An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
Pornography and Perception: The Influence of Mainstream Pornographic Imagery
SkyGheNe
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Introduction
At the behest of another individual in another thread in a land far, far away, I have decided to create a new thread with the sole purpose of discussing pornography and how it functions within a cultural context – this, of course, comes after directly insinuating that I am culturally regressive and may have originated from Nebraska, home of the Cornhuggers.
Before I begin, I want to get something out of the way and I believe that there is no better method for doing so than quoting someone who says it better than I can. From the documentary Dreamworlds 3:
“It is important to be clear about the nature of this analysis. This is not a critique or dismissal of sexual images. It is not a moralistic point of view that regards all sexual representation in a negative manner. The question is not whether an image is good or bad. The question is, ‘whose story is being told? Whose eyes do we see the world through? Whose eyes do we not see the world through? Who is behind the camera? Whose visions and values guide us through the process by which we learn what it means to be a man or woman? And whose fantasies are these? Are they supposed to be ours?
Given the narrow story about sexuality that is repeatedly told in mainstream culture – the real issue is not that there is too much of discussion sex, but that there is not enough. That is, there is simply not enough diversity in the stories of about sexuality that circulate in the culture, because the commercial, male, heterosexual pornographic imagination monopolizes virtually all of our media terrain.”
So to recap – I want to assure everyone that I do not dismiss sexual images – I do not view all images that are sexual in nature in a negative light. However, as is suggested in the above passage, pornography is a subject that cannot be dissected and analyzed apart from the culture that it stems from, which for the purposes of our discussion will be the modern western world.
Mainstream Media and Culture (In particular, through the lens of contemporary mainstream music)
To begin, let’s start with a few of clips from Dreamworld so that we are on the same page. These are NSFW but do not contain any uncensored pornographic imagery.
It was asserted at one point in a previous thread that pornography “isn’t harmful to anyone,” and the poster went on to suggest that even though more people than ever have been exposed to pornography, “we generally treat women better than we ever have before.”
While women’s rights have come a long way, I sincerely doubt mainstream pornography and mainstream pornographic imagery is responsible for furthering that cause or helping it any tangible way. Rather, it has been detrimental to the continual progress of those rights. By mainstream pornography, I mean pornography and pornographic imagery that is consumed through mass media channels or is distributed to a large audience in the form of DVD, internet video, or whatever channel contains a large amount of reach with a unified message.
Please understand that this may not necessarily be the pornography that you consume and that anecdotal evidence will only obfuscate the discussion we will be trying to have. We are discussing pornography that is consumed en-masse, by the masses.
My original assertion was that mainstream pornography and pornographic imagery, in its essence, is harmful and detrimental to perceptions about how sex “works,” ie: the sexual dynamics between the sexes, the roles each of the sexes are given, and ultimately how those play out.
In mainstream pornography or pornographic imagery, women are often at the service of men. This is perhaps identified more easily in mainstream music, which the aforementioned Dreamworld videos analyze and discuss.
Pornography and Perception
Mainstream pornography exemplifies the male right of access to women. Common narratives in mainstream porn include women who want sex in the same way and at the same time as men, and countless sex acts that look good on film but real-world women often object to due to pain or lack of actual sexual pleasure. Women want to be grabbed, choked, slapped, called ‘sluts’, ejaculated upon, and take on multiple partners at once. They appear to allow and even enjoy sex that imitates abuse as they satisfy the men on screen, and the male consumers, with a smile. Porn does not mirror everyday sexual encounters, but instead uses socially constructed gender inequalities by employing dominant men and willing women to the extreme. Anti-pornography feminists argued that these unreal depictions of sexuality reinforce the real sexual patriarchy our society endures. As anti-porn feminist Robin Morgan said: “pornography was the theory, rape was the practice.”
I approach pornography from a sex-postive feminist point of view. That is to say, Feminism must increase women’s pleasure and joy, not just decrease her misery by recognizing and creating areas of sexually egalitarian encounters, on-screen or in real life. Unfortunately, pornography on all levels, whether it be gonzo pornography to mainstream pornography never portrays an egalitarian view of sex, but instead focuses on male pleasure. Is she moaning because she is legitimately feeling pleasure – or is it for the satisfaction of the male audience? And what act is the moaning tied to?
After this analysis, I conclude that not all pornography tells such a one-sided tale. Some pornography strives for more egalitarian views of sex without relying on sexism, stereotypes, and violent imagery. However, the sheer volume of sexist pornography is one of the many pieces that shape our conceptualization of what it means to be masculine and feminine, a man and a woman, and like a mirror, is both a reflection and reinforcement of what we are and should be.
At the behest of another individual in another thread in a land far, far away, I have decided to create a new thread with the sole purpose of discussing pornography and how it functions within a cultural context – this, of course, comes after directly insinuating that I am culturally regressive and may have originated from Nebraska, home of the Cornhuggers.
Before I begin, I want to get something out of the way and I believe that there is no better method for doing so than quoting someone who says it better than I can. From the documentary Dreamworlds 3:
“It is important to be clear about the nature of this analysis. This is not a critique or dismissal of sexual images. It is not a moralistic point of view that regards all sexual representation in a negative manner. The question is not whether an image is good or bad. The question is, ‘whose story is being told? Whose eyes do we see the world through? Whose eyes do we not see the world through? Who is behind the camera? Whose visions and values guide us through the process by which we learn what it means to be a man or woman? And whose fantasies are these? Are they supposed to be ours?
Given the narrow story about sexuality that is repeatedly told in mainstream culture – the real issue is not that there is too much of discussion sex, but that there is not enough. That is, there is simply not enough diversity in the stories of about sexuality that circulate in the culture, because the commercial, male, heterosexual pornographic imagination monopolizes virtually all of our media terrain.”
So to recap – I want to assure everyone that I do not dismiss sexual images – I do not view all images that are sexual in nature in a negative light. However, as is suggested in the above passage, pornography is a subject that cannot be dissected and analyzed apart from the culture that it stems from, which for the purposes of our discussion will be the modern western world.
Mainstream Media and Culture (In particular, through the lens of contemporary mainstream music)
To begin, let’s start with a few of clips from Dreamworld so that we are on the same page. These are NSFW but do not contain any uncensored pornographic imagery.
It was asserted at one point in a previous thread that pornography “isn’t harmful to anyone,” and the poster went on to suggest that even though more people than ever have been exposed to pornography, “we generally treat women better than we ever have before.”
While women’s rights have come a long way, I sincerely doubt mainstream pornography and mainstream pornographic imagery is responsible for furthering that cause or helping it any tangible way. Rather, it has been detrimental to the continual progress of those rights. By mainstream pornography, I mean pornography and pornographic imagery that is consumed through mass media channels or is distributed to a large audience in the form of DVD, internet video, or whatever channel contains a large amount of reach with a unified message.
Please understand that this may not necessarily be the pornography that you consume and that anecdotal evidence will only obfuscate the discussion we will be trying to have. We are discussing pornography that is consumed en-masse, by the masses.
My original assertion was that mainstream pornography and pornographic imagery, in its essence, is harmful and detrimental to perceptions about how sex “works,” ie: the sexual dynamics between the sexes, the roles each of the sexes are given, and ultimately how those play out.
In mainstream pornography or pornographic imagery, women are often at the service of men. This is perhaps identified more easily in mainstream music, which the aforementioned Dreamworld videos analyze and discuss.
Pornography and Perception
Mainstream pornography exemplifies the male right of access to women. Common narratives in mainstream porn include women who want sex in the same way and at the same time as men, and countless sex acts that look good on film but real-world women often object to due to pain or lack of actual sexual pleasure. Women want to be grabbed, choked, slapped, called ‘sluts’, ejaculated upon, and take on multiple partners at once. They appear to allow and even enjoy sex that imitates abuse as they satisfy the men on screen, and the male consumers, with a smile. Porn does not mirror everyday sexual encounters, but instead uses socially constructed gender inequalities by employing dominant men and willing women to the extreme. Anti-pornography feminists argued that these unreal depictions of sexuality reinforce the real sexual patriarchy our society endures. As anti-porn feminist Robin Morgan said: “pornography was the theory, rape was the practice.”
I approach pornography from a sex-postive feminist point of view. That is to say, Feminism must increase women’s pleasure and joy, not just decrease her misery by recognizing and creating areas of sexually egalitarian encounters, on-screen or in real life. Unfortunately, pornography on all levels, whether it be gonzo pornography to mainstream pornography never portrays an egalitarian view of sex, but instead focuses on male pleasure. Is she moaning because she is legitimately feeling pleasure – or is it for the satisfaction of the male audience? And what act is the moaning tied to?
After this analysis, I conclude that not all pornography tells such a one-sided tale. Some pornography strives for more egalitarian views of sex without relying on sexism, stereotypes, and violent imagery. However, the sheer volume of sexist pornography is one of the many pieces that shape our conceptualization of what it means to be masculine and feminine, a man and a woman, and like a mirror, is both a reflection and reinforcement of what we are and should be.
SkyGheNe on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
If I was serious and actually using it as part of my argument in an earnest way, you would probably see more effort - namely something that resembles the first post. That's probably the part you didn't read though.
I think you need to address this a bit better, since as you noted circumstance seems to contradict your claim, from the standpoint of correlation if not causation.
I think it is likely that the same tendency toward "permissiveness" (for want of a better term) is responsible for good and bad changing sexual norms. I don't think you can effectively separate the "good" from the "bad."
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Are you referring to the first part that is green, or the second part that is blue? And can you further articulate the idea of permissiveness? I'm not following very easily. Maybe illustrate with an example?
Is this thread really going to swing this way so quickly? I didn't mean that to be my big, dismissive response to your entire argument, sorry if it came across that way as the OP is obviously well thought out.
I don't really have a chance to view the videos at the moment, but I think it's certainly not hard to argue that the majority of mainstream porn is sexist in nature. How much that actually affects the public view of gender as a whole is, I think, the bone of contention, and I would posit that the average person is probably capable enough to separate fantasy media from reality that this isn't necessarily a pressing concern, just like with other fiction. You could even argue that sexist porn is mainstream precisely because the objectification is part of the escapism that doesn't reflect on the viewers' actual lives.
I mostly responded with snark because your comment did feel dismissive. Sorry.
You can't conflate the notion of media in the short-term shaping our lives and perceptions with the notion of media in the long-term shaping our lives and perceptions. I thought it was common knowledge that mass-media does in fact have an effect on behavior or conceptualizations of things. Songs like shots reinforce behavior - mirrors beliefs that may already be there, thus solidifying them.
Most notable is the portrayal of homosexuality and our conceptualizations of what it means to be homosexual.
The idea of "bitch get in the kitchen" was accepted back in the day. Right now it's seen as absurd - it's used as a joke, half heartedly joking sometimes. However, women are still seen as the primary caretakers by society - never the men. That's a stereotype that lingers and is reinforced by media. If a woman gets pregnant, she is expected to take care of the child - and even our legal system reinforces that notion with custody trials by giving preference to them.
Pornography reinforces other things, but it's similar in how it works I suppose. If media didn't work people like me wouldn't have a job.
What I am wondering is if the pornography industry is creating or indulging. I mean, lots of people enjoy things as a fantasy that they would find downright abhorrent in reality. Is the porn industry making people like these things in reality with their presentation of this sexist unrealistic portrayal, or are they indulging unrealistic fantasies? Probably both.
So I guess the question is whether or not it's something that needs to be solved. I'd say that as long as reality trends towards better and more equal treatment of women, fantasy should be expected and allowed to indulge whatever dark urges people have.
http://blog.ted.com/2009/12/cindy_gallop_ma.php
collated here:
www.makelovenotporn.com
The fact that other forms of entertainment, particularly music videos, tend to have some aspects of mainstream porn is disheartening. But I'm also not sure that pornography is directly responsible for it, rather than the same general male fantasies that also influence porn. It gets the attention of heterosexual male viewers on a basic biological level, which is much easier than getting their attention with an interesting piece of art.
I think the main potential damage from mainstream porn comes from people watching it who have no frame of reference for how people behave in relationships, or how women should be treated. Not going to lie, I've seen my fair share of pornography and there's no way I would treat women the way that guys do in some of those videos (unless they wanted me to?). But that's because I understand that females don't deserve that sort of treatment.
So I guess if I had to come up with a 'solution' to the problem of women being objectified, it would have to be education. Right now, kids (at least in the U.S.) aren't taught these things unless their parents teach them. Sex education, the way I received it, was something that lasted one day in 6th grade and it only dealt with basic reproduction. So children/teenagers have to figure it out themselves, and hopefully pornography isn't their source material. Not that I think pornography is bad, it just needs proper context.
Yes, she's usually moaning for the satisfaction of the male audience, and the act it's tied to is, again, usually just the satisfaction of the male audience.
I feel that there's something missing from your OP, which the snippet above comes closest to touching but still doesn't quite get there. Which is the fact that the vast majority of pornography is made for men, and not for any socially constructed sexist reason, but for entirely natural reasons in the ways men's and women's sexualities differ.
Consider the following truthful generalizations: men draw considerably more arousal from visuals than women do, men can become highly aroused in general much faster than women, men are more likely than women to become highly aroused even in the absence of an emotional sense of intimacy with a partner, men can physically stimulate themselves to orgasm more easily than women can, and on top of all that, men are much more likely to feel 'blueballs' than women (
Add all the above together, and you have excellent reasons for why men are much more likely to be interested in porn and hence why porn is much more likely to be oriented towards male pleasure, because that's the more lucrative audience.
None of this is meant to defend any specific presentation of porn, or to comment in any moralistic way at all on porn in general. Just that, the OP struck me as containing rather a bit of headscratching over why porn in general tends to cater to male pleasure, and I think the reasons for that are both obvious and natural.
Steam: badger2d
Got some cites for those generalizations?
Bwa? I don't know about you guys, but I certainly don't think that when I watch porn.
No, I don't consider internet discussions the kind of serius bizness worth armloads of extra work to gather citations for everything I say.
But I do have a psychology degree and that did include a course in human sexuality, which my memory cites to me as the source for at least most if not all of them. And that is plenty good enough to be worth posting it.
Steam: badger2d
Sex, in particular, is a subtle thing - it's not easy to describe in discrete precise terms how to express attraction without being insulting; how much sexual access to expect from one's partner and how to go about asking for what you want; how to appreciate somebody's body but not imply that you only appreciate their body; etc. As adults, we're learning how to engage sex in a healthy manner, and we're kind of making it up as we go along.
So what we're looking at is the possibility that this kind of murky, fuzzy, ill-defined cloud of human behaviors might be influenced by the cues we see in media.
I think it's far more reasonable to assume that it does than to assume that it does not.
Yes.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Not in the least, so long as you'll have the intellectual consistency to also disregard the at least 95% of anything else said in this thread which will not be supported by people googling links to throw at you, either.
Alternatively you could evaluate what people say with your own head and decide for yourself whether you think it sounds truthful or not. Crazy idea, I know.
Steam: badger2d
Pretty much this. I mean, think of your adolescent frames of reference: your parents (assuming they're still together), your peers (other confused adolescents), and media.
I dunno about you, but it kind of makes me go 'hmmm.'
I agree. I'm not sure if the classroom is the best place for it, but open mature discussion is the antidote.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
No, it really isn't. Nice appeal to authority though.
Just because he didn't provide citations doesn't mean he's just making shit up.
I don't know what literotica entails. But if it's just as bad as it's male counterpart, then it's equally as poor in my eyes, however the scope and span of the female market is considerably smaller and less pervasive in our everyday lives.
But again - that's me taking a swing at something I don't entirely know about. If this is a "how do you feel about the women doing the same thing" then...yeah, it's just as shitty, but isn't as pervasive.
Obviously true from what?
They sound like how female and male sexuality are stereotypically perceived by society to me, and I can think of many examples in my own experience that counteract those assertions. So if there's hard data to support them I'd love to see it.
Yep, same here. And I'll see if I can find citations later since apparently badger2d is too busy goosing himself to bother.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It was more in the op you questioned the focus of the narrative, implying it to be male-centric, which is certainly problematic. And I was curious as to whether you'd expand that to encompass pornography aimed at a female audience, which I could certainly see the argument for.
Didn't mean it to come off as a trite, 'what about women doing it too!'
Academic trench warfare ITT. Duck the citation bullets and throw back the footnote grenades!
Bit of a shock when I thought I was just entering a potentially interesting discussion. I'll be off to dig a rhetorical foxhole...
Steam: badger2d
Well I mean that's interesting - I wasn't inclusive of female pornography because I don't think it's having as much of an influence on the western world as male hetero pornography. I think male hetero pornography actually has a larger influence over women than female pornography.
Sorry! I wasn't trying to be insulting.
The issue isn't who the pornography is being marketed to so much as it is the content of what they are marketing. The word "natural" is a loaded term that I'd like you to define, because if it is "natural" for men to seek out and enjoy mainstream pornography in its current incarnation, I would have to disagree. This is a social construct, not an innate desire to butt-fuck, ejaculate on, or abuse women during the act of sex.
Again, all of these things are socially constructed and not inherent in our natures. Women have been sexually repressed in the western world for centuries, so it's not surprising that some of this stuff is true in our contemporary society. If a man philandered in the 1950s, minor things would occur to him, maybe shame if that, but for the woman, her pretty much was hell - sexual expectations are constructed and have changed over time - we aren't inherently one way or the other.
Again, the question and argument wasn't why men are more interested in porn, or why more of it is marketed to men - it's asking why so much of it is degrading to women, abusive, and demeaning and whether or not this portrayal has an affect.
That was not my thesis and I apologize for jumping down your throat...but I disagree with you. Sorry again.
Actually, what I'd be interested to see, are figures showing the popularity of various types of porn - whether they be sales figures or website hits.
Of course there's a definition problem there. In these threads we generally make the assumption that 'mainstream porn' - IE, the most popular - is moderately misogynist, while there are less popular forms of porn that are less misogynist (and presumably fringe porn that is more misogynist). But if, say, Bang Bus is an example of popular misogynist porn, what would be an example of popular non-misogynist (or less misogynist) porn?
I guess we could look at porn produced by women, but women are not immune to misogyny either.
My general perception is that sites that attempt to show a profile, like a personal ad, for the actresses - giving the audience a feeling that this is a living breathing woman who has interests outside of sex - and don't imply that the actresses were cajoled or tricked into sex, and avoid calling their actresses derogatory terms like 'slut' or 'whore' could be considered less misogynist. God's Girls and Abby Winters come to mind.
So I can see a few possible counterarguments: maybe these sites are less popular. Okay, sure - but do we know for sure? Maybe these sites aren't any less misogynist... okay, why not? Maybe they are less misogynist, but still misogynist. Okay, how or why?
Edit: regarding literotica, is anybody going to sincerely argue that written word has as pervasive effects on perceptions or behavior as does video media?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
While I haven't read any of this female erotica, I wonder if it tends to fall into the male-hetero ideal anyway. Does anyone have an example of this literature so that we can take a look at it, even if it's a summary?
I'm looking at God's Girls right now and it's definitely not nearly as big or pervasive as mainstream pornography and pornographic imagery (which is found in pop culture and all that jazz). It's effects are definitely limited, and I doubt many people have heard of it.
It's reach probably isn't even close to the millions.
However, I like the direction that it goes in...it's definitely a bit more positive, at least at a surface glance. The fact that it is so different from mainstream pornography may be why it's so small...but that's definitely making a logical leap without evidence, so I admit that. But if God's Girls were mainstream, I wouldn't complain. It seems very sex-positive.
What are you using as your basis for the true nature of man? It seems like you are applying an idealized version of man, as these social constructs are as old as recorded history.
Because we've always been abusive to women it must be innate to humanity? Wat.
Look at cultures outside of your own and you'll see contradictions everywhere.
Look outside of generations outside of your own and you'll see contradictions everywhere.
I don't have any basis for the "true" nature of man because I think it's all bullshit. Most behavior is learned, and the concept of what's natural and what isn't natural is an excuse in my mind, especially when it comes to violent behavior. If a large chunk of our behavior wasn't learned, once again, people like me wouldn't have a job. We get paid to influence people on a large scale. But it seems like this convo is going to turn into a nature vs. nurture fest if we keep going this route! Haha.
Well, the history behind God's Girls is interesting and relevant. It's a spinoff of a site you might have heard of: Suicide Girls. It has similar style and professed values.
But the guy that runs Suicide Girls has been accused of mistreating his models, skiving on payment, and just being a general douchebag. So a couple of SG models broke off and started God's Girls on their own.
So if the SG/GG model were started by a misogynist douchebag, does that lead us to suspect that the SG/GG model is misogynist in a way that we, as generally heterosexual sex-positive lads who might be a little biased in favor of looking at naked women, are blind to? Or is death of the author in effect here?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah...it's kinda bizarre. I mean, was it in our nature to hate and lynch blacks? I mean, that went on for centuries (the idea of dark skin being bad).
I'm not really sure of a good way to cite it. It's kind of a niche market anyway - definitely not the sort of thing that ends up as an e-book - and it's usually (IIRC) written by committee and released on a regular basis (a publishing house might release a new one every couple of months or whatever). I'm not sure if those committee members are usually men or women, which is probably a relevant question. I may look around for some blogs or something with some excerpts posted if I've got time later.
Novels like that kind of fascinate me because I've always been interested in sleazy pulp fiction, a form of writing that revels in sexual titillation (and probably exists because of it). Those romance novels are pretty much the last remaining example of that kind of writing in the present, but I've never actually read a novel in that particular genre to give you an example.
What are the identifiable features of non-misogynist (or minimally misogynist) porn?
Does such an animal exist - and if not, could it exist?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.