🚀 go-pugleaf

>> Dworkin had a point about rape, porn, prostitution
>> all having the same root - the ideas  that women are
>>property and sex is about dominance rather than pleasure.


>That doesn't apply to many types of pornography including
>"female domination" and "male homosexual" pornography.

Hm.  Well, to my eye, if a film is about a female dominating a male,
that's still about dominance, and still not a good thing if you buy the
concept that sex can and probably should be about pleasure and not
about dominance.
If the women dominates in the film, it eliminates the film as a "tool
of the status quo"  ( hee hee, so to speak) by reinforcing the idea
that the only option for sex and for life is for men in charge only.
But it still doesn't address the possbility that you can have great sex
without a big dominance component by either party, just mutual
pleasure.

>There are many women who produce, or willingly
> participate in the production of sexual material
>that could be referred to as "pornography".

Yeah, there is lots of moolah in porn. Women can be motivated by easy
money, too.  And women can have and enjoy casual promiscuous sex.

>There's a difference in my view between the
>"pornography industry" which can indeed exploit
>( and which in my view deliberately exploits
>and takes advantage of illegality and prefers illegality to the
>decriminilisation of sexual entertainment)

I agree in the sense that the big stupid boring porn industry in which
everyone looks alike, sounds alike, is photographed and filmed alike,
makes for porn users who are imagination-retarded, desensitized, and
inculcated with the idea that sex is about woman as product, like a
burger from McDonalds.

What an insult to the act of sex.  Sex is so cool, and unless porn has
really changed its ways, it makes sex look like a pathetic act of
friction under hot lights.  Blech.


>and people
>who produce and distribute material (no doubt for a price)
> which is related to their own often legal sexual activities.

I don't have a problem if you want to film you and the wife.  Or sell
it to people over 18.  Real people who want to give each other love
sounds great, more exciting than coked-up 16 year olds pretending to
have orgasms for a paycheck.   Technically, I don't think you can stop
people from making porn at all, even if you made it illegal.

But I do think that Dworkin is stating something true that sex via porn
tends to be presented with only one possible arrangement - the female
body is a block of meat with some convenient holes in it, and that they
really are primarily sexually excited by being dominated and treated as
objects. (By really ugly guys with abnormally sized penises.)

Which is silly, if you think about it.  No matter what point of view it
was offering, what are the chances that any blanket statement you could
make about the human sexual experience would be true?  Christ, human
sexual response is the most varied sexual response of any animal on the
earth.


> But  The first ("the pornographic industry") which is alleged in many

>cases to be controlled (or at least partially controlled) by the Mafia

>is more likely to take advantage of people who do not wish to be
>taken advantage of.

I remember reading a book by a reporter who went undercover, working in
porn shops, and he was of the opinion that, yeah buddy, the mafia was
running the retail outlets. That the entire east coast porn shop
business was mob-run, very organized, very big.