Pornography and advertising: spot the difference?
Posted on Thursday 20 December, 2007
Filed Under Society
The radical left is divided in its attitudes to pornography, as it is to so much else. The debate essentially polarises people into one of two mutually exclusive positions.
Some feminist opinion sees the commodification of sexuality as undesirable, considering it intrinsically degrading to all women, especially participants, and to those men who view it. Porn is the theory, rape is the practice. You’ve hear the slogan.
The libertarian left strongly believes that all expressions of consensual adult sexual behaviour should remain unregulated.
Whether or not one actually approves of porno, the latter argument surely has to win the day. Pornography is clearly not the cause of women’s oppression, which long predates the invention of the printing press. Sexism is rooted in wider inequalities of wealth and power.
Women’s oppression dates back thousands of years, and is premised on the rise of class society, private property, and the family as an institution of social and economic control.
It’s also worth noting that the very definition of what constitutes porn can shift dramatically within relatively short periods of time. Historian Mark Garnett makes the point well in his new book, From Anger to Apathy: the British Experience since 1975. Full review to follow.
In a chapter examining how attitudes to sex have altered over the last 30 years, Garnett points out that the whimsical 2003 film Calender Girls – based on the true story of small town Women’s Institute members stripping off for the camera to raise money for charity – was given a certificate allowing anyone over 12 to watch it. Yet the actual content, and the extent of the nudity, was just as explicit as many X-rated movies of the seventies.
What really has changed is the sexualisation of popular culture. With mainstream pornography, everybody involved – from the models to the publishers to the consumers – knows what the deal is, and consciously opts in. Walk down the High Street, and you simply don’t get any choice about what you see.
In an age where ice cream sales are routinely promoted by symbolised oral sex, there is no opt-out from 24/7 bombardment by erotica, on magazine covers and billboards and in music videos.
Even Daddy’s Little Princesses – aged four and seven – were moved to snigger by an advertisement for The Sun newspaper on the side of a bus, which featured a page three girl with 20p coins strategically covering her boobs. We used to call those organs thruppeny bits when I was smutty schoolboy, but I suppose we have to take inflation into account.
Because of its sheer extent, and because of the non-availabilty of avoidance, the ubiquity of meretricious consumerism is infinitely more corrosive than any amount of tit and bum DVDs can ever be.
[Hat top: this post inspired by debates on A Very Public Sociologist and Splintered Sunrise.]
<<Go back
Comments
70 Responses to “Pornography and advertising: spot the difference?”
Or thrups for short.
There have for a long time been strands of feminism that have demanded that we ‘campaign against pornography’. While it is true that some pornography is degrading to women, that is surely a case for a campaign for *better* pornography.
Shirley a ‘Campaign for Better Porn’ would concern itself with better exploiting sex workers? A position about as daft as that of the femino-prude tendency of banning all porn.
Huh?
Call me Mrs Grundy if you want, but I don’t like pornography or teh creeping sexualisation of images in the public sphere. I have, on occasion, seen hard-core porn and there is nothing artistic, empathetic or involving about it. it is sheer nastiness, and relies on violence and co-ercion. The only argument I can think of in favour of freer access to pornography is that it averts sexual crime but I imagine that probably depends on the person viewing it and can not be legislated for. Pornography predates class society, all societies have their pornogrpahic pictures or plays or songs. After all, prostitution is the oldest profession. It’s nothing to do with men owning women and private property. It’s because men like having orgasms and walking away afterwards. I sneakily read the last few pages of Belle du Jour’s ‘Diary of a Call Call’ when I was in Smiths once. I had no intention of buying it but I wanted to know how it ended. She makes it very clear that she knew she was being used and her last customer (or john) was a world-famous author. Seeking to establish some sort of rapport with him, after performing a sex act that involved licking his bottom!!!, she remarks that Dashiel Hammett (I think that was the author)said that men pay for sex because they don’t want to make conversation afterwards. The fellow merely rolled over and went to sleep, he didn’t even say ‘goodbye’. The sexualisation of society is not healthy in my opinion. In the old days society may have been too Puritanical, we all know about the stigma of illegitimacy and so on, but surely there must be a happy medium.
Look the idea of ‘better porn’ is a daft one.
Porn is an industry that thrives on the alienation of individuals from their own sexuality and as such those working in that industry are exploited as workers every bit as much as any factory hand or till jockey in a supermarket. With the difference that they sell not simply their labour power, as analysed by Marx, but the illusion of intimacy that has been integral to the modern understanding of sexuality. They are then subject to an exploitation that is more pernicious of the human psyche than is commonly the situation with waged labour on top of which being subject to piece rates, which as you will know from Vol 1 of Capital is the most effective way for capitalists to exploit labour, and therefore belong to that part of the class often called the precariat in this age. A ‘better porn’ in this context must mean a porn that is more exploitative and therefore more competitive.
Unless, of course, you are so naive as to imagine that a ‘better porn’ is one that is nice? But that would be like taking the fun out of sex – quite absurd.
Crap.
‘Better porn’ would be sexually explicit material that is genuinely erotic, that does not rely on images of abuse, objectification etc.
Your argument is like saying that a campaign for better public transport is a demand for more exploitation of rail and bus workers. Or that a campaign for better music is a demand for more exploitation of musicians. It just doesn’t stand up to any rational anaylsis, no matter how many ‘Marxist’ terms you can fit into one sentence.
By the way, what do you make of something like YouPorn? It’s the porn equivalent of YouTube – videos uploaded by consenting adults. Of course, you can’t guarantee that every participant is entirely coercion-free, but lots certainly are. How exactly are they being exploited?
BTW, I think you seriously lack imagination.
Not only dim but rude Janine. Now to take up your rather silly remarks in turn.
First your idea of ‘beter porn’ being material that is ‘genuinely erotic’ is daft. Unless it becomes possible t objectivey discriminate between the ‘genuinely erotic’ and mere fake eroticism. The point being that what is considered erotic is extremely subjective. A pedestrian point but one you seem blissfully unware of.
As for your remarks concerning exploitation it is clear that you have no knowledge of this key concept whatsoever. Otherwise you would realise that in a certain sense a demand for ‘better public transport’ is a demand for more exploitation if we assume that it leads to the employment of more workers. Only the demand for the abolition of waged labour abolishes exploitation unlike the sort of economic demands you mention which can only, at best, mitigate its worst excesses.
As for YouPorn I leave viewing animals rutting to those, such as yourself, who would reduce human beings to the status of mere animals.
Janine’s right, as usual.
Honestly, the real problem with pornography is that it’s a capitalist industry. Do people really think that under socialism people wouldn’t want to watch other people engaging in sexual acts? Porn of some sort is here to stay for as long as humanity exists, like it or not.
Having just checked out YouPorn note that it carries paid advertising and a link for comercial gambling. In other words the performers who post videos on it are being ripped off.
In his sycophancy Jason is confusing porn, a capitalist industry as he notes, with sexuality as such. That some individuals may wish to view others engaged in sexual acts is true but with the suppression of class society such a tendency cannot be consider to be ‘porn’.
Mike – do you think socialists should not watch porn?
It’s a private matter and best left that way. The moralists and the libertines can both go fuck themselves! Or each other………
Fine, Mike, so in socialist society when people watch films of other people fucking we’ll call it something other than “porn.” Will that be all right with you?
BTW, if someone said “Mike’s right, as usual,” would that be sycophancy, or is it only sycophancy if someone says it about someone who disagrees with you?
Why would anybody want to watch videos of other people fucking? It always reminds me of the packs of wild dogs that roam around in other less regulated societies, every so often they come upon a bitch in heat and the poor bitch is fucked to death. Although I knowd comparisons with primates may not always be helpful, I just wonder how the Great Apes manage this? Are all female Apes in a troop or are there free-floating ones who any ape can have a go at?
Given our Bonoboesque antecedents, there’ll always be some Grumblehound after bien connue. But much of it’s nat worth a toord.
In a world dominated by commodities, the human image is a commodity and Murdochesque Merchants interpose themselves between humans and unalienated aqueyntaunceship.
The Moral Police are just their enforcers.
The Deal is Rotten.
Being called dim and rude my Mike? Now that’s funny.
Sue R says: “Why would anybody want to watch videos of other people fucking?”
This strikes me as a surprisingly moralistic and prudish statement. Its not one that those on the left would generally make about lots of other kinds of mainstream expressions of sexuality (for example “why would anybody want to sleep with women?”/”why would anybody want to sleep with men?”/”why would anybody want to be tied up?”)
Viewing/reading erotic material is incredibly common although there is clearly a great deal of personal variation in what different people consider to be erotic.
It may not be something that you would choose to do, but I can’t see what is inherently wrong with some people expressing their sexuality by watching people fucking and some others expressing their sexuality by fucking in front of other people.
Of course, the commodification of sex by capitalism brings in other issues, some of which have already been discussed, but in our utopian view of the socialist future, I can’t see any reason why consensual sexual behaviour of this sort should be seen as any worse or better than any other kind.
Mike can be as smug and supercillious as he likes but his attitude seems to boil down to the same prurient moralism as Sue R – he doesn’t like it so it must be wrong. Its just that he dresses it up in marxist language.
Calling for improvements in services (whatever the service) can’t be equated to a call for more exploitation of workers because our “method” for improving the service is to change the societal system under which the service is provided.
That should hold true in the sex industry just as much as in transport or cars or energy or health.
But Sue and Mike – it’s not up to you to dictate to others what should or shouldn’t turn them on sexually. Sue and Mike seem to think it is inconceivable that people could get turned on by watching other people fuck. Well that’s fine comrades but that is merely your subjective taste.
For some people watching porn is incredibly erotic. What has happened to the feminist notion of women being free to explore their sexuality, masturbating, enjoying themselves and yes even watching porn? Is women’s sexual liberation not partially accomplished through the very things you decry?
I grew up in a city where the porn and the beer was watered down. You had to drive from Salt Lake City up to Wyoming to get regular beer (higher then 3.4%) and a porn video. On the way back there were giant billboards paid for by the Mormon church with slogans like “Real men don’t use porn” and “XXX – Three strikes and you’re out”.
It clear that this was a moral argument used by an oppressive religion which in its very nature was sexist. However, I can’t see all that much difference between that type of moralising and the type that Mike is trying to pass off here by quoting copious amounts of Marx.
We can recognise that sex is commodified and imagine a socialist society where this is not the case all we like. However, recognising that movies, books, food, education and a variety of other things are commodified under capitalism doesn’t mean that we don’t buy, consume and enjoy them. The same holds true for porn. This doesn’t mean that I don’t recognise when watching porn that it is a commodification of sex (well in fact I don’t really think much about that when I’m watching it – maybe on quieter moments of reflection).
The real difference that I think Mike has is at the base of the argument, and that is whether sex work, in the form of pornography, equals exploitation of women. Mike fails to differentiate between commodification and exploitation. In the Marxist sense, all workers are exploited so women in the sex industry would be exploited – but then so would the men in the sex industry. If you are going to argue that women are more exploited by being in a porn movie than a man then you would need to explain how this is the case.
The radical feminist view had been that this is indeed the case because exploitation of women equals violence against women in all cases. Mike however does not make this differentiation. Without a more coherent line of argument I fail to see how Mike’s views are anything other than a subjective moralism.
I am struck by the fact that the small amount of heterosexual porn I’ve seen is, compared to most gay porn, very nasty. It really does involve horrendous images of women being degraded, etc. (I’m talking about the images – leave aside how the ‘models’ are treated).
Of course gay porn is a capitalist industry. But on the whole the images/scenarios themselves aren’t degrading or whatever. This does seem to suggest that it’s something to do with the kind of images/scenarios you get in heterosexual porn, rather than the idea of porn itself, which is so ghastly.
As far as protecting the models themselves, it must be true that the more legal, regulated etc the industry is, the better.
Reading the comments that have been posted since my last contribution to this thread I find myself worried that some contributors lack basic literacy skills. Below I give a few examples from the posts by Kate and TWP. In passing I note that Janine would appear to be unable to contribute anything new to this thread, other than vituperation, and certainly seems to lack the ability to reply to me.
But back to Kate who wrote of my views that “his attitude seems to boil down to the same prurient moralism as Sue R – he doesn’t like it so it must be wrong. Its just that he dresses it up in marxist language.” The problem with this is that I wrote nothing of the sort and do not hold such views. Which leaves me thinking that Kate may have problems reading because there is nothing in my post that could give rise to such an opinion.
Similarly TWP wrote “Mike seem[s] to think it is inconceivable that people could get turned on by watching other people fuck.” Not so actually I simply think it is a private not a public matter and again there is nothing in my posts to suggest the position you attribute to me. Later in her post TWP claims that I quoted “copious amounts of Marx.” In fact I gave no quotes at all!
“Otherwise you would realise that in a certain sense a demand for ‘better public transport’ is a demand for more exploitation if we assume that it leads to the employment of more workers.”
You ought to re-read this sentence as you are defining the meaning of a demand that you say that others should realise.
ie you should realise this demand means what I choose to define it to mean.
Unless the person doing the ‘realising’ is you why would they reach that specific interpretation?
‘Better public transport’ might mean better vehicles, better pay and conditions for the workforce, public ownership, whatever.
Ok Mike – you are right – you didn’t “quote” Marx but did use a lot of Marxist analogies in your contributions. That is what I meant.
Regardless, you have in fact not simply said it is a “private matter” but have said that Janine has reduced human beings to mere rutting animals by saying that there is a possibility that porn could be better made and perhaps more erotic than it currently is.
You still haven’t answered how exactly it is that you think porn is a worse form of exploitation than say sweat shop workers in a shop who make your underpants. I am asking you to clarify this and since you haven’t I must assume that you are simply saying it is a worse form of exploitation because you simply don’t like it personally.
Finally, I really wish you’d quit with the nasty references to people’s intelligence, literacy skills and so forth. It’s wholly not needed.
Tom P says: “‘Better public transport’ might mean better vehicles, better pay and conditions for the workforce, public ownership, whatever”
So let’s assume “better public transport” means “greater provision of public transport” – more buses, more trains, more tubes means more workers employed and exploited. Does that make it simply a demand for more exploitation?
No, because we don’t call for more provision of public transport in a vacuum, with nothing to say about wages, conditions, and the exploitation of labour under capitalism. We’re socialists, we can walk and chew gum at the same time!!
So when we talk about better porn, more porn, we’re also actively involved in sex workers’ struggles against state repression in the form of immigration controls, semi-legality and blocks to unionisation.
As for what constitutes “better porn”, clearly the erotic is in the eye of the beholder. But the problem with mainstream, heterosexual porn is that it’s basically controlled by 5 or 6 companies with pretty conservative, profit-conscious men at the helm – very little that’s new or innovative gets through. Case in point – try selling a spanking shot that doesn’t involve spike heels, leather and other typical signifiers of BDSM. No one’s interested, because there’s very much a set way to do things.
Similarly, when was the last time anyone saw some porn that didn’t have bored looking women on someone’s 70′s bedspread with crap lighting and very little that’s aesthetically pleasing about the production values? I want to watch porn that doesn’t make me laugh or cringe at the same time as turning me – I want porn that just turns me on, without having to zone out all the other crap!
Surely you mean “wholly unnecessary”, rather than “wholly not needed”, TWP?
See, if you lurve and respect the English language, it will lurve and respect you back.
Right – yes “wholly unnecessary”…………
I’m outta here (or should I say “out of” to please the masses?)
“So let’s assume “better public transport” means “greater provision of public transport”"
not, let’s not, because no-one has defined it in those terms except those who want to build a straw man.
what about if we define “better public transport” as improved vehicles and better punctuality of service. how has the level of exploitation increased if the workers in question are still selling their labour for the same price?
Ahem, yes, well just a few pointers before you go, TWP -
Always read the text you will be commenting on carefully to be sure of comprehension;
Resist the temptation to comment on what you think is in a text rather than what is actually contained therein;
An easy mistake to make this one – but do distinguish between analogy and terminology.
To sum up, then: accuracy, textual fidelity and clarity of exposition. Have due regard for these three things and all will be well.
Personally I’d rather watch Alan Titchmarsh on a gardening programme, but that’s me and I wouldn’t inflict my choice on anyone else. Isn’t Tank missing the point here? If porn was aesthetically pleasing it would be erotica. The scruffy sets and runofthe mill phantasies are part and parcel of porn. Maximize profits and don’t distract the punter. Last thing a fellow with a tumescent cock wants is to work out plot devices.
Janine, you should be aware that it’s almost certain that the majority of videos on YouPorn weren’t uploaded by the people who made them. There are places with porn that was created by the people distributing it freely, but YouPorn isn’t one of them.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the ongoing porn debate is that there are two separate issues that get mushed together: there’s the way that pornstars are treated, and there’s the messages that porn sends.
If the issue was only the former, anti-porn people would be pushing Urotsukidoji. If the issue was only the latter, anti-porn people would be agitating for, as Janine put it, “better porn”. But it’s both, and as a result, when someone proposes better porn, the answer is that it’s exploiting workers, and when someone proposes better working conditions, the answer is that it’s just better conditions in which to create hate speech.
Objectification is worse on a billboard, on the side of a bus, in a mainstream paper or magazine, or on daytime/primetime TV than it is on a porn website.
The less obvious the objectification, the more insidious it is – just as ‘serious’ support for war, secrecy, snooping and torture is more damaging coming from ‘moderates’ in the ‘liberal media’ than than it is coming from strident talkback radio nutjobs.
It makes no difference to the victim whether a rapist got the objectification that made his offence conceivable from porn videos or from advertisements.
There are some gaping holes in the logic of anti-porn campaigners, and many aspects of the product to worry about. Yes, there genuinely is a lot that could be better.
Two fairly simple examples: porn is a performance art. People can be faking stuff. Saying porn is rape is like saying on-screen violent death in a movie is murder.
Second, a lot of porn does present women as people to be abused. They are presented as people who it is OK to lie to. “We told this stupid whore that we we casting a rap video.” Often, relatively ordinary sexual activity (allowing for the awkward posing needed to let a camera get a good view of penetration) is surrounded by misogynistic labelling.
The porn industry often presents an ugly image of sexual relations. The anti-porn crusaders are too often taking the performance of that image as the reality.
And maybe both depend on the other. If porn wasn’t disreputable would anyone buy it, and would anyone get anything out of fronting a public crusade?
Seeing as prude ‘stop ‘em’ Harriet Harman is now leading a campaign to prosecute people who pay for sex, surely the next step will be a movement not only to ban porn to fine people who fork out for it.
Public crusades by puritans look politically paying at the moment.
That’s because it’s always so much easier to dress up socially conservative, essentially right-wing positions (keeping sex out of the public sphere, under wraps in the bedroom) in “progressive” clothes, than it is to genuinely challenge the status quo. How exactly the puritanisation of our society benefits exploited groups like sex workers, is a question that those who take the conservative position on this issue have yet to answer adequately. Furthermore, the “if it offends thee, ban it” mentality runs diametrically opposite to the political line taken by people who actually represent sex workers, such as IUSW.
Mike, the reasons I stopped commenting on this thread for a short while are:
(a) I have other things in my life.
(b) I thought I’d listen to others for a while. Some of those others, particularly Kate and TWP, did such a good job of taking apart your ‘argument’ that I thought I wouldn’t bother cluttering up the comments box by repreating them.
You should try it.
I just annot equate porn in any way with socialist or feminist values. I was brought up to believe it’s degrading, exploitative, frankly a de-valuing of human emotions.I have no reason to change that view as I get older.
Eroticism is something else. So is celebration of sexuality. Our Bodies , Ourselves 1987:
“Sexuality is much more than intercourse.It is a pleasure we want to give and receive. It is a vital expression of attachment to other human beings.It is communication that is fun and playful, serious and passionate. As we accept ourselves and support each other, we can learn to express our sexual feelings in a way that strengthens our sense of self, deepens our pleasure and enhances the building and renewing of intimacy wuith others .”
Does that include watching strangers fuck on a DVD? Not for me……
I just annot equate porn in any way with socialist or feminist values. I was brought up to believe it’s degrading, exploitative, frankly a de-valuing of human emotions.I have no reason to change that view as I get older.
Eroticism is something else. So is celebration of sexuality. Our Bodies , Ourselves 1987:
“Sexuality is much more than intercourse.It is a pleasure we want to give and receive. It is a vital expression of attachment to other human beings.It is communication that is fun and playful, serious and passionate. As we accept ourselves and support each other, we can learn to express our sexual feelings in a way that strengthens our sense of self, deepens our pleasure and enhances the building and renewing of intimacy wuith others .”
Does that include watching strangers fuck on a DVD? Not for me……
I just annot equate porn in any way with socialist or feminist values. I was brought up to believe it’s degrading, exploitative, frankly a de-valuing of human emotions.I have no reason to change that view as I get older.
Eroticism is something else. So is celebration of sexuality. Our Bodies , Ourselves 1987:
“Sexuality is much more than intercourse.It is a pleasure we want to give and receive. It is a vital expression of attachment to other human beings.It is communication that is fun and playful, serious and passionate. As we accept ourselves and support each other, we can learn to express our sexual feelings in a way that strengthens our sense of self, deepens our pleasure and enhances the building and renewing of intimacy wuith others .”
Does that include watching strangers fuck on a DVD? Not for me……
I just annot equate porn in any way with socialist or feminist values. I was brought up to believe it’s degrading, exploitative, frankly a de-valuing of human emotions.I have no reason to change that view as I get older.
Eroticism is something else. So is celebration of sexuality. Our Bodies , Ourselves 1987:
“Sexuality is much more than intercourse.It is a pleasure we want to give and receive. It is a vital expression of attachment to other human beings.It is communication that is fun and playful, serious and passionate. As we accept ourselves and support each other, we can learn to express our sexual feelings in a way that strengthens our sense of self, deepens our pleasure and enhances the building and renewing of intimacy wuith others .”
Does that include watching strangers fuck on a DVD? Not for me……
I just annot equate porn in any way with socialist or feminist values. I was brought up to believe it’s degrading, exploitative, frankly a de-valuing of human emotions.I have no reason to change that view as I get older.
Eroticism is something else. So is celebration of sexuality. Our Bodies , Ourselves 1987:
“Sexuality is much more than intercourse.It is a pleasure we want to give and receive. It is a vital expression of attachment to other human beings.It is communication that is fun and playful, serious and passionate. As we accept ourselves and support each other, we can learn to express our sexual feelings in a way that strengthens our sense of self, deepens our pleasure and enhances the building and renewing of intimacy wuith others .”
Does that include watching strangers fuck on a DVD? Not for me……
I just annot equate porn in any way with socialist or feminist values. I was brought up to believe it’s degrading, exploitative, frankly a de-valuing of human emotions.I have no reason to change that view as I get older.
Eroticism is something else. So is celebration of sexuality. Our Bodies , Ourselves 1987:
“Sexuality is much more than intercourse.It is a pleasure we want to give and receive. It is a vital expression of attachment to other human beings.It is communication that is fun and playful, serious and passionate. As we accept ourselves and support each other, we can learn to express our sexual feelings in a way that strengthens our sense of self, deepens our pleasure and enhances the building and renewing of intimacy wuith others .”
Does that include watching strangers fuck on a DVD? Not for me……
Not for you, Susana. But then watching golf on the telly’s not for me, either.
Doesn’t give either of us the right to condemn others who do enjoy it, though, does it?
In reality, there is much sexually explicit material that it degrading and sexist – but I’d argue that there is some that isn’t, and that it is certainly possible to produce sexually-explicit material (which I think is what most people understand by the word ‘porn’) which is not sexist and degrading.
But you didn’t refer to particularly to degrading and sexist material. You referred to ‘watching strangers fuck’. Now, if the watcher doesn’t mind and the fucking strangers don’t mind, and it’s not sexist and degrading, then where is the problem? Who is the victim?
I can accept that you were brought up to believe certain things. However, I was brought up to believe there is a God, but I don’t believe it any more.
“Personally I’d rather watch Alan Titchmarsh on a gardening programme”
Objectivisation of gardeners is simply unacceptable.
Reading this thread I confess that the visions I have been experiencng of members and allies of the AWL engaging in public displays of their sexual athleticism are becoming disturbing! Yet despite searching on youporn I simply cannot find Cde Matgamna felching Cde Thomas. Much to my ‘relief’ and theirs too I suspect.
Moving on I find VP’s complaint that sex should be in the public sphere to be deeply confused. You see if sexual relations between individuals are to be regarded as lying within the public sphere of interest then there is no reason why the state should not legislate and thereby delimit the nature of said sexual relations. In other words those who argue sexual relations lie within the public sphere open the door to reactionary legislation designed to discriminate against specific groups on the basis of their sexual orientation. Those of us who argue that sex is a private matter reject such state regulation in the name of personal autonomy.
To put this another way if sex is a private affair then it is only sensible and consistent to reject all laws that seek to censor expressions of sexuality so long as those expressions are in private. In other words if you use porn do so behind closed doors least your actions offend others. But that is a matter of politeness and consideration, good manners if you will, which implicitely rejects the ever more banal sexual commodifcation of daily life.
As for Janine’s post above claiming that she did not reply to me as Kate and Twp had taken my argument apart I find myself reduced to tears of laughter at her absurdity. Given that Kate and Twp assumed, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that I’m ‘opposed’ to porn how could they have ‘replied’ to my argument in that they failed to grasp its content?
Moving on I find VP’s complaint that sex should be in the public sphere to be deeply confused. You see if sexual relations between individuals are to be regarded as lying within the public sphere of interest then there is no reason why the state should not legislate and thereby delimit the nature of said sexual relations. In other words those who argue sexual relations lie within the public sphere open the door to reactionary legislation designed to discriminate against specific groups on the basis of their sexual orientation. Those of us who argue that sex is a private matter reject such state regulation in the name of personal autonomy.
I think with all due respect that this is one of the strangest arguments from a left-winger on this subject, that I’ve ever read. Firstly Mike, and I’m rather surprised to find myself pointing this out to someone who’s usually pretty clued up about these things, the public sphere and the state are not the same thing. I’m referring to a society being at ease with itself in terms of sexuality, not about legislation per se. In fact, as should be plain from my argument, I’m opposed diametrically to regulation of consensual adult sexual relations. The logic of your position, not mine, actually runs contrary to this, and leaves the door open (as you put it) for right-wing moralists to force through reactionary laws whilst appealing to overtly “progressive” values.
I think that for the left to take a stance against freedom of sexual expression, is not really a left-wing stance at all. Much like our slight eighties hang-over of taboo words and subjects, the puritanism and prudery that masquerades as progressive discourse on the subject of the sex industry takes us no further towards emancipatory goals for people who do find themselves exploited by the sex industry, than do Daily Mail rants about single mothers help to alleviate poverty on inner city estates.
However I’m with you entirely on the subject of sexual athleticism from AWL members. Eeeeew…
Hang on. Surely it’s possible to have a political opposition to pornography without a desire to censor it?
To what purpose would one oppose porn politically if not to censor it?
Mike appears to be arguing that we should keep quiet about sex and sexuality so the state won’t attack us. That’s kinda conservative, isn’t it?
Reminds me of that old staple of homophobia, “I don’t mind people being gay so long as they don’t flaunt it on the streets”.
If this argument were valid, I’d expect there to be a correlation whereby those countries that most strongly insist on keeping sex private were also those where there was the least repression. Any evidence for that, Mike?
Mike – “To what purpose would one oppose porn politically if not to censor it?”
Not quite sure if I can figure out the syntax of this, but I’ll have a go at answering. The purpose of opposing porn politically would ultimately be for it to disappear. The reasons for this have been discussed already.
What I’m trying to say is that censorship is not the only way of dealing with things you disagree with. We would start by fostering a culture of not using pornography, we would campaign in our workplaces and unions against using pornography and degrading imagery, including in advertising (remember the topic title?). We do what we always do: organise wherever we are to demand concessions from the state and from employers, to make sure that those who work in the industry are not forced to remain for economic reasons. We also support groups that organise those involved, again, in order to make sure that anyone who wants to can leave, but also out of solidarity and out of the recognition that better organised workplaces are better for all concerned.
There are a variety of different ways of opposing pornography, while recognising that the demanding the state censor pornography is a fundamentally cack-handed way of doing it. We won’t get rid of porn without getting rid of capitalism first, and there’s little advantage in empowering the state in the meantime.
And why’s an image of two people having sex, seen by others for their own pleasure, endemically “degrading” and to be “politically opposed”?
Seems to me that a lot of this is about people’s ingrained (and not necessarily from left-wing politics) distaste for certain things, not about political thought at all.
VP misses the point about sex being in the private not the public sphere. The point is that by saying that sex is a private concern for the individuals concerned we deny the state the right to legislate. The anti-sex crowd by contrast argue that sex should be regulated by the state and that certain forms of sexual expression are to be discriminated against. This latter position extends the control of the state into the private sphere of relations even if its advocates talk of sex being a private matter.
If we say that sexual relations lie within the prvate sphere we are not saying that sexual expression should be restricted we are simply saying that it is a matter for those concerned and nobody else. That is to say it is a matter of personal autonomy. But, if we are mature adults, we must also recognise that free sexual expression is not license to act as one wishes in public without consideration for others. Or, to put it another way, fucking on the village lawn is very naughty. But then some on this thread seem to get their thrills from such childish posturing…….
Phugbrins point that political opposition to porn might be something other than censorship is invalid. In fact what is described in his/her post is a campaign to change ideas regarding porn and sexism. What we have here is literally Political correctness that can only skim the surface of reality and does not touch, let alone change, the class relations that give rise to sexism in the first instance. At best such campaigns make some women more comfortable in their workplaces and at worst such campaigns are actually censorship from below. Personally I loathe the use of sexual imagery in the workplace to intimidate some but I also loathe censorship from anybody.
As for Janines post I find it amazing that she reduces my argument to the proposition that we should keep quiet about sex. For the record my argument is that we should ‘flaunt’ our sexualities but only in the context of it being a part of what constitutes selfhood or identity. I might suggest that Janine ‘seems’ to be arguing for socialists to sponsor public displays of sexual atleticism. But that would be stupid…