I know I am meant to be liberal and open minded, but I hate pornography with a passion.It frightens me, I find it misogynistic. I am biased on this, I have had some awful experiences that in my mind are related to pornography. However, I was interested in this article:
Kimmel remains open-minded about pornography – what's needed is a much broader conversation about it, he says – but the picture he paints in Guyland is nonetheless troubling. "Pornotopia is the place where [young men] can get even," he writes, "where women get what they 'deserve' and the guys never have to be tested, or face rejection. And so the pornographic universe becomes a place of homosocial solace, a refuge from the harsh reality of a more gender equitable world than has ever existed. It's about anger at the loss of privilege – and an effort to restore men's unchallenged authority. And, it turns out, that anger is worse among younger men."I honestly don't think most people realise the trajectory that porn has taken recently:
Jensen started analysing pornography 15 years ago and says: "If you had told me then that there would be a common genre where a woman was penetrated by three men at once, I would have said, 'Oh, come on'. But I've now seen things I don't think even Andrea Dworkin could have imagined." Even ardent fans have acknowledged modern porn's brutal trajectory. In 1998, the pro-porn campaigner and performer Nina Hartley admitted "you're seeing more of these videos of women getting dragged on their faces, and spit [sic] on, and having their heads dunked in the toilet."
While an enormous amount has been written about how pornography affects women – particularly the terrible way in which they are sometimes treated within the industry – less has been written about how it affects men, which seems odd given that, as McCormack Evans says, pornography is a product predominantly "made by men, marketed by men, and consumed by a massive male majority".
One obvious problem for many porn users is the conflict between their stated belief in equality and respect for women, and the material they're watching in private. McCormack Evans says he used to exist in a "kind of double consciousness. For that half hour when I was watching porn I thought, 'This is separate from my life, it won't affect how I view the world.' But then I realised it did."
Jensen says he hears about this disjuncture "all the time. Men will say, I know the images I'm watching are in direct contradiction to my own stated values, but I just can't stop". McCormack Evans says porn-watchers can quickly descend into self-hatred. "They're sitting there afterwards, and there's an image left on the screen, and they look at themselves and think, 'I'm disgusting' . . . Then their daughter comes in, or their wife, or their girlfriend, and they've just been to Pilates, and the next day they start looking up Pilates porn, or something crazy like that, and they feel even worse. It can become quite self-destructive."
58 comments:
"Those choices are provided by an industry that, for the most part, is staffed by consenting adult women who do what they do by choice (noting of course, that there are exception to this, naturally)"
Sorry if I am misunderstanding what you're saying here, but it reads as if you're saying it's 'natural' for people to be doing work that they have not chosen to do? Is that really a situation that we should accept, whether it is women in porn or children in agriculture?
Lesley is raising the issue of the effect on *men* here - do you think the consumption of porn has a good, bad or neutral effect on men?
Blimey Cloakey, I thought it was well known that porn stars were, in general, childhood sexual abuse victims... see this:
Most strippers, as with other women who work in the sex industry, are adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Research indicates the number is between 60%-80%. One study found that 35% of strippers have Multiple Personality
Disorder, 55% had Borderline Personality Disorder, and 60% had Major Depressive Episodes, These are severe psychiatric problems and many of them are connected to childhood sexual abuse. These are women who when they were little girls would get into their beds each night and roll themselves into a fetal position and every night he would come in and peel her open. The physical and visual invasion of little girl's bodies damages them psychologically and gives
them a psychologically unhealthy view of sexuality. Often as adults they reenact their childhood trauma by working as strippers, Playboy models, and prostitutes.
The men who, now as customers, physically and visually invade the adult women's bodies, reenact the role of the perpetrator. These women work in the sex industry because it feels like home.
What concerns me most is the easy accessibility of porn for young people. Did any of you see the Channel 4 program a few months ago where they asked 14 year olds about their experience with porn and about how it had shaped their view of the opposite sex?
The boys were all highly critical of the physical reality of their living peers and said they insisted that their girlfriends were completely shaven, for example. They were shown photos of real women and were totally grossed about them.
When I talked to my girls about it the one argument they really understood was that it gives a completely false idea of what mutually satisfying sex is about and that I worry about their future relationships if they end up with boyfriends whose education in this matter happened on youporn before they met a real life woman to put them right.
Just a few scattered notes:
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is very plausible as mooted as a common illness among porn actors/actresses; but then, one would like to see a comparison with actors/actresses in non-porn films. Comparisons with social mean and with prostitutes would also be very useful. "Major Depressive Episodes" is also very plausible as mooted as common among porn people, and it's here that you woudl expect a much bigger differential to say non-porn acting people.
On the other hand, Multiple Personality Disorder is a figment of the imagination. It doesn't exist. I wouldn't use any study which included that one.
One thing I would be more worried about than the immediate effects of porn would be its amplifier effect in narcissism; to put it another way, modern society encourages narcissism, and porn is only one part of that. It would be interesting to see if the number of Raoul Moats increases with porn usage.
Just to be bloodyminded and provocative, one of my criticisms of Christianity as it is often practiced is that it often encourages or enables narcissism.
Back to the topic: Erika Baker put it right; the answer is education, education, education, and a society that does not encourage narcissism. Good luck with that; I'm still trying to work out how that could be accomplished, and I can't figure out how, beyond society suddenly being lumbered by accident with severe challenges.
I am not sure that the man, woman status for the use control and enjoyment is as simple as 'men control and use porn, women are forced to work in the porn industry.'I did some research on porn at collage and found that some women's groups wanted the right to use porn on their terms and some women when asked said they enjoyed 'vanilla' porn. Not all men use or agree with porn but carry the guilt not for the use of porn but that as a 'man industry' feel the need apoligise for it's use, top shelf porn in shops stops some men from looking for other mags on the rack for fear of people thinking all men need and read porn mags. I use to be an HGV driver before I became a priest and it was only a few men who brought and left around porn, but it seems that women think far more men than really do, read or watch porn, if you go to some online porn sites you will fimd far more women posting pictures of them selves and talking about their experiences than men, so maybe it is down to the person man or woman if they use or dislike porn.
Fr David Cloake said...
".... Lesley - so your statistics are telling me then that women from abusive backgrounds, or with BPD are unable to make clear choices for themselves and their lives? Whilst I accept that these statistics are likely provable, your hypothesis here would be that men are emplying these women because of such backgrounds, and I can't accept that. Your zeal to focus on the abused women of our society is clouding your judgement of their intellectual capacities I think. ..."
Hmmmmm? You're saying that say for example prostitutes and porn people are always fully in control of their thinking and choices? That flies in the face of the actual facts of the matter for many of them. How do you explain the high rates of substance abuse in both named segments?
".... I would be less willing to label them as passive victims than that. Statistics schmatisitics - they would also tell you that most clergy are suicidal after all!"
Exactly how would you see rentboys and rentgirls below the age of 18?
".... Erika - pornography was accessible ..... Glossy top-shelf magazines are a part of boy's rites of passage, right or wrong, perhaps less so because of the WWW, but nonetheless the case. My view of women is, I think, quite balanced - and so are the views of my peers so far as I can tell."
Ah, the modern well-off consumerist society. Some of us come from different backgrounds.
"... There is always a knee-jerk reaction when the word 'pornography' is used."
I'm happily awaiting to see what response in the way of kneejerks happens about my first comment here, just before yours.
" .... We are all broken in some way or another, ..."
I'll kneejerk to that one myself. Any such claim trivializes the concept and realities of brokenness. It is also (in my own opinion, of course) quite simply not true.
Drew and Fr David Cloake do make one point fairly politely, thus it may well be over-seen, so let me re-make it myself :-) :
if you cast porn (or if you prefer, very bad porn) as simply male oppression of women, you won't get nowhere fast. The objectification and narcissism is used by women just as much as men. Otherwise B-girls would never be able to make a living.
Hiya Fr David Cloake,
you misunderstand me. Please pardon my bluntish ways, and let's see if we can tackle together where the misunderstanding occurs, and then the issues.
In no way am I saying you equate pornography and prostitution. I brought up prostitution, because it's an associated field, and often, the motives in each field are similar.
Let's also be very clear; there's porno and then there's porno. The porno market falls into very distinct segments. They cannot all be treated equally.
"Working-class snobbery lol;..."
No. Just a fact of life, to do more with Third World peasant society background, rather than working-class. Mind you, it was only an aside from me, though I might use the experience later to show how oppression of women doesn't need porno to further it.
I shouldn't have put it the way I did, perhaps.
"..Brokenness..."
Again, no. Because: some people really are broken, and some are not. Many of those who really are broken would love to be as unbroken as those who are not.
Or IOW just saying "everyone but everyone is broken" looks to me like trivializing how some really are broken, and why, and what to do about it. I'm aware that some motivation for seeing everyone as broken would be a sense of promoting solidarity and humility; yet to me, again, this obscures the real problems and how to tackle them. If we remain on the point of solidarity, then quite easily, I could be wrong; but I hope you see what I am driving at.
" ... ability to type properly ..."
Please don't worry. I make typos all the time, and I get very very angry with myself for making them. You are not alone. We may not be broken, but our typing often is.
"... Lesley ..."
No worries, she disagrees often enough with me herself. Trenchantly, at that. Not that she's right, when she isn't. :-p
Fr Cloake
I don't know how old you are, but the porn I came across when I was 15 growing up in liberal Germany was quite different to that which is commonly available to my children. And when I was young you had to go out of your way to get hold of it. And it was usually still photos in a magazine, not streamed videos. Today my girls have to delete unwanted text messages with porn clips from their friends.
My daughter had her phone stolen by a 14 year old last week and when it was recovered it was full of porn clips texted down from a premium line.
This is not a healthy development and I really don't like the message it gives about sex and relationships. It's quite hard for parents to instil in children a self confidence that encourages good sex within the context of a loving relationship when the images flooding their brain are about brutal mass orgies or "incest rape" or a woman being pee'd on by a group of men.
You can't unsee something you've seen and it takes an exceptionally mature young teenager to be able to deal with this. But we have a responsibility also towards the not so mature ones. Don't we?
I don't really need any instruction in how men use porn - as well as being related to men, I've worked with offenders, including sex offenders, in prison.
If the urge to use porn is hardwired into the male psyche, I wonder (genuinely) what form it took before the printing press made the widespread distribution of images possible?
I agree that you can't make it purely an issue of women being oppressed by men, if men are as convinced as David says that they need pornography yet are having to pay for it then they are clearly being oppressed by the capitalist system and the women who make money out of having their images reproduced.
IMO the female equivalent of porn isn't female oriented porn but the romance genre - maybe the celebrity culture has replaced that a bit now. I read Heat magazine even though it's clear that some of the people in it are being chewed up and spat out by the PR-fuelled media industry around 'celebrity', so it would be hypocritical of me to say men shouldn't read porn.
However, I don't think the argument that we 'need' material that is based on creating fantasies around depictions of real people is a basic human need stands up in either case.
Gurdur/Lesley,
Gurdurs throwaway comment ("Just to be bloodyminded and provocative, one of my criticisms of Christianity as it is often practiced is that it often encourages or enables narcissism.") looked interesting - any chance of a guest post from Gurdur to get us started on it? Comments on this one don't seem the best place :)
Rev'd Alan, your wish is my command. Not a guest blog post, but a new blog post from me, one small kickstart for discussion here (plus the bottom link in it to an older blog post of mine).
I really have to ask you folks for guest posts for my own blog too -- perhaps, say, on how atheists can sometimes get it wrong. I'll get around to sending invitations personally one of these days, it's been a project I've planned for a long time.
Pam said:
"However, I don't think the argument that we 'need' material that is based on creating fantasies around depictions of real people is a basic human need stands up in either case.
Gonna need more differentiation, or I'll be angrily lumping you in with those who say the novel is dead. :-p
Fantasy, idealization, all that does seem to be a basic human need, as attested to by the fact the oldest oral literature recorded is all about putative heroism, knocking over Troy, and all that. The issue is, how do we handle it? A bit of snuff porn in the Iliad and the Odyssey as well, not to mention the Bible -- all that bit about throwing Jezebel out the window, David collecting foreskins and heads, so on.
Gosh, this is a vibrant discussion, and that is before Ron has turned up, told me I am a religious prude and found a real life porn star to argue with me.
It seems to me that the women are just as misogynistic, if not more so, than the men. So I'm not really claiming that this is an issue that men are driving, we all have a problem here, I think.
I am also really considering the hard core porn, which was available on video tape when I was a teenager, but it mostly came from Europe at that time, and it was difficult to get hold of, and by today's standards it was pretty tame.
There is a demand driven by men and a supply driven by women, I feel. My understanding is that survivors of csa tend to be re-abused (and sadly I put myself in that category). So they will choose abusive relationships and have abusive marriages because it repeats the childhood experience. Pornography is another abuse. We generally refer to people like this as vulnerable adults and consider that their decision making is impaired by the abuse.
I agree with Gurdur - if we say everyone is broken then no one is broken. If we say everyone is abused then no one is abused. It makes a mockery of those who live daily with their emotional wounds and each day they wonder how they will survive the pain another day.
I feel compassion for both those who star in and those who view pornography. I feel thankful for the healing I have received over the years, and for those who are abused porn stars, I hope they find healing too. I feel that pornography repeats the abuse and victimisation cycles and more and more people are getting sucked in.
Gurdur said:
"Fantasy, idealization, all that does seem to be a basic human need, as attested to by the fact the oldest oral literature recorded is all about putative heroism, knocking over Troy, and all that. The issue is, how do we handle it? A bit of snuff porn in the Iliad and the Odyssey as well, not to mention the Bible -- all that bit about throwing Jezebel out the window, David collecting foreskins and heads, so on."
All good points - but the stuff Lesley is talking about delivers images that leave little to the imagination, and as Erika points out, often to people who have not solicited it.
Is this qualitatively different to art is the age old question.
Not sure how I became implicated in the death of the novel unless it has something to do with reading Heat magazine? :D
Pam said.. .
".... Not sure how I became implicated in the death of the novel unless it has something to do with reading Heat magazine? :D ..."
I was only teasing you about the undifferentiation. Me taking the letter rather than the spirit, deliberately. Today is my day to be an arse.
Lesley said...
"Gosh, this is a vibrant discussion"
Quivering! Throbbing! Bodice-ripping!
"... and that is before Ron has turned up, told me I am a religious prude and found a real life porn star to argue with me. ..."
Can't say I know any porn stars myself. Although I have known a fair few prosis and ex-prosis myself, despite me never having been a john (a customer).
One interesting development over the last decade has been the de-glamourization of porn stardom. Back I suppose a decade and a half ago, you could make big money as a porn star in the USA; these days, they make bloody little money, and often to get more cash fly down to Rio to make the odd film here and there without the usual precautions, and get HIV as a result. When they get back to the States, the first compulsory blood-test (blood-tests being compulsory in that field in the States these days) gets their name emblazoned in public on a site for that, and the whole world then gets to know they have HIV. Seems to me to be a highly ... undesirable career just from that point of dignity.
".... There is a demand driven by men and a supply driven by women, I feel. ...
Mostly.
Ignoring Mills & Boon, and Harlequin. But yeah.
It seems a basic gender difference, otherwise B-girls would starve. But maybe the male equivalent of B-girls is the fashion industry?
"... My understanding is that survivors of csa tend to be re-abused ..."
Yup. Everyone tends to repeat what they know best. Reworking oneself is a major and very longterm act, which is why I also get pissed off about the oft-pushed idea of instant transformation (through readin the Bible, or whatever).
"Pornography is another abuse. .."
Often, if not always. It's a long and complex argument, and one needing a great deal of differentiation.
Normal porn, soft porn, doesn't seem to do much harm. The excessive usage of hardcore and the ugh stuff does do harm; is the choice the user's or the producer's?
Lady Chatterley's Lover isn't going to do anyone harm, even if their manservants read it (joke, referring to the famous trial). Occasional hardcore usage doesn't seem to correlate with harm.
But obsessive usage does correlate with crimes. All that from the user angle, not from the producer angle. Eventually you're gonna get hit from the CGI-generated-argument side, so maybe worthwhile focussing on the user side, not the producer side.
I don't know, Lesley. Just seems you can't get enough porn and prostitution.
I get the feeling that the 'broken' metaphor is stretched pretty far among the religious; from the simple brokenness of us all being imperfect images of the perfect God where we are all trivially imperfect and tainted, broken; through those that have been through some traumas, physical or psychological, but who come out the other side whole but with a bad taste in the mouth about some human issue or other, often sexual in nature; to those that, as Gurder explains, are what we can realistically call broken, in that they stray so far from the standard deviation in their 'deviant' human physiology, psychology and behaviour, that we can't really find any objection to calling them broken. It's the religious and mystical abuse of language that is used to demonstrate our guilt for the sins of our inadequacies that conflates all these at will. To suppose the typical man, jerking off to the images of what they find sexually stimulating, means they are broken, is taking the metaphor far too far.
Personally I find that in general it's the religious obsession with the demonising of sex that demonstrates 'broken' personality, if we really must continue to use that term. Otherwise the focus would be on just bad sex, just bad porn, just bad prostitution - and the only way to identify that is to look at the individuals involved, and not to make blanket statements about just this one side, the sexual, of human nature.
I don't think I see sex posts appearing on non-religious blogs in anything like the same number and with the same degree of judgment as I do on religious blogs. Why is that?
...
I'm not hot on the history of the church and its love for its hate of sex, but Robert Bartlett's BBC Inside the Medieval Mind (Sex) episode was quite informative. It's repeated sometimes, so catch it if you can.
As for avoiding desire, try imagining what the inside of your lover's body would look like: Gerald of Wales, "If you consider what is within the skin and inside the body, what is more hideous to see, more disgusting to touch, more foul to smell.", or imagine her dead body, "What is more horrible than a corps, and what in the world would be more abhorent to her lover just recently so full of wild desire for that stinking flesh..."
Geoffrey of Burton, "Virginity is the highest virtue, a glorious beauty, the source of life..." Well, there's fantasy for you.
Love of Christ wasn't what we like to think of it now. Angela of Feleno? "As I stood by the cross I was filled with such fire that I removed all of my clothes and offered myself." - Hot stuff.
And if you want to look for the original spit-roast, then look no further that medieval visions of punishment in hell for those that commit the sin of sodomy. A play has Christ describing punishment for sodomites, "You, stinking sodomite, have crucified me, night and day. Go quickly to hell, to stay awhile amid those punishments. Put him quickly in that great heat, since he has sinned against nature. You cursed sodomites, roast, like little piggies." And further allusions to the spit-roasted.
Bishop of Winchester, blaming plague on lust, "...it is to be feared human sensuality, that fire which blazed up as a result of Adam's sin, has now plumbed greater depths of evil producing a multitude of sins which have provoked the divine anger to this revenge."
The message Bartlett leaves us with is that the precarious nature of all of human existence in those times pretty much matched the perceptions of sexuality, the sensual and the brutal. Sadly, the church, obsessed as it is with the past and it's traditions, brings into our modern times the medieval perceptions of sexuality. So I can see why many religious people struggle to reconcile their modern day values of freedom of expression with their religious vilification of sex outside the equitable loving relationship (which even till recently excluded non-married sex, divorcee sex, homosexual sex - and still does in principle).
Erika,
Just a few points.
There are very real practical issues regarding shaving, or at least being trimmed, associated with oral sex. I'll go into detail only on request, if it's not obvious.
"They were shown photos of real women and were totally grossed about them." - This is probably a temporary phase. A lot of men move on from the long finger nailed over-tanned, false boobed, big-haired manikins and actually come to prefer 'natural' women as the fantasy is more realistic and easier to concoct.
A lot of porn can relate to many different aspects of relationships. There are many that have men being the objective victims of dominant females.
I wonder to what extent any actual damage is being done to your daughters by explicit images on their phones; and if any, to what extent is that determined by any view of sex that has been instilled in them.
When encountering anyone who has a greater interest in sex or variety of sex than oneself shouldn't the healthy attitude to be simply to dismiss it as on no interest rather than making such a big issue of it? Just as we do with any other aspect of human behaviour. My personal dislike is when friends think that their karaoke session warrant some merit; but rather than spoil their pleasure I'd prefer to move on to another pub.
"And when I was young..." - Ah, that old lament. It's served many a generation well. And no doubt your parent's generation feared the availability of porn mags on top shelves. What cry is next, "Yes, but where will it all end?..."
"...good sex within the context of a loving relationship" - It's not clear why this is the only option.
"a woman being pee'd on by a group of men." - You can find images of men wanting to be peed on just as easily.
"You can't unsee something you've seen and it takes an exceptionally mature young teenager to be able to deal with this." - Perhaps that maturity could be installed in them. It might help if good early sex education wasn't derailed by the straight laced.
Pam,
"I don't really need any instruction in how men use porn." - perhaps young men need precisely that, instead of vilifying them for using it, or making them seem like helpless addicts.
"I've worked with offenders, including sex offenders, in prison." - Confirmation bias. How many healthy normal young men that use porn have you interviewed about their sexual views and the effects of porn?
"If the urge to use porn is hardwired into the male psyche, I wonder (genuinely) what form it took before the printing press made the widespread distribution of images possible?" - Well, a fine expose cleavage, mini skirts, catalogue underwear sections, ..., and if you want to go further back in time, the pre-human sighting of an engorged red backside. the visual stimulation has been available forever. Ask any of the birds or paradise.
"they are clearly being oppressed by the capitalist system and the women who make money out of having their images reproduced." - This raises an interesting point. Because I don't see how they make any money at all. There's so much free stuff available I wonder who pays for porn at all.
"IMO the female equivalent of porn isn't female oriented porn but the romance genre" - Mmmm. Lesley, what's your view on this stereotypical difference gender perspectives?
"However, I don't think the argument that we 'need'" - I don't think there's a need for the material. there's a real physiological desire that can be interpreted as a need. The porn material used to satisfy that is only one possible solution, and it being easy to produce and easily accessible, then it works.
"material that is based on creating fantasies..." - see next.
Picking up on Gurder's point, human interest in fantasy, and his list, he misses out one fantasy. If you want to think about fantasy never mind just some stories in the bible, how about religion full stop. Without one jot of anything coming close to what in all other respects we see as reality, the human mind has conjured up a perfect infinite being, and all his attendant demons. Images of a dead guy on a cross? How explicit do you want to get in the snuff movie line? And you think it's not about sex? Sex has been the obsession of the church to such an extent that it has made ordinary sexual activity of humans (yes, we animals) seem to be the extraordinary and evil behaviour, rather than the natural one that it is.
And, as Bartlett points out, this fantasy isn't immune to the sexual.
So, abuse and coercion aside, I see the objections to most forms of sexual activity as corrosive ideas fermented in the minds of the religious still struggling with outmoded ideas of sexuality. We have enough of a problem identifying and dealing with real harm when it occurs. The tarring of everyone who partakes in unapproved of sex with the same brush doesn't really help those who really suffer.
Surely we have come to realise that it will all work out well. Most of the young men dabbling in the pornographic images and video clips online will no doubt turn out to be fine adults, just as many have already. If some women, or men, in the process make some money from getting their kit off, or expressing their own sexuality on film, then what's the problem. Try concentrating on the coerced, the abused, and those truly broken souls that have trouble not translating fantasy into brutal fact.
I also think you mistake regular sexual desire quenching activity, i.e. masturbation, with or without the help of porn, for real obsession. I'm sure many normal young men would appear obsessive to those women, or men, that don't have quite the same urges. Perhaps you misjudge the perfunctory nature of many a wank - simply to get the urge off one's chest, by expressing the produce on to it. Perhaps you also underestimate the quickness of onset of boredom too - the sexual urge is almost constant, but the fantasy that quickly quells it soon pales.
To what extent does the vilification of masturbation and male sexuality generally, by mothers of sons, drive it into the secrecy of the locked bedroom, where if it will grow into obsession it can. To what extent is demonisation an enabler?
Sex isn't going away, since we are sexually reproductive animals. Get over it, and instead of vilifying it, nurture it, encourage healthy sexual activity with the same gusto you encourage love. You might find that a whole lot more productive in the quest for healthy humans.
And get over this obsession that all men that want sex also want to objectify women in some immoral sense. We all objectify each other in all aspects of interaction. It's how considerately we do that that counts.
Blimey Ron
Do you think that I think that sex is bad, or gay sex is bad, or masturbation is bad? I just think abuse is bad. I think sex is great.
And you correctly identify that I am not happy with the Mills and Boon stereotyping. I don't really think that a single story carries much weight, but I'm guessing that for many women the draw of porn is stronger than the draw of Mills and Boon....
Where have you been all day ;-)
Good heavens, Ron, for someone who allegedly doesn't like stereotyping, you're certainly drawing a lot of unfounded conclusions about me.
You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between pornography and visual stimulation, it isn't really for me to define terms but your answer that pre-printing press pornography was the sight of actual women in the normal course of the day begs a lot of questions, especially in the light of the OP and subsequent posts which is what I was answering.
You've completely missed the point about romance, which is to do with creating a hunger for an ideal which can't be met by an flesh and blood person with flaws. It is completely arguable that romantic fiction, which is largely consumed by women, depicts men in an unrealistic and idealise fashion just as soft porn depicts women. It may not be true that men use porn far more than women do but I think there have been surveys done which indicate this is the case. Of course women may feel inhibited from saying they use porn - surveys about sex are notoriously unreliable.
Lesley - have you read any Mills and Boon recently? It can be pretty sexually explicit. But I think the difference between 'romance' and 'porn' is the fact that the sex is part of finding the one man who fulfils every desire. A pretty heavy expectation for a real man to fulfil. It can create expectations that a real person can't live up to. That's why I equate it to porn.
Oh hello Ron, I see you got your sledgehammer out again.
I must say, it disturbs me that you just steam over everything anybody says as though we were all ridiculous prudes pretending that there could ever be anything harmful or distasteful about sex. Why this desperate need to accept absolutely everything, blame the weak for not being able to look after themselves, criticise the strong for wanting to protect the weak? Do you do this with other issue too or is it just sex that can be as vile and readily available as possible without causing you to stop and think?
It would be nice to have a constructive conversation with you, but I have to admit that after reading post after post after post I feel completely wiped and silenced.
Maybe that’s the intention so the pesky critics disappear and leave you alone in the brave new world of happy prostitutes, carefree porn and not a single disturbed soul or corrupted child in sight. You’ve won, I’ll be leaving the conversation.
Ah - I see what you mean Pam.
Sorry for misunderstanding.
Yes I read them as a teenager - sex on pages 100 and 3 pages from the end, as I remember, with Penny Jordan being the most explicit writer. But things have probably moved on in the last 25 years :)
Hi Lesley,
I don't recollect saying that you, or anyone else in particular, thinks sex is bad, or masturbation is bad. My point was that this generalisation applies, if it applies anywhere, within the religious sphere. In saying that, I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said by anyone else - that generally religions tend to object to sex in one form or another. Traditionally where it occurs anywhere outside a loving marriage, though less so today where more liberal views are less judgemental and reserved for specific sexual activity - porn and prostitution.
Mills & Boon - did I mention that?
Hi Pam.
In the comment where I addressed you can you pint to one that showed "unfounded conclusions about me"? I'll cover the points in turn:
1) Using your question about instruction about how men use porn to point out that young men might benefit from instruction - this was a point about education in sex.
2) Perhaps the one that comments on you directly. But a genuine question - given your stated knowledge of young offenders is that view swaying your view of the use of porn. Genuine question - have you given the same time to the study of 'normal' young men and their use of porn.
3) A simply expression of the view that visual stimulation is nothing new, porn being just one manifestation.
4) You mentioned capitalism and oppression - but much of the porn on the net seems to be free. So, an open question - how does the economic model work? Who is actually paying for porn? Teenage boys with their dad's credit card?
5) Addressed to Lesley, not you. The point being that Lesley objected quite strongly to gender differences in the recent prostitution post.
6) Simply my opinion of where the 'need' issue lies - with sexual stimulation, so that porn one way of satisfying that - there being no inherent need of the material as such.
7) Using your response to Gurder's comment as a lead in to my view of religion as a fantasy.
So, what conclusions have I drawn about you in particular?
Anyway Pam, on to your particular responses...
"incapable of distinguishing between pornography and visual stimulation" - Well, yes. Would you care to tell me where I'm going wrong? I'll grant that 'visual stimulation' is a wide field, but are you really saying porn isn't a sub-set? Porn is nearly entirely visual isn't it? Even in porn literature there's the visual imagination at work.
"pre-printing press pornography...sight of actual women in the normal course of the day" - I can understand you not getting the inside of a young man's head; I can assure you there's plenty of stimulation available in the normal course of a day.
"You've completely missed the point about romance...creating a hunger for an ideal which can't be met by an flesh and blood person with flaws" - Given that you don't seem to get young men on heat I'll concede that maybe I don't see the attraction of romance fantasy. But romance and porn are both fantasy nonetheless. I just wonder why sexual visual fantasy, as displayed in porn, is a particular problem.
But perhaps it would be interesting to figure out what lasting damage romance fantasy imparts on its users, say in the unrealistic expectations it instills in women for perpetual married bliss.
Personally I find there's far more real abuse and harm out there to worry about with without worrying too much about fantasy.
Hi Erika,
"I must say, it disturbs me that you just steam over everything anybody says" - Lesley writes the blog for comment. People comment. Sometimes I disagree. What's the problem? Many points were made by several people, and coming to the discussion late there were several points I wanted to address. Which bit was the sledgehammer? Or was it just that I made several posts? Or was it the tone of any, or all of them?
I addressed some specific points you made. Feel free to come back at me on any of them.
I made some general points: The use of 'broken' - by all means come back about that. The historical obsession with sex in religion and the echo of that in these discussions. Comparative fantasies - the objections to some specific sexual fantasy, when fantasy is all around us. Feel free to come back on any of those too.
"Why this desperate need to accept absolutely everything" - What makes you think I do? I have particular views on sex generally, porn and prostitution in particular, but largely my views on these are based on my more general views about freedom of expression. Perhaps the most general of points I've made across these subjects is as follows. I value freedom of expression and don't see I have any right to restrict the sexual inclinations of others. I see lots of expressions of distaste for some sexual activities, feelings that seem to be driven by a combination of distaste and religious persuasion, which are being used to vilify those that take part, and victimise many participants, mostly on the female supply side, by association with real abusive cases.
"blame the weak for not being able to look after themselves, criticise the strong for wanting to protect the weak?" - I refute that entirely. Point out one comment where I've even implied that. In all cases I've acknowledged the harm that can be inflicted on the vulnerable and not excused one the actions of the abusive; and nor have I criticised those that would want to intervene on behalf of the vulnerable in those cases, at least not for that particular good intent. My sole criticism of those that do want to help is that some of them tar everyone with the same brush, and that seems to occur solely on specific issues of sex.
...
...
"Do you do this with other issue too or is it just sex that can be as vile and readily available as possible without causing you to stop and think?" - I comment often and in detail on these issues on Lesley's blog. What on earth makes you think I haven't given it any thought? If anything the very point I'm making is that insufficient thought has been given to these issues by those that have an agenda against some particular sexual activities - porn and prostitution in particular - because they conflate the sexual activity with abuse and harm. These sexual activities can occur without abuse and harm, and abuse and harm can occur without them.
"It would be nice to have a constructive conversation with you" - Where I've responded to your particular points you could reply to them - you don't have to agree with me, but that would be more constructive than this particular response.
"brave new world of happy prostitutes, carefree porn and not a single disturbed soul or corrupted child in sight. " - Where do you get that idea? Just because I've tried to redress the balance by pointing out that all porn and prostitution isn't bad. I've stated clearly that I know there are plenty of problems out there to be addressed. How do you construe from that that I think all porn and prostitution is a fairy tale?
"Maybe that’s the intention so the pesky critics disappear and leave you alone" - Clearly that's not the case. Now if you had charged me with being argumentative you might be nearer the mark, and if that were the case then why would I want to make you disappear. But I don't think I'm argumentative for the sake of it - otherwise you'd see me take quite contradictory positions just to play devil's advocate for the sake of argument.
Sorry you feel this way Erika. But I really value Lesley's blog and those that contribute - and I guess I value those that disagree with me the most, precisely because they do make me think.
Well, thread seems FUBAR'ed to the max. A bit of a pity. One small note to Fr David Cloake here. I did send an email to Lesley requesting permission before I posted a reply, but, with all apologies to Lesley, it bears saying, and the thread's already FUBAR'ed, so I don't feel like waiting. If Lesley wants to, she can delete this comment of mine.
Fr David Cloake:
"Lesley - no kinda prude that I have ever met; women seem to be the most vile and vociferous misogenysts when they take the mantle. ... you are being naive!
.... that wins the prize for the Condescending Christian Comment of the Day, mate! .... I dont demonise sex and also share your view that our mate Lesley has a pre-occupation with blogging about it! She also likes to talk about abuse a lot.
Anyway - I am tired and have given my dear friend an hour of my day.... "
Do you have any idea at all, Cloake, of just how much of a hypocritical jerk you come over as being? It's bloody childish and quite undeservedly nasty of you.
Do you dare that kind of thing in person? Just wondering.
".... Broken - 'if I say everyone is broken, then no-one is broken' - balls - All men are men, so does that mean none of us are actually really men?"
That doesn't even make sense. Try defining "broken" then, one day when you can do an actual discussion, that is. All it is so far is you meaninglessly asserting everyone's broken, which is self-serving bullshit.
Fr David
" I confess a relative naivity to the excesses of electronic forms but I also undertsand that ownership of a credit card is a pre-requisite!"
Then please acquaint yourself with what you wish to talk about.
try
www.youporn.com
www.pornhub.com
If that's not enough, come back for more links.
And before you ask how I know this so well, I'm a mother, it's my duty to know what my children are exposed to so I can prepare them for this magical new world of absolute freedom.
Gosh - this is a contentious one.
I wonder whether we can refocus?
Erika - I too am a concerned mum, and it is good to 'meet' you. I have three boys, and the porn available these days is in a different league. I worry. I have no real answers. Ron will say education, which is good. They certainly are extremely well educated about sex, and I think they understand quite well about relationships. However, I feel the trajectory that porn has taken is horrible, and I wish it hadn't happened that way.
Cloakey, how about if I said all people have ADHD, would that mean than no one had ADHD? I'm not saying that all porn is abuse, just much of it. There have been some serious psychological studies done, plus quite a lot of porn stars who have spoken about it see here
Ron,
There are some religious people who have a downer on sex, that is true. Also some who believe that the world was created in 6 x 24 hours. I think I would say 'so what'. But you are right. The other messages seem to fail to get through as clearly or as regularly, probably because those that hold them are quietly getting on with doing something helpful. I did come across some interesting theology on sex written by a monk, would you believe? I'll see if I can look it up and we can perhaps discuss that (although I'm sure you'll still hate it - it puts emotional and sexual intimacy together, as I recall)
Mills and Boon was related to something Pam said
Oh ffs, Cloake, just grow up.
Mmmm.... well it seems that at least three people have got upset on this post, me not being one of them. I am sorry. I do enjoy our discussions, and I don't (or haven't yet) censored anything that has been posted on the blog.
Gurdur, David isn't nasty, he is a good friend, his blog persona is much more blokey and less pastoral than in rl.
David, I don't sanction any comment here.. we all say what we feel.
So what can we do to make this better? Any suggestions? I want it to be both safe for people, but also I want people to be able to say what they think.
bloody typos
I need to offer a word of clarification before I take my leave finally:
Lesley is a personal friend and my comments are in the same vein as our conversations over beer or dinner in real life where we both give as good as we get. She knows that I have nothing but the highest regard for her and what she writes. I ask her in private if she is ok with my words on her blog as I am aware that text may be miscontrued, and she has always indicated that she is.
However, it would perhaps seem that those of you acquainted with Lesley's blog and not the author in person regard me in the same way - some name on a screen. To you all, if I have caused offense inadvertantly, then I apologise - there is a context between the author and myself which should perhaps have been stated. Lesley will, I hope, concur that I am, really a very nice and sensitive person, and a person to whom she has turned to during the calamities in her life in the last year or so. I think I did ok, so have no appetite to diminish her in any way.
However, because this is not the first time my comments have ended up in insults aimed at me by other followers, I shall leave my personal relationship with Lesley at that and not confuse two relationships as has happened here. To Lesley I apologise for precipitating this, without intending to. I will not comment here again.
Lesley,
I appreciate how you let discussions find their own path. And knowing how strongly you feel about some subjects I appreciate even more your tolerance of views that are in contrast to yours, even when questioning and criticising some of your deeply held beliefs. I appreciate the lack of censorship. One line of thought might be that we shouldn't take advantage of that and should avoid offending each other at all costs. Personally I think that would be a shame and a waste of the freedom of expression you allow. Taking offense is a poor response generally, and using it as an excuse for an exit doesn't really do justice to the emotive topics you bring up. I prefer it when we make our feelings known - it's far more honest. It might take a little thicker skin than does pussy-footing around, but it gets to the nitty gritty real quick.
For what it's worth I've seen your banter with David before and haven't assumed offense was intended, bacause I've also seen your response, which has always been good natured - as it is with everyone (OK the Dennett post aside). If the banter is misconstrued then that's simply a misunderstanding. It happens.
This is such a good blog Lesley, and I genuinely like everyone that contributes. And, despite Erika misconstruing my intentions earlier, and despite disagreeing with her strongly on some points, I wouldn't want to disengage from conversation, or shut anyone up.
back on topic,
I'd be interested to hear what the monk has to say. I might disagree, but I don't think I'll hate it. But do try to catch the Bartlett programme - the series seems to be repeated quite often.
I don't have a problem with combined emotional and sexual intimacy - I think they are hard to separate for most people. It's a rich combination and we're all the better off for it. But that doesn't mean they can't be separated. Maybe the combination is a culturally instilled custom as much as a biological one - who knows, but it's something many people feel able to challenge in their personal sexual lives.
At the risk of being accused of making generalisations, anyone is free to exclude themselves from these observations...
I'm serious about my comments on masturbation - it quite often is a means to get the distraction off one's chest.
A common comment from women is that they don't always need orgasm - sometimes just a bit of a hug and passion is ok.
Well for men the odd J Arthur is quite sufficient - no emotional comfort is required. The use of visual imagery can be helpful, and in that sense men objectify the images - they are a means to an end. It doesn't mean that men objectify the women in the images, or their own partners - at least no more than we inevitably objectify each other (That reminds me, I've been told there's a tree I need to deal with in our garden.) Objectification in marriage and other approved relationships seems to be a willing one, echoing the notions of giving and compromise. Porn, like prostitution, is just a business relationship that happens to involve sex. As I said, I don't get the porn business model, since much of it seems to be free. I do wonder who pays.
As Gurder pointed out, perhaps really good CGI will solve some aspects of the porn 'problem' for those concerned about the 'used' side, though of course it will still leave the perceived problem of the 'users'.
Hi Ron,
I'll respond to your first one and call it a night. The kindness of your comment has made me realise how bruised I feel as a result of today's fallings out.
I can't make sense of it now, and since David has removed his comments and I don't have them, it is even more difficult to work out what has happened here. I must say I do fail to read things properly, so I expect others have a clearer view than me.
I think my openness and vulnerability about the csa is part of it. However, I am bored of concealing that these days.
You are pretty full on Ron, and I do wonder whether the impact of us sparring every day causes us to be more robust than we would otherwise be... or perhaps I don't match you in giving as good as I get.. same with Cloakey.
The truth is this blog has made me massively tougher skinned than I ever was, and I do feel cared for and appreciated by all who visit regularly.
Have just caught up with this. Sorry there has been some falling out. Perhaps the very fact that this topic has caused such heat shows us that sex, especially in the areas such as porn, abuse, prostitution, promiscuity, is not a "neutral" issue. I don't know if this is down to religion either. I know plenty of atheist women who feel strongly about porn.
Lesley
Some amazingly useful and helpful comments here. Hope you are not too 'bruised'. Gosh this blogging business is risky if one ventures anywhere close to self-revelation.
Hi Mike and Sue
Welcome to the discussion. No I'm fine now thanks :)
What did you think was helpful Mike?
Hi Suem,
I'm sure you're right that these views of sex issues are shared by some atheists, but when even Richard Dawkins accepts our the Christian cultural heritage as having a significant influence on many of us, it's not surprising that religious views dominate.
And it's not as if feminists haven't got cause to find the gender roles in porn and prostitution an issue, with the long history of the subjugation of women, some of which persists in churches even now.
And the traditional, and for many persisting, notions of sinful sex, or at least some sex being sinful, and the insistance on God or some absolute arbiter of moral good and evil, means that it's pretty hard to deal with these aspects of sex in anything other than a judgemental way.
But it does raise the issue of morality, what it is, who gets to define it - God, people, which people. Gurder has some good posts on the topic, with interesting views from the member Lucifer. It's as if we are arguing on a backdrop of well defined morality, as if we are all party to the same understanding of morals. That's not the case.
I did say that sometimes masterbation doesn't have to be associated with love. Here's an example of a non-loving use of porn, about which The Sun gets its self all hot.
And here they are again.
Some quite pragmatic comments too. I'd be interested to know the views here.
"And the traditional, and for many persisting, notions of sinful sex, or at least some sex being sinful, and the insistance on God or some absolute arbiter of moral good and evil, means that it's pretty hard to deal with these aspects of sex in anything other than a judgemental way."
Well Ron, I believe that some sex is sinful, for example rape and child abuse, or necrophilia or snuff porn. I think abusive and harmful sex is degrading. This does not mean that I do not recognise complexity in human sexuality.
I think sex is always going to be an emotionally charged issue with ideas of right and wrong, even in a secular society. This is because sex is part of our emotional, private, intimate selves. It does frequently have darker elements of power, control, abuse, humiliation and degradation.
Anyone who believes God is the ultimate arbiter of sexual morality is a bit daft as the bible contains several instances of the type of sex many would rightly condemn and God seems fine with it.
I think the focus needs to be on consent and respecting the feelings and stories of individuals. I think we also have to accept that a personal moral code, ie: I will only have sex in a committed relationship, really is that a personal and private matter. I am all for people's private lives being within their own jurisdiction, but of course this has limits when other parties are involved - ie rape or child abuse!
Hi Suem,
I agree broadly with your sentiments.
"I believe that some sex is sinful" - OK, then some driving is sinful, as when a driver deliberately mows down people in a crowd; flying is sinful, when you intend to blow up your fellow passengers. But the religious obsession with sex doesn't seem able to separate the general activity from the abusive form it takes quite as cleary as in the other cases.
"Anyone who believes God is the ultimate arbiter of sexual morality is a bit daft" - Well, I'm in total agreement with that sentiment. But are all believers?
Very few people deliberately mow down people in a crowd with a car, or blow up passengers. Child abuse, rape etc occur fairly commonly - especially child abuse. Moreover, in the examples you give, the driving and flying are incidental, simply methods used as a means to an end- the real "crimes" are murder or terrorism. Some people would argue that in the case of rape and abuse sex is also purely a "vehicle", simply used because it is an effective and convenient means to an end. The real "crime" is not the sex, but the intention to exert power and inflict violence.
I wish I believed it were that simple, because I do think that, for some men (and women) violence has the effect of sexually exciting in itself. Likewise I do not think children are abused simply because of power, but also for sexual gratification in itself.
So, I am not sure that sex is as morally neutral as, say, walking down the street (given that you could take a sub machine gun and mow people down while doing that.)That doesn't mean I think sex itself is sinful.
You say that "the religious obsession with sex doesn't seem able to separate the general activity from the abusive form." I am not so sure I agree. Most Christians really can differentiate between general sex and the abusive variants, such as rape and abuse! I agree that you get a few religious people who are very obsessive about sex (and you have to ask what lies behind that in their own sexual selves!) I think the majority are just like everyone else.
I've met some very passionate people with a strong faith actually( but I digress :) I just don't agree with this rather simplistic equation of Christian= repressed and judgemental about sex, Secular = liberated and all see sex as neutral.
Post a Comment