As for pre-capitalist societies I would suggest that it is not sensible to simplistically claim that attitudes towards sex were more open because they were less ‘screwed up’. After all these were societies in which the vast majority of people had little or no truly individual autonomy – indeed the concept as we know it only originates with Greece – being bound by patriarchal relations and ossifed caste arrangements. Better the personal autonomy of bourgeois society, in that it lays the foundations for a human society, rather than the tyranny associated with pre-modern collectivities.

I’m not at all sure that Roman or Hindu attitudes to sex are because of a ‘tyrannical collectivity’. Couldn’t it just be that they were less screwed up about it?

Clive went on to write “In Roman society, for instance, there were very public displays of what seem to us pornographic images, eg in people’s houses. Hindu art includes images which by modern western standards are pornographic.” All of which is true but these were pre-modern societies in which alienation was not so deep and the sex act was not viewed as something outside the public sphere. Indeed the very differentiation we make between the public and private was but poorly developed in such pre-modern societies dominated by either the tributary mode of production. Personally I would not want to see a retreat to such a conception of sciety that denies personal autonomy in the name of a tyrannical collectivity. Not even the state capitalist Stalinist societies degenerated that far.

Clive again “It seems to me likely that there is something in human nature which entails that many people enjoy looking at images of sex. If that’s true, it seems likely that such images which are not sexist (or less so) would be possible. And since enormous numbers of people use porn, it seems to me it’s worth socialists having more to say about it than just ‘it’s bad’, or ‘it’s capitalism’ or ‘it’s private’.” To which I can only ask who said porn is bad? Not me for certain. My views have not been expressed on that topic. What I do assert is that sexual relations are private and that porn will tend to further alienate our sexuality from us and that it cannot but mirror the dominant attitudes twards sex in this deeply reactionary society of theirs.

VP, I’ve been thinking about how to respond to this question, and, to be honest, I’m not sure. I apologise if you feel I’m playing games, but really, I’m not trying to champion any particular true feminist viewpoint on this subject, I’m still getting to know how the arguments play out.

So at the moment, I’m intending to stay on the sidelines and just question what I see as bad arguments, irrespective of whether or not I agree with the conclusion.

In the above case, I was querying whether

“he doesn’t like it so it must be wrong” and “I think that for the left to take a stance against freedom of sexual expression, is not really a left-wing stance at all.” were necessarily accurate summaries of the objections.

It appears to be that porn is alienated/ing because of capitalism, but nothing different is possible (in the sphere of erotic imagery), either under capitalism or after it because erotic imagery by its nature expresses alienated sexuality. But you’re not in favour of censorship (or any other kind of legal intervention in porn?) because its use is a private matter, and that it’s by asserting its privateness that you guarantee keeping the state out.

In Roman society, for instance, there were very public displays of what seem to us pornographic images, eg in people’s houses. Hindu art includes images which by modern western standards are pornographic.

It seems to me likely that there is something in human nature which entails that many people enjoy looking at images of sex. If that’s true, it seems likely that such images which are not sexist (or less so) would be possible. And since enormous numbers of people use porn, it seems to me it’s worth socialists having more to say about it than just ‘it’s bad’, or ‘it’s capitalism’ or ‘it’s private’.

No, you’re still getting two things mixed up here. Personal autonomy is not the same as keeping something out of the public sphere, anymore than the public sphere is the same as the state. The whole point of the politics of sexual expression, is to give people the right to express their sexuality, not in an ooh-er vicar fashion behind closed curtains, but in an open and honest fashion. And those rights are won in the public sphere, just as all rights are won in that arena.

Yes you are and revealing your rather prudish lack of a sense of humour too. Yawn.