Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity

quote:

---

it offers a candid and intelligent exploration of porn's devastating role in helping to define conventional masculinity. In other words: In our culture, porn makes the man.

---

The odd thing about this idea is that the more traditional the society, the more macho the culture, the LESS likely it is that pornography is readily available.

Those societies have no problem defining masculinity in the old patriarchal way.

quote:

---

perhaps porn is the more appealing in a society where gender roles are becoming increasingly ambiguous or under pressure to change. Porn reinstates the old power dynamics.

---

So, which societies have had gender roles become ambiguous, but are now reinstating the old power dynamics?

To me, the association is: the more porn, the more liberal the gender roles, and the less patriarchy.

quote:

---

After everything I've seen and read and experienced, it seems pretty clear to me that masculnity is roughly defined in the mind by the time puberty hits - before the desire to watch porn ever manifests itself. These roles come from toys, cartoons, media, parenting, mimicry, and biology. It is irrational to assume that masculinity is defined by an art form that the individual only encounters and explores after his masculinity's been defined. That would require a time machine.

I would agree though, that pornography and its peripheral consequences help define sexuality and sexual norms.

---

I'm glad you said this Apples, because I have no doubt that exposure to Internet porn has been a deciding factor in the way men grow up to view women. People get cues from what they are exposed to. If a kid is exposed to supposedly willing women being sexually degraded in all manner of ways, and apparently loving the rape simulations, it is no wonder boys and men develop the attitudes they do towards women. Essentially as one-dimensional sex toys.

quote:

---

To me, the association is: the more porn, the more liberal the gender roles, and the less patriarchy.

---

I find that to be startlingly specious.

Not that I resolutely agree or disagree with Jensen's articles on

[url=http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/freelance/realmenrealchoices.htm]Real men, real choices[/url] or [url=http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/freelance/dp.htm]Is DP inherently sexist?[/url] but I do believe they are thought provoking. I need to read them again, I think, before I would engage at length, but some thoughts bounced around after I read them this morning.

In "real men, real choices" Jensen throws the word humanity out at us, without, I think, bothering to define it. To me, what makes us human is our ability to over ride our instinctive behaviors with conscious thought. And I believe Jensen chickens out on the whole subject of evolutionary psychology.

If we are to understand and progress on issues of sexuality and gender roles, we have to come to grips with the unpopular idea in feminism that such basic behaviors are hardwired. Which doesn't mean they are proper, or immutable. Our "humanity" says otherwise.

And, I'm not quite sure what to think about the other article. On first take, I think is shows some great weaknesses in Jensen's reasoning. But perhaps a more carefull reading later might prove otherwise. But again, I found it thought provoking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]

You contradicted yourself. How can something be hardwired and muttable at the same time?[/b]

---

Why do people seek to dichotomize human behavior as either due to environmental determinism or biological determinism?

CMOT - how tall are you? Is that due to your genetics? Did people have different genetics 200 years ago when they were shorter? Isn't that a contradiction?

Is your skin colour due to genetics? What happens when you get a tan then?

[ 06 September 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
[b]

I'm not sure I agree with this stagnant masculinity theory. Why is it irrational to assume that we develop as humans throughout our entire lives? Wouldn't this mean that all men are incapable of ever changing? I think that my masculinity is constantly changing and does so because of interaction with the world around me and reflection.[/b]

---

Oh, of course there are changes after age 13, otherwise we would not be very socialized now would we? But these changes come from a host of things.... the article states that "porn makes the man" and really, that's a huge leap. Porn as a factor? Unfortunately yes. Porn as THE factor? No. And to illustrate why not, I pointed out it can't be THE factor as it is absent during childhood development, surely the most critical social development stage.

The point you bring up about evolution of masculinity throughout adulthood doesn't necessarily add credence to his view. At what ages do men view the most porn? I would guess between 12 and 20? I'm pretty sure interest in it usually dies off? As such, if pornography has influence, it would have influence in those years, with its influence withering away afterward.

What steps CAN you take to make sure that you aren't buying pornographic films that feature women (or men) who have been coerced?

If you're asking this question, I think the thread's gone a little off-topic.

Hey, it's not [i]my[/i] thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]

Even if she (or he) "chose freely" to participate, porn has a negative impact on all of us.[/b]

---

Can you substantiate that beyond how you feel about porn?

I'm not going to argue that a lot of pornography degrades women. I'd say more than the vast, vast, vast majority (read: all but a few) are awful depictions. However, to say that it is of detriment to everyone is rather generalizing.

And I don't see how what I said is insulting.

eta:: I mean, this is the feminist space, so if the way I asked the question was generally unwelcome then, yeah.

[ 06 September 2007: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

But racism is just about as bad as it can get. Pornography, broadly defined, is a rather amorphous entity ranging from feminist niche pieces (which are vastly underrepresented) to really awful and poorly made internet porn focusing on rather strange things. The thing is that a good deal of the porn that people are exposed to in their younger years is far more benign. I'm really doubting that most 13 and 14 year olds are going to see weird internet porn before their get their hands on a 5 year old well-read Playboy. Who knows, if they pick up that Playboy there may be an article by Norman Mailer about his waning libido. Weird internet porn usually isn't inserted into the young male's psyche until rather late in the cycle of discovering nudity of the opposite sex. That doesn't mean that most of the stuff on the internet is a-okay and is at all mindful of its depiction of women.

Your initial post had no real substance to it beyond "porn is bad". Your furthered argument gave your previous post content. Let us stop the sniping and continue to really disagree [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

I have no issue with the stuff, but please remove the second picture or link to it with something saying NSFW (not safe for work). This board is generally work friendly except for some passionate words here and there. That image, though, is not.

Sorry if I'm back seat modding, but I'm using a friend's family computer and he enforces a strict 'none of that stuff' policy for it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
[b]

Your initial post had no real substance to it beyond "porn is bad". Your furthered argument gave your previous post content. Let us stop the sniping and continue to really disagree [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

---

Actually, what I was reacting to in my first post was a way of thinking for which "personal choice" is a fundamental category. I don't think that approach recognizes the extent to which our choices are constrained and informed by history and circumstance (economic, social, political, cultural, personal) or the extent to which we are all "tied together" or interdependent (economically, socially, politically, culturally, and personallly).

But it is true that I tend to be succinct and probably excessively so. It disturbs me to think that the impression this conveys is one of vacuousness. I'll have to be more careful.

This is not a snipe [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

I'd like to think I'm able to speak as a bit of an expert on the matter. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] Mind you, even in the barely post-teenages I'm out of date with what 13-14 year olds are seeing. But I do know that for myself, and most of my friends, our first real sight of porno was either on CityTV at 1:15 am or through a Playboy you found laying around at someone's older brother's parties. The really hardcore stuff wasn't discovered until quite later on. I remember many of my friends being quite resistant to it, also. Of course, I think that the advent of internet porn (particularly alot of the weird race fetish, and forms of porn that focus on male domination and female discomfort) has removed the semblance of benignity that I spoke of earlier. I still feel that there is nothing inherently wrong with porn, just the sad current incarnations.

Before I continue, excuse the pop culture reference. The music video for "Do The Evolution" shows the sad descent of porn.

I still, and hopefully will always be able to, say that porn can be a decent thing and it damn well should be.

eta:: I know a lot of parents are getting increasingly tech-savvy and I've actually been asked by some teenagers if I know how to get around those protections. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] I think if parents can continue to be tech-savvy and can teach their kids what's right and what's wrong then porn shouldn't be an issue. Of course, and this is the sad part, not enough people can have parents that are relatively progressive to make sure the proper lines are drawn and understood.

I hope this thread doesn't go down hill while I'm gone. I think it has some good legs for discussion.

[ 06 September 2007: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]

A good deal of mainstream pornography may be unimaginative and mysoginist(or so I gather) and If I get turned on by it, I'm tapping into a very dark part of my personality, but I would feel slightly better about watching it if I new that the people involved in the film weren't suffering, and were being paid decent wages.[/b]

---

I was responding to the notion that as long as people "freely choose" to be involved, there's no problem. (Somehow radical critique has been replaced by the discourse of "choice". I was reacting to that.)

I see what you're saying, though. I agree that what you're talking about would make it even worse.

quote:

---

A good deal of mainstream pornography may be unimaginative and mysoginist(or so I gather) and If I get turned on by it, I'm tapping into a very dark part of my personality, but I would feel slightly better about watching it if I new that the people involved in the film weren't suffering, and were being paid decent wages.

---

It reminds me of how we here long ago defined the difference between "erotica" and "porn." Erotica is the stuff I like, while porn is that icky stuff [i]you[/i] like.

Some might have dark imaginings. While I think environment plays a big role in this, I also think at core that it is in some or perhaps many, to one degree or another, "hardwired". Understanding the difference between fantasy and reality is at issue. We could remove, for example, all the BDSM porn that features women as the submissive. That won't impact men who like this sort of thing because there are many sites-- check out you tube-- that take bondage clips from main stream movies and soap operas that, to me, that are much more savage in their presentation that I have seen on bona fide sites on the net.

Similarly, when the U.S. congress cracked down on Irving Claw's porn that featured Betty Page, the market was filled by "True Crime" magazines.

Once we dispense with the issue of exploitation of the participants, the issue isn't what is before the eyes of the porn consumer, but what is behind them.

The problem with porn of all stripes, and the way we react to it, is the lack of attention or emphasis, from all sides of the debate, on the difference between fantasy and reality.

I don't think porn is harmful to men or women if we know that there is a substantial difference between the two.

In not recognizing this, the anti-porn advocates become just Victorian style repressors of sex. And in not emphasizing the difference, perveyers of porn become anti human.

quote:

---

Are you saying that some people "can't handle" porn, in that they don't understand it's fantasy - and that's where the problem lies?

---

I'm sure there are some like that. Probably not many in such an absolute, clinically delusional category. More likely, many blur the line by using porn to rationalize behaviors in their every day life, whether it's misogyny by the porn consumer, or the idea that our sexual fantasies absolutely comment on our attitudes in every day life by the anti-porn side.

quote:

---

Not only is this difficult to determine, but it situates the problem in a very private, inaccessible place - somewhat conveniently, I note.

---

It's a distinct possibility that, as you allude to, I am rationalizing also. I have that ability, as does everyone. I keep it in mind.

One of the big problems with human sexuality is our reticence to talk about that very private, inaccessible place. I have always believed it would be healthier if everyone talked about it a lot more, and would lead by example, were it not for another ethic I have, that respects the privacy of the partners I have had and the one I have. People make assumptions, rightly or wrongly.

I feel, in these discussions, that I end up simultaneously violating both.

One of the problems with male sexuality, and this touches on porn and the problems our consumption of it creates for women is that we rarely ever talk about our sexuality with each other except in a superficial way.

quote:

---

I thought pornography was characterized by linking sexuality and violence as acceptable or, in general, by turning sexually explicit material into a means of exploitation (typically, of women) and degradation rather than as a healthy expression of sexuality and fantasy.

---

Where does one precisely turn into the other, for all people?

Earlier, Bacchus gave his experience that indicates that participants in the industry do so of their own free choosing. But I think Jensen would argue differently. I am not saying either is wrong, but that the crux of the issue, where the line is drawn, is inevitably going to be in that private, inaccessible place.

quote:

---

Earlier, Bacchus gave his experience that indicates that participants in the industry do so of their own free choosing. But I think Jensen would argue differently. I am not saying either is wrong, but that the crux of the issue, where the line is drawn, is inevitably going to be in that private, inaccessible place.

---

I have to clarify this a bit, just to be clear.

Actors, producers, directors, and employees of the companies in any other fuction (marketing, sales, ceo, accting etc) and all respectful of each other, and work to help each other and make everyone profit.

webmasters, the immature guys (and some women) who create their own traffic sites or sites that use the content to make money, frankly suck. They are immature, think every woman they meet at the shows is a whore free for the taking (not even the asking). They show up and they dont last in the business and either smarten up or get tossed.

From the same link:

quote:

---

Feminist Criticism of the Anti-Pornography Position

Other feminists support unregulated access to pornography; some describe themselves as sex-positive feminists and criticize anti-pornography activism. They take a wide range of views towards existing pornography: some view the growth of pornography as a crucial part of the sexual revolution and they say has contributed to women's liberation; others view the existing pornography industry as misogynist and rife with exploitation, but hold that pornography could be and sometimes is feminist, and propose to reform or radically alter the pornography industry rather than opposing it wholesale. They typically oppose the theory of anti-pornography feminism -- which they accuse of selective handling of evidence, and sometimes of being prudish or as intolerant of sexual difference -- and also the political practice of anti-pornography feminism -- which is characterized as censorship and accuse of complicity with conservative defenses of the oppressive sexual status quo.

Additionally, many point to the hypocrisy of advocating a ban on some forms of communication which may often be sexist (namely sexually arousing/explicit ones) while not advocating a ban of other, equally or more sexist communications (albeit not sexually arousing/explicit) "It's a far different criticism to note that porn is sexist. So are all commercial media. That's like tasting several glasses of salt water and insisting only one of them is salty. The [only] difference with porn is that it is people making love, and we live in a world that cannot tolerate that image.." notes Susie Bright in her book Sexwise. Notable advocates of these and similar positions include sociologist Laura Kipnis, columnist and editor Susie Bright, essayist and therapist Patrick Califia and porn actress and writer Nina Hartley.

---

Frankly, Martin you do not speak for us either!

Women. And she's right, if you ask me. Lord save me from the "male feminist" who claims that his, and only his, opinion reflects the Correct Feminist Response To Everything!

Sure you should! You're exactly who we should be hearing from!

I don't think anyone speaks for all women. I think that's probably remind's point. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] The difference is, none of the rest of us ARE claiming to speak for all women, or even all feminists.