must qualify itself through the subjectagation and pollution of its mothers and daughters.

  215. Wow, I would be pretty flattered – I can’t believe Chomsky would even take the time to pay any attention to a nobody (no offense to you, I am a nobody too).

    You’ve got to give the man some credit for listening to us little people, and stop harping about his specific views – which actually, he seems to make a lot of sense (sorry!)

  216. Are you guys sure you are libertarians? I thought libertarians were anti-war? You know, Ron Paul, Thomas Woods?

    Chomsky never said we should ban pornography. He said that if we start treating women equally the need for pornography will die, since women tend to work in this field because of a lack of work in other fields and a false front that it is just about sex. There have been incredible evidence that porn producers not only degrade the women, they infect them with drugs, ply them with sds, and rip their vaginas. There are several cases of women who can no longer work because of their vagina distruction.

    Have you ever seen porn? They treat women like garbage, using terms like “slut” and “skank.” It’s not like they say, “look at this female queen bless us with the vision of her visionary, nude form.” No, we want some guy to cum on her face and spank her realll hard.

    I sense a deep seated hatred of women as a cover for libertarian drooling.

    Anarchism is the real libertarianism, anyway.

    1. I’m going to skullfuck you real hard, you stupid bitch.

    2. GREAT comment, Frank Church!!

  217. With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

  218. Most of the commenters here seem like pretentious douchebags. Chomsky never suggested a ban on pornography; he proposed that we mitigate the inequalities that force women to degrade themselves for a living. And yes, most pornography is degrading (you don’t need me to tell you that). Most of the shit is borderline prostitution and many of the so-called “actresses” are just young girls in need of money with very few options (guaranteed the 2 girls 1 cup chicks were crackheads).
    But don’t worry “libertarians”, even if all the sexism, patriarchy and poverty were to be eliminated from society, not forcibly (don’t get all excited), there would still be women willing to do porn.
    For the record, high-paying gigs in the mainstream adult industry are ethically sound. However the vast majority of porn consists of paying a girl two hundred bucks to let a guy jizz in her eyeball and film it.

    1. You too, stupid bitch.

  219. What a smart man! Very intelligent….. I can see he hasn’t fried any brain cells on porn.

  220. Some of these comments clearly demonstrate the death of brain cells. They also demonstrate clear addiction to porn. To go to such great lengths to defend it— wow. Porn addicts couldn’t please a real woman no matter how hard they tried. Porn induced erectile dysfunctional men….that’s what it’s producing. Google it!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.