Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Hate Mail - "your obsession with porn"

Apparently one of the day care inmates at Duncan Black's blog didn't like my comment that if all porn were to disappear from the internet and the media that the world would be a better place for it.

I can say that among the things that is known to come with porn are the people used by porn being infected with incurable and currently treatable sexually transmitted diseases, so if porn were not made that obvious means of exposing the many people involved in porn - some willingly, some not - to sexually transmitted diseases would not happen.

The abuse, degradation and humiliation of people that is intrinsic to porn - especially as those who produce it decide they have to ratchet it up and provide ever more extreme attractions to their audience - would likely diminish.   Many womens rights groups have pointed out that boys and men who are exposed to porn have made demands on girls and women and subjected them to the kind of abusive treatment that is depicted, increasingly, in porn.

The extreme, internalized hatred of gay men that is an increasing feature of gay porn, especially that of the "alpha male" type which is a fairly recent development.  The attraction of dividing gay men into a dominator class and a class that they dominate with abuse and hatred that rivals that of straight porn, the increasing prevalence of the promotion of rape and sado-masochistic and incest themed porn, not to mention the increasing use of simulated and actual pedophilia as themes in gay porn, all of that would disappear.   It's been my observation that all of that has increased, enormously, as porn moved from magazines and grainy, cheaply made movies to the internet.  Especially the obvious posting of photographs, gifs and videos of the actual and obvious rape of minor children, both boys and girls.

It is not a surprise to me that the generally white, generally affluent, college-educated, generally not at risk, mostly straight audience of such a blog would not care about the people who are abused, psychologically damaged, infected, maimed and  killed by pornography because they are probably not in danger of having one of themselves or their loved ones (if such people exist) be used by the porn industry.   They probably imagine that no one they know will be the victim of abuse at the hands of a man or boy who has learned what they know about sex largely from internet porn.  They probably can't imagine that, by far, and by degree, the worst anti-gay messaging and encouragement to hatred and violence of gay men, and possibly other people in the LGBT community is contained in porn which does have obvious and overwhelming influence in how people act, how they think.

The lie that porn has no effect on the behavior of people is utterly transparent as its main use is to induce sexual arousal by appealing to what people will find appealing, to enhance their masturbation or their sexual behavior with other people.  That is in addition to the affect it is intended to have in causing people to buy it and choose to watch it.  The lie that porn and its content has no effect on peoples behavior is an utter and transparent lie which has been told successfully by pseudo-scientists, sometimes in the employ of the porn industry and the media and lawyers in the employ of the porn industry and the media.  A transparent lie which has been bought by the affluent, white, overwhelmingly male judges and Supreme Court justices who have enabled the expansion of porn in the modern era.

I would like a list of what terrible things would happen if porn were to suddenly and totally disappear from the world.  One that more than matches the partial list above of what has happened now that it has been not only made but permitted with legal impunity.   I'd like to be told how its sacrosanct position in the pseudo-liberal pantheon of secular holy objects, how its promotion and defense as a twisted virtue,  was attained.

4 comments:

  1. Defending porn is like defending prostitution: one has to imagine the "hooker with the heart of gold" or the "high class call girl" who "enjoys her work," and ignore the myriad women and girls in sex trafficking or desperate simply to make money. I had a client in a child custody case who, though not a prostitute, had to work in "adult entertainment" (how we separate the men from the boys; whether they can enter a place where women are nude on stage) because she had no marketable skills and little education. It wasn't her choice, it wasn't "high class," She earned money by showing strangers her tits. There was nothing "ennobling" about it, and she was exploited by the club that paid her to do it

    We tell ourselves fairy stories about prostitutes and porn stars, ignoring the fact most of them are degrading themselves for the pleasures of others. We don't even treat them like people, we treat them like objects. But it's okay, they aren't objects because of race or creed or gender; only because they need the work. But we tell ourselves they "choose," and therefore it's perfectly okay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the idea that someone who has sex for money, chosen at the direction of someone else is not prostitution because it is filmed is ridiculous.

      The idea that prostitution is some kind of "career" or a "job" or sex "work" is something invented by people who work for pimps or pimps, themselves. I'm low enough on the economic scale that I have one not that extended family member who developed a drug addiction and went from working in an "adult" bookstore to prostitution. I saw her recently for the first time in about seven years, not long ago. She just turned 30 and looks like she's well into her fifties. Even after having been clean for about three years. It is absolutely heartbreaking, one of the hardest things I've ever witnessed. I assume that those who take the attitude you describe don't imagine their loved ones really ever becoming involved with sexual servitude, so largely a class, race issue of privilege and a privileged manner of thinking.

      Delete
    2. Definitely class-based, in the same way Julian Fellowes, a member of aristocracy, would imagine happy servants gladly bathing and clothing their employers for the privilege of living in a grand house and serving such nice people.

      Utter bollocks, of course. Service was a life of drudgery. It was instructive seeing the show about Highclere Castle and the family who lives there now. The butler and the cook hardly considered themselves members of the family, and certainly didn't count themselves lucky to work for such noble people as the son of the last owner.

      "Service" of any kind always looks better when we imagine we are the ones being served, and none of the servants are related, or even that well known, to us; except as servants, of course. Besides, didn't they choose a life of service? Doesn't that absolve us of all responsibility?

      Delete
  2. A coworker used to work as a stripper. She told me drug use is prevalent in that profession, and the dancers who don't use are the exceptions, and she was no exception. She'd often shoot heroin and then have to do coke or meth to counter the lethargy the opium created.

    When I asked her if that wasn't a red flag, she told me that it is, but only in retrospect. She found abstinence was either than moderation, and was aware that she could slip back into addiction at any time. So here's hoping she's still clean.

    But she told me so long as she kept the club out of potential legal trouble, no one in her workplace cared how strung out she was when she came in.

    ReplyDelete