Poll: Can pornography exist in a sexism free society?

[Gorrath]

I also just want to comment on one last thing that I've seen mentioned, which is the fake 'abuse' of women in some porn. First off, it is faked, and while I wish it didn't happen at all sometimes, it is a directors choice to make it for that sort of audience. If an actress didn't want to do it, they wouldn't. Heck, some of the porn actresses volunteer for it because that's what gets them off best. (Sadie West is one of the best known cases of this, so much that even I know of her) A lot of this discussion feels like it's being had from the point of onlookers assuming all women have this purity about them. Some of us like it rough, we all have our own tastes and fetishes, it's not just men that do.

While I agree with all of your post, I wanted to talk about this point specifically and note why I agree and why many do not. There seems to be a strong emphasis in feminism (please note: I am a feminist too) on the idea of women as victims. While this emphasis is usually a correct vantage point from which to view a lot of feminist issues, it sometimes becomes all-consuming, so much so that any portrayal of a woman as a victim becomes viewed by some feminists as unethical. Couple this view with people not being able to understand why certain power dynamics in sexual fantasy turn people on, and you end up with a lot of backlash against something that should be considered benign.

As you rightly point out, there are a lot of women who love fetishism and like things to be rough, objectifying, sexist and even degrading or victimizing. I think people would do well to understand that there are plenty of women who like their sexual fantasies that way. But there are those that will insist without faltering that any woman who likes their fantasies that way are simply brainwashed into thinking they like it, that liking it is somehow something they should be "cured" of, or that any production of porn with those themes is inherently unethical whether people like it or not.

I imagine you likely already know everything I've put in my reply here but your post prompted me to want to talk about these factors simply because your thoughts seemed a great jumping off point. I hope it doesn't come off as me lecturing. Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[cleric of the order]

Well this is quite something.
I just don't know where or how someone comes to this question but frankly I think it is a poisonous kind of thinking. (I am referring to a blog post I read about how all men that enjoy porn support rape)
While I do not enjoy porn(even if i did not going into any of the ins and outs on a public space), in a lot of areas I think at least some people should be allowed to observe or have a outlet for their sexual frustrations as long as it does not harm another human being.
The argument of sexual objectification is off to me, the people going into porn have a choice and attempts to destory or impede it on moral grounds have only validated it.
As I see it, it is a legal practice and does not condone sexism any more then romance novels or anything a woman does to auto simulate themselves.
Further more the enforcement of such a law would impede our access to the internet as we have to question what dictates porn? I suspect art of a NSFW/questionabl quality would also be lumped together and if not someone would eventually pencil it in.
Say Buh bye to most of tumblr if that happen.
And me because frankly that would mean we went full circle to the turn of the century without the pragmatic sanity or the windswept Scottish hamlets in which robenson davvies begins his novels and leaves the solemn nature of post Victorian Canada open.
further more while against my preferences I do not believe that rape simulating....wait this is a video game and geek culture site why are we having this conversation at all. (I hate leaving a point unmade, some people like rape and as long as no human beings where harmed in the making I'd wager it'd be better to let them have it in the hopes rape stays on the decline, which I have been informed it has been since porn was highly accessible, also what the heck is a porn addictive, I could understand psychological dependance but otherwise staph. Porn is not the addiction, or the subject of the pleasure it is the auto stimulation)
Seriously, let men wank in peace, and keep iceland away from all of this. they are crazy.
And can we get back to talking about something interesting, like dragon age or the next edition of Kings of war comi...Nobody plays kings of war
NOBODY

 

[Lieju]

As for your example that someone might have a poor idea like, "white people are superior" reinforced by seeing how elves are portrayed in Middle Earth, my response is "so what?" This is not because I don't care but because I think being bogged down in attempting to discern how any piece of fantasy might reinforce poor attitudes is a waste of time. If someone thinks "white people are superior" and are of a perfectly healthy mind, then they are lacking critical information, not lacking an ability to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. What would need to be fixed in this scenario isn't LotR, it would be the poor understanding of the person making the error. If someone wants to criticize LotR for having this portrayal and its possibly loaded subtext, I'm cool with that. I would, however, take extreme exception to anyone calling for a ban or boycott of the book based on that criticism though.

I said nothing about banning anything. All I was talking about was criticism. And for the record, I'm a huge fan of Tolkien's work, which is exactly why trying to pinpoint any possible problems with it is important to me.

Also like it or not, LOTR is still very influential, and those kinds of attitudes and biases for what fantasy 'should' be do exist.

I'd love to see a feminist porn film. I'm not sure what it would look like, but it would definitely be hilarious and probably not even slightly arousing...

There would be dragons. Also people would listen to each other's needs and sex would be portrayed in a way that's appealing to women. Then more dragons.

I'm willing to write the script for this project by the way. Call me.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I'd love to see a feminist porn film. I'm not sure what it would look like, but it would definitely be hilarious and probably not even slightly arousing...

Obligatory xkcd requested.

On a more serious note, there is 'feminist' porn (Often labeled 'Porn for Women'). It is quite arousing.

 

[The Squid King]

The general consensus among feminists that I have spoken to is that porn is okay if porn stars are treated with respect by those in charge. This includes stuff like having the option to use contraception, being paid fairly, and having sexual check-ups paid for (as STDs and stuff like that are a potential occupational hazard). Some feminists argue that the concept of porn itself is sexist but people who share that view in my experience are the minority in feminist circles.

 

[Inglorious891]

I'm just gonna comment on the banning option.

How can anyone seriously consider banning anything nowadays? It's not a grown-up approach to a situation if you just try to shut it out completly.
It doesnt work. Not with alcohol, not with drugs and definitly not with porn. Why try the same thing over and over and expect diffrent results? That's foolish.

Obviously banning damn near anything people like nowadays isn't going to work, so you'd just have to suspend your disbelief and imagine a world where it would be possible to ban most porn from society.

One question: what does sexism have to do with porn?

The fact that certain people outside of religious fundamentalists view it as evil due to concerns raised over its depiction of women and sex. Those people are a huge minority, I realize, but I still thought this would be a decent topic of discussion.

 

[Inglorious891]

I don't like porn. Not at all. There is absolutely no way to know if the working conditions are even near human. People can talk themselves hoarse talking about consent, as long as real people are involved, you can never know.

And before anyone say anything stupid about food and clothes. You can't live without food. You can't live without clothes, especially if you live in the northern hemisphere like me where it drop below zero in the winter. You can live without sex and you can most certainly live without porn.

Me being against porn is not the same as being against sex. It's not the same as condemning any kind of sexual art. What I don't like is the fact that it's real humans. The majority of the porn produced is most likely produced in the very same fashion as prostitution, trafficking.

Erotica is fine, drawn sex is fine, novels with sexual themes are fine, short-stories. All that is fine, as long it's not too sick stuff, it's the true essence of fantasy.

You can be against porn and still have a positive attitude toward sex and sexuality. I actually of the opinion that it is porn that is detrimental to a positive sexuality. Porn-addiction are a very much real thing and recent studies from Sweden show that teenager whose been exposed to porn have a unhealthy consummation of the stuff (3-5h/day, young teens). It's naive to think that won't have an effect on their sex life later. And Sweden is a very sex positive country, the expected age of loosing your virginity is 17! (I read this in newspapers btw and that was a while back so to find the study you might want to do a google search. I'm hitting the hay, it's around 10p.m. where I live.)

What's the difference between drawn porn and filmed porn? Would pictures of two people going at it be OK? Are hentai videos OK? If so, then how does that work since they're usually more sexual and not female friendly? Your issue with filmed porn seems to be mainly because those involved are often harmed in the making, but if there were more regulations placed would it be OK?

As for causing unrealistic expectations and the like, if society was more open about sex, porn, and the dangers of becoming addicted to it, is easily something that could come up with the "birds and the bees" talk, along with the danger of unrealisitic expectations. Most people who view porn don't suffer from addiction, but addiction is easily possible. Just become some people get addicted doesn't mean everyone who views porn might become addicted as well.

 

[Azure23]

The idea of banning porn due to some type of moral decay in its consumers is pretty ludicrous and I stand firmly against it on principle. What we need to worry about is protecting the men and women who perform in it. The oversight in the industry is atrocious, it's a very tight knit circle of producers all covering each other's back and enforcing blacklists against performers who speak out about abuse suffered by them. It is depressingly easy to find testimonials from porn actors about terrible experiences where they are subjected to acts they did not agree to beforehand, essentially rape. I'd argue that an outside agency needs to step in and regulate this industry, like the human rights watch. Have a human rights watch representative present while shooting to document and verify safe and consensual working conditions, because as it is, the porn industry regularly victimizes it's performers.

 

[Belaam]

So long as there are cell phones, there will be porn. He'll, pretty much so long as there has been the ability to paint or carve, there has been porn.

So,yes, of course it can exist. We can certainly go after non-consenting porn though and try to stamp that out.

 

[Jesterscup]

snip

Right, but this gets back into thought policing again. If a guy has a poor attitude toward women and watches things that reinforce his own poor attitude, that's his own problem. It is not the job of society to restrict access to content based on the idea that some people with poor attitudes will have those poor attitudes reinforced by said content.

Playing Devils advocate here, but it is. We have censorship boards that rate & classify ( and ban ) materials deemed inappropriate, Police also have powers to confiscate materials that society decides are unsuitable. and lastly you have parents, guardians , teachers and more censoring materials inappropriate for children. While you may find it distasteful for the state to ban materials, it happens, and I find it difficult to argue that a parent shouldn't censor materials their children have access to ( beyond it actually being a legal requirement of being a parent).

Are you asking if it's a moral thing? Are you asking if the effect of that reinforcement is good? I think it is an amoral issue and that the effect in the instance you describe would be "bad". I also think racist attitudes are poor ones and watching racist crap to reinforce your (royal you here) racist attitudes is a "bad" thing, but I would never, ever advocate for banning material deemed "racist".

Personally I avoid the use of the word moral, it's used in general rather ambiguously. on an ethical level however, yeah, use that power I have to censor any material I feel is unsuitable. Who decides? me, I do, buck stops here. I don't allow content where I have the power to disallow that content. I also take on the responsibility to stand up and say that I find something distasteful.

Whether or not someone might have the poor attitude about women reinforced by content they choose to consume simply isn't any of my damned business. Now if they let that poor attitude drive them to do something illegal or immoral to a woman, then we have an obligation to stand up. Banning content we feel leads to poor attitudes is something tyrants do.

Sure Tyrants,Police,Parents,the legal system. There is tyranny everywhere, it is a side-effect of power, all power given to an individual also imbues them with a little. It can also be argued that all exercise of power is tyranny. That being said, I didn't mention banning, or any larger action of 'society'. That being said, yes I have my own little tyranny, and I exercise it. It is not my 'right' or 'moral obligation' it is in fact my 'legal duty' to do so.

When it comes to a larger scope, that of materials out in the public, I have two stances.
Firstly if I am subjected to material that I (or my children) have to choice to witness, then yes I ( aforementioned obligation ), will darn well stand up and decry a piece of media, I don't want my children seeing a walking dead poster, or a scary film poster, that stuff scares me, what about a 4 yr old? Frankly in this sort of situation ban it all, this is media pushed down all our throats without any choice of consumption.

There is a kinda half-class here, there are adult materials in public view, I'll take the example of an art show with adult themes. In this sort of case, in general, you will be informed of the themes and subject matter, and able to make a choice. The choice here is important, I choose to go to a movie or an art gallery, I don't get to choose to look at the side of a bus.

Secondly material in private.
So if "racist Bob" wants to watch racist stuff in his racist house, then who am I to stop him? but I'm not going to visit his house, I'm not going to be his friend either, and if asked I'm going to honestly find said material, and 'Bob' distasteful. I'm not going to say that anyone shouldn't watch porn in private, nor tell them which sort of porn is 'good' or 'bad' as an 'objective viewpoint', but I will happily state my own view and explain my stance in regards to a piece of material. However, as stated above, lots of other institutions have that power. Whether them holding that power, is another question, but it's foolish to pretend they don't.


Lastly I want to make a point. I didn't advocate an action, I gave a view. at no point did I suggest ( or mention ) banning. I gave my own (subjective) viewpoint, something I'm at liberty to do. Because that is the way we make a difference, we state our case, our viewpoint, and perhaps, just perhaps, it helps change peoples minds. If it doesn't, not my problem, but it's my voice and again I have an obligation to state my views.
While I also have an obligation to listen to other views and reconsider my own view, I don't appreciate having assumptions made about where my view leads to. I hope this post clearly gives my standpoint , in a conclusive manner, in regards to the censorship and banning of content. The assumption that my first post was pro-banning was a little tyranny on it's own.

Should society ban porn deemed as sexist? Actually, I'm against this. More because it would be ineffective than out of any ethical or philosophical point of view. What action would I advocate? I advocate the expression of my point in the hope that my voice will add to others that help to change society, as a part of it. "Racist Bob" can have his porn, but when asked I'll state how I feel about it.

I do find it curious that many of the people here have been strongly against banning/censorship, yet reading through, I actually can't find anyone pro-censorship. Cool, state your anti-censorship stance, but don't assume anyone who expresses a different point of view as being pro-censorship, unless they state it. As perhaps you can see from this post, it's not always a black and white assumption.
-----------------

Is sexist porn ethical?
Hmmm a curious question, and a valid one. Well for a start a huge amount of porn isn't ethical, when exploitation, discrimination & abuse occur, then no it's not. But is it possible for porn to be both sexist and ethical? Well of course its 'possible' porn is another form of art, and I'll happily stand to the concept of free speech in art. The filmmaker who portrays racism in a film isn't by definition being racist, similarly the auter of a porno may be making an artistic comment. So it's possible. I'd argue that it's pretty rare though to find porn that is both sexist and ethical.

 

[Jennacide]

I imagine you likely already know everything I've put in my reply here but your post prompted me to want to talk about these factors simply because your thoughts seemed a great jumping off point. I hope it doesn't come off as me lecturing. Thanks for your thoughts!

Don't worry, it didn't. You hit the nail on the head. The view that women can't ever be victims, and it's just us being brainwashed, is something I've seen many times before. It always gets on my nerves when any game company for instance tries to be equal and have both men and women as enemy NPCs in a game, and get villified for having female combatants. Or the double standards of evil actions, like how Cersei Lannister is commonly regarded as the most evil character in Game of Thrones, even though her actions are no worse than that of numerous other male characters. But since Cersei is a woman and a mother, she is somehow viewed as 'evil' instead of cunning or manipulative. These are some of the more insidious beliefs when I always speak to how many feminists, such as the infamous Anita Sarkessian (who I detest, btw), do not actually understand what equality is. Ms. Sarkessian is of the group that females should never be used as enemies, and should only ever be powerful and protagonists. This is just as stupid an idea as sexualizing all female characters, which we all know flat out doesn't happen. Some companies are more notorious for doing it than other, like Team Ninja. But it's not a universal trend. Anyway, gonna stop there, getting off topic. Just easier to explain some of my points using the games feminism movement as opposed to through porn.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

As long as theres consent, no form of coercion and the participants medical needs are properly considered (Seriously the required healthcare is not that stringent in porn actors) i see no reason why not, and i quasi self identify as a feminist.

However some porn actresses are hurt pretty bad and generally have a shit time of it and quit, theres a diary somewhere on the web about the awful experiences working in porn, these are issues that definitely need to be addressed although fixing them is entirely possible and desirable.

I dont agree with a lot of porn in its current state (mostly due to behind the scenes lack of health screening or abuse or coercion) but i dont see why it cant be remedied.

 

[Gorrath]

As for your example that someone might have a poor idea like, "white people are superior" reinforced by seeing how elves are portrayed in Middle Earth, my response is "so what?" This is not because I don't care but because I think being bogged down in attempting to discern how any piece of fantasy might reinforce poor attitudes is a waste of time. If someone thinks "white people are superior" and are of a perfectly healthy mind, then they are lacking critical information, not lacking an ability to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. What would need to be fixed in this scenario isn't LotR, it would be the poor understanding of the person making the error. If someone wants to criticize LotR for having this portrayal and its possibly loaded subtext, I'm cool with that. I would, however, take extreme exception to anyone calling for a ban or boycott of the book based on that criticism though.

I said nothing about banning anything. All I was talking about was criticism. And for the record, I'm a huge fan of Tolkien's work, which is exactly why trying to pinpoint any possible problems with it is important to me.

Also like it or not, LOTR is still very influential, and those kinds of attitudes and biases for what fantasy 'should' be do exist.

I did not intend to suggest you are a proponent of censorship, I merely added that because it's important to the thread as a whole. I wanted to make it clear that I do support criticism and don't support censorship based on whatever criticism or problems a person or people might have with a particular work. For me, that extends even to pornography. Porn is not granted the same protection from censorship that other media is, so it is particularly vulnerable to laws restricting its content. It is necessary to keep porn and free speech separate because of the way the laws in the U.S. apply to protected speech but that means we also need to be particularly sensitive to how we apply censorship to porn because of that.

I like that LotR is still influential, despite any issues one might take with its content. Anyone can find problems with just about any work of fiction and anyone can have their bias' reinforced by almost any source they choose to pay attention to. Being aware of that bias and the effect media has on it is worthy of study and discourse. I'm not sure if you and I actually disagree on any of those points but it seems like we don't. Cheers!

 

[Gorrath]

I imagine you likely already know everything I've put in my reply here but your post prompted me to want to talk about these factors simply because your thoughts seemed a great jumping off point. I hope it doesn't come off as me lecturing. Thanks for your thoughts!

Don't worry, it didn't. You hit the nail on the head. The view that women can't ever be victims, and it's just us being brainwashed, is something I've seen many times before. It always gets on my nerves when any game company for instance tries to be equal and have both men and women as enemy NPCs in a game, and get villified for having female combatants. Or the double standards of evil actions, like how Cersei Lannister is commonly regarded as the most evil character in Game of Thrones, even though her actions are no worse than that of numerous other male characters. But since Cersei is a woman and a mother, she is somehow viewed as 'evil' instead of cunning or manipulative. These are some of the more insidious beliefs when I always speak to how many feminists, such as the infamous Anita Sarkessian (who I detest, btw), do not actually understand what equality is. Ms. Sarkessian is of the group that females should never be used as enemies, and should only ever be powerful and protagonists. This is just as stupid an idea as sexualizing all female characters, which we all know flat out doesn't happen. Some companies are more notorious for doing it than other, like Team Ninja. But it's not a universal trend. Anyway, gonna stop there, getting off topic. Just easier to explain some of my points using the games feminism movement as opposed to through porn.

I don't know much of Sarkeesian's work so I can't say much on that but I do know what you mean. I've suspected for a while that feminists don't have a solid idea of what we might commonly agree to be an "acceptable" depiction of women in media. It seems one could find issue with any female character. I feel like feminists do a poor job of making their expectations clear when it comes to characterization. If a character is dressed sexy, is she a sex object or a liberated woman in charge of her sexuality? If she's a hard-edged badass, is she a powerful woman who can handle herself or just a female character stuck in a "man's role?" If a female character fits into the role of a housewife and home maker, is she setting feminism back 50 years or choosing to be a stay at home mom just as noble as seeking a career? Whichever way people look at individual female characters in media, there is certainly no consensus within the movement at large and that makes it really confusing for artists and publishers to figure out what the hell is and isn't acceptable.

I neither blame feminists nor the feminist movement for this, nor do I blame content creators. It's an issue that I think will work itself out as old notions of gender roles become antiquated and people feel less threatened. I don't find any specific depiction of women to be "problematic" in the sense that a single depiction might rise to the level of an ethical problem. Instead, I think depictions of women should be as varied as the people that create those depictions, from the very serious and nuanced to the very "offensive" objectifying and sexist. I think it is a great folly to assert that any one depiction of a woman shouldn't exist, even if that depiction really bothers people. I think we should critically eviscerate those depictions while being mindful that someone else's enjoyment of those depictions is perfectly fine. I support diversity and creative freedom, even that which ventures into territory I may find terrible or "offensive."

I think many feminists have issues with accepting these and other criticisms of the movement though. I think many feminists view any criticism as an attack meant to silence the notion of equality or issues related to that central notion. I also think it is this reluctance or outright rejection of criticism that hurts the movement far more than accepting criticism would. Some of the things I hear that become central platforms for feminism make me question whether I even am a feminist myself. But then I remind myself; this is about the goal of equality, and so long as feminism is about equality, I will support it.

Thanks for letting me ramble on again. I think you and I are the same kind of feminist and that is a relief. I appreciate your point of view and willingness to share!

 

[Thaluikhain]

The porn industry as it is now is fine. The things that 'should' be illegal, already are. Sexual slavery, torture porn, those are already illegal.

That doesn't follow that things are fine. Crimes don't stop being a problem just because they are illegal. There are serious concerns with how the porn industry works, how it should be regulated and how workers are treated.

 

[renegade7]

I don't see how pornography itself is by definition sexist.

I do think it is inherently objectifying, but I don't think objectification is inherently a bad thing. Everyone objectifies themselves every single day: when you put on a suit and tie for a job interview, you're presenting yourself not as a person but as an "object" of professionalism and capacity to do work, and who in their right mind would see being professional and getting a job as a bad thing? Your interviewer has no reason to care about your beliefs or your dreams or your personality: they want to know if you can be a good asset to the company. If that's not reducing a person to an object, a collection of characteristics to be judged, I don't know what is.

Human interaction necessarily requires some judgment. Judgment necessarily requires some objectification.

And given that, on average, female porn actors consistently have very high self-esteem, I doubt that the objectification is directly a threat to their dignity. http://www.livescience.com/25058-porn-stars-self-esteem-spirituality.html

I think some of the sketchier parts of that industry are absolutely sexist and hostile in their treatment of their female actors. But I think for the most part much of that industry has done a fair job of coming together and agreeing to keep everything above the table.

But I think the important question about sexism is whether it's harmful to women. Does porn propagate sexist attitudes or encourage sexual harassment, abuse, and objectification?

The answer, surprisingly, is yes and no. No, it does not inherently encourage sexism. But hardcore pornography which depicts men in dominating sex acts over women can reinforce sexist beliefs in men who already hold them and it was found in a study (http://theweek.com/article/index/249760/does-watching-porn-make-you-sexist) that men AND women who watch such pornography were less likely to support affirmative action for women. However, again, that applied only to pornography that depicted sex acts where men were in strongly dominant roles (ie the ones that go "Ohhh sorry pizza guy I don't have enough for a tip so I guess I'll just have to have sex with you OOOHH GOD YES FUCKMEFUCKMEFUCKME OHHH GOOOODDD FUCKFUCKFUCK RRRRRR AAAAAAAAA"): people with a deep-seated belief of male dominance are naturally attracted to scenarios where a woman is subservient. This effect has not been observed in people who use porn that portrays male and female actors in more neutral roles.

So I guess in that regard it comes back to whether media can cause harmful beliefs or attitudes. Do violent video games cause people to become violent? No, but violent people are attracted to violent entertainment, and in that case it can cause problems. Are all people who drink going to turn into depraved, homeless alcoholics? Of course not, but if someone has poor impulse control to start with, then you've got a serious problem. Does religion automatically turn people into bigoted rednecks and violent extremists? Again, of course not, but some people who hold prejudicial or extremist attitudes to begin with might find that religion can reinforce or be used to justify those attitudes.

Likewise, porn doesn't cause sexism or sexual violence unless you're using it to fulfill sexist fantasies, have sexist attitudes and use porn to reinforce those attitudes, or if you watch porn to replace healthy sexual interactions with other people because you disdain women to begin with.

 

[Frission]

As for your example that someone might have a poor idea like, "white people are superior" reinforced by seeing how elves are portrayed in Middle Earth, my response is "so what?" This is not because I don't care but because I think being bogged down in attempting to discern how any piece of fantasy might reinforce poor attitudes is a waste of time. If someone thinks "white people are superior" and are of a perfectly healthy mind, then they are lacking critical information, not lacking an ability to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. What would need to be fixed in this scenario isn't LotR, it would be the poor understanding of the person making the error. If someone wants to criticize LotR for having this portrayal and its possibly loaded subtext, I'm cool with that. I would, however, take extreme exception to anyone calling for a ban or boycott of the book based on that criticism though.

I said nothing about banning anything. All I was talking about was criticism. And for the record, I'm a huge fan of Tolkien's work, which is exactly why trying to pinpoint any possible problems with it is important to me.

Also like it or not, LOTR is still very influential, and those kinds of attitudes and biases for what fantasy 'should' be do exist.

I remember when the elephants and the fantasy 'men of the east' came up in the movies. The ones who have turbans and all that. It was certainly something that I forced myself to not think about, because the implications are unpleasant.

I think Tolkien was tapping into the whole western european fear of the few against the 'barbarian hordes', which is pretty prejudiced let's admit it. It doesn't say anything about Tolkien's character, nor does it diminish it's influence (it's pretty much the father of the standard elves, dwarves fantasy setting which I assume a lot people have liked, seeing as this is a game site) and I think no one likes censorship, but I think there is a place for acknowledging some of the darker undersides of it while still appreciating the work.

Most of the works I enjoy have had these darker undersides to them, including stuff from Bilal to 'kid' stuff from Hergé (Tintin in the Congo was one that was especially bad in that aspect).

OT: I'm more on the side that if you allow yourself to be negatively influenced by a piece of work, then there was already something wrong with you from the start. Adults should take responsibility for their views and actions.

 

[Deathmageddon]

I think porn is inherently immoral, but there's nothing inherently dehumanizing about sex. I can't imagine a reason why rape and kiddie porn should exist or be legal if they do. Porn devalues sex, but not people.

 

[AgedGrunt]

I agree on points (actors are choosing their work and the movies can be their own form of sexual expression), and for the most part porn isn't unethical. Sure there are all kinds of fetishes and films with sexist "stories", non-consent, physical/mental abuse and things like gang rape- but porn shouldn't really be tackled for having a sexist and misogyny problem.

It's the video game industry that's got a problem. You see, actors choose what to do with their own bodies, but fiction creates and forces female characters into sexist clothing and tropes. It's because the imaginary characters don't get their own choices and the men behind them can't assume there's consent for them to do what they want with those characters that it's basically sexual assault.

For public health reasons I'm required to state that the above is a work of satire and, respecting that we all have free choice, only infers that society is confused about where to be outraged.

 

[Gorrath]

Playing Devils advocate here, but it is. We have censorship boards that rate & classify ( and ban ) materials deemed inappropriate, Police also have powers to confiscate materials that society decides are unsuitable. and lastly you have parents, guardians , teachers and more censoring materials inappropriate for children. While you may find it distasteful for the state to ban materials, it happens, and I find it difficult to argue that a parent shouldn't censor materials their children have access to ( beyond it actually being a legal requirement of being a parent).

I presumed we were speaking about adults censoring adults but I can see how that was not clear. Adults have every right and responsibility to filter what their children are exposed to. I am 100% behind that notion and accept that as an exception to what I stated above. Another caveat I should add is that I am also speaking on these issues as an American and within the scope of our laws, though some of the ideas I profess I believe should be accepted by any society.

As for the police, they are enforcing laws set by the legislature, so I think it's more appropriate to focus on the legislature's power to ban objectionable material. The fact that they can ban porn does not mean that I am compelled to agree that they should. When I say that, "It is not the job of society to restrict access to content based on the idea that some people with poor attitudes will have those poor attitudes reinforced by said content." I mean that legislatures should not have the power to ban anything merely because some people find the content objectionable or think that it will have an adverse effect on some of the population's attitudes. One might bring up child porn as a rebuttal, but that isn't censored because of people's attitudes, it's censored because it requires actual rape to be committed.

A good way of focusing what I mean is in the debate about "loli" manga. While I find the stuff downright creepy to the point of being physically adverse to it, I do not think any entity should have the right or responsibility to ban the stuff. Some might say it reinforces notions that children should be sexually assaulted or that doing so is okay but I do not find that argument to be a compelling reason why we should allow it to be banned or carry a prison sentence for anyone having the stuff. No people are hurt in the production of it and I do not feel it is appropriate or acceptable for one grown adult to legislate that another grown adult should go to prison for having media that they find objectionable. The fact that they can do this is not acceptable to me and I very much advocate for the laws to change.

As for ratings boards, there are none that I am aware of that can ban anything. They can slap a rating's label on a piece of media and an industry can listen to and adhere to the self-established rules of that rating but that only acts as a control over distribution and does not constitute a "ban." These industry established boards exist for an industry purpose, but no retailer is bound by the rating's board decision except by their own accord. I don't think that example properly relates to my point, unless there is some board you're speaking of that I don't know of or if we're missing one another's context here.

Personally I avoid the use of the word moral, it's used in general rather ambiguously. on an ethical level however, yeah, use that power I have to censor any material I feel is unsuitable. Who decides? me, I do, buck stops here. I don't allow content where I have the power to disallow that content. I also take on the responsibility to stand up and say that I find something distasteful.

This seems like we're speaking in two different contexts again. You have the power to censor things in your own home but I would object to you attempting to censor anything in mine. Even if you find something objectionable, I do not think you should be empowered to censor that material for anyone else (again, save for your own children, on your own property, ect.) I find that you have no right or responsibility when it comes to what media others choose to consume, especially if your reasoning is that you think said material will reinforce a "bad" attitude they have. The can of worms here cannot be understated, but based on how your response was phrased I don't think you're talking about government bans making content illegal, I feel you are probably talking about your own house/children. Whether you stand up and say that you find something distasteful is, I feel, irrelevant. I think you should be allowed to do so and you should even be encouraged to do so but I don't think your voicing your distaste should ever be used as an excuse to legislate a ban on any content.

When it comes to a larger scope, that of materials out in the public, I have two stances.
Firstly if I am subjected to material that I (or my children) have to choice to witness, then yes I ( aforementioned obligation ), will darn well stand up and decry a piece of media, I don't want my children seeing a walking dead poster, or a scary film poster, that stuff scares me, what about a 4 yr old? Frankly in this sort of situation ban it all, this is media pushed down all our throats without any choice of consumption.

There is a kinda half-class here, there are adult materials in public view, I'll take the example of an art show with adult themes. In this sort of case, in general, you will be informed of the themes and subject matter, and able to make a choice. The choice here is important, I choose to go to a movie or an art gallery, I don't get to choose to look at the side of a bus.

And you are well within your rights to decry the posters, sure, but I don't think you've a leg to stand on if you think you should be allowed to demand the content you don't like be removed from the public eye. This idea that the public square must or even should be devoid of content any person or people decide they don't like is an unacceptable form of censorship to me and to the constitution. That public square belongs to those who would put the posters up just as much as to those who would tear them down. They aren't your posters and you have no right to censor them. Your children do not grant you the right to censor that which you don't like except in your own home/property.

Secondly material in private.
So if "racist Bob" wants to watch racist stuff in his racist house, then who am I to stop him? but I'm not going to visit his house, I'm not going to be his friend either, and if asked I'm going to honestly find said material, and 'Bob' distasteful. I'm not going to say that anyone shouldn't watch porn in private, nor tell them which sort of porn is 'good' or 'bad' as an 'objective viewpoint', but I will happily state my own view and explain my stance in regards to a piece of material. However, as stated above, lots of other institutions have that power. Whether them holding that power, is another question, but it's foolish to pretend they don't.

As stated above, I applaud and support your willingness to criticize things you find objectionable. By all means, this is something that should happen. It is integral to our cultural growth! As is decrying Racist Bob's viewpoint. But I am not pretending things can't be censored. IN fact, porn has a special legal definition which precludes the usual free-speech protections. This is why porn is particularly susceptible to being banned due to unchecked "moral" outrage. While I do think porn should not be considered free-speech due to the constitutional and legal issues with making it protected speech, I do think it should have a different set of enhanced protections that do more than what is currently offered. This is why censorship is a hot topic when it comes to porn; porn is the only kind of media that can be banned by the government legally.

Lastly I want to make a point. I didn't advocate an action, I gave a view. at no point did I suggest ( or mention ) banning. I gave my own (subjective) viewpoint, something I'm at liberty to do. Because that is the way we make a difference, we state our case, our viewpoint, and perhaps, just perhaps, it helps change peoples minds. If it doesn't, not my problem, but it's my voice and again I have an obligation to state my views.
While I also have an obligation to listen to other views and reconsider my own view, I don't appreciate having assumptions made about where my view leads to. I hope this post clearly gives my standpoint , in a conclusive manner, in regards to the censorship and banning of content. The assumption that my first post was pro-banning was a little tyranny on it's own.

Just as you say that no one has called for a ban, I would also point out that at no point did I accuse anyone of being for one either. I make no assumptions about you being for or against a ban, I simply mentioned that I find that method of dealing with objectionable material to be unacceptable (within reason). Simply stating that I am against banning materials on the grounds I've discussed is not an accusation that the person I'm replying to is for it. I am not putting words into your mouth when I state my feelings on censorship, I am simply relating my feelings on it, and given the topic, that opinion is one I think needs to be made clear.

Should society ban porn deemed as sexist? Actually, I'm against this. More because it would be ineffective than out of any ethical or philosophical point of view. What action would I advocate? I advocate the expression of my point in the hope that my voice will add to others that help to change society, as a part of it. "Racist Bob" can have his porn, but when asked I'll state how I feel about it.

I do find it curious that many of the people here have been strongly against banning/censorship, yet reading through, I actually can't find anyone pro-censorship. Cool, state your anti-censorship stance, but don't assume anyone who expresses a different point of view as being pro-censorship, unless they state it. As perhaps you can see from this post, it's not always a black and white assumption.

I'm glad to hear you are against banning porn that you would call sexist. Like I mentioned above though, one need not point out anyone in this thread being pro-censorship in order to state that they are anti-censorship. If one were to conclude that a sexism-free society would need to do away with all sexist porn, then one might also surmise that the only way to do away with said porn, legally, would be to ban it. You could rightly point out that banning said porn would not actually prevent it from being made or consumed but it would send the message that society does not tolerate it, which is the more salient point. Outside of your statement that seemed to indicate you are okay with some censorship (I refer here to your comment above about the walking dead posters, a point I'd actually agree with you on if you were talking about porn instead of zombies) I think you and I agree on pretty much every other point thus far.

-----------------

Is sexist porn ethical?
Hmmm a curious question, and a valid one. Well for a start a huge amount of porn isn't ethical, when exploitation, discrimination & abuse occur, then no it's not. But is it possible for porn to be both sexist and ethical? Well of course its 'possible' porn is another form of art, and I'll happily stand to the concept of free speech in art. The filmmaker who portrays racism in a film isn't by definition being racist, similarly the auter of a porno may be making an artistic comment. So it's possible. I'd argue that it's pretty rare though to find porn that is both sexist and ethical.

Actually porn is explicitly not art according to the legal definition. That's why I think people should tread particularly carefully around their desire to impose their personal feelings about porn on others who consume it. Since it is not art, it is not protected by the first amendment and therefore can be legally banned. The abuses you mention are worthy of being addressed but I feel they are a red herring. Addressing abuses in porn production is a separate issue from addressing whether or not sexist porn's content is ethical. And I'd also disagree with your final statement. There's lots of porn that has sexism as a central theme that was not produced under the industry abuses you mention. Unless there's some other reason you think sexist porn isn't ethical other than that, I'm not sure why you'd assert that.

Anyway, sorry for any confusion in the context or seeming as if I was attributing a position to you that you do not hold and also sorry for being a long and rambling individual. Thanks for your time and response, I always appreciate the free exercise of an open discussion like this. I think we all grow when we talk. Cheers!