tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post8623402093755152889..comments2024-03-13T11:14:26.768-04:00Comments on A Radical Profeminist: What Men "Using Porn" Actually Is and DoesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-19190155181382692092011-02-21T19:22:08.695-05:002011-02-21T19:22:08.695-05:00Hi Jessica,
From the feminist perspective I view ...Hi Jessica,<br /><br />From the feminist perspective I view pornography from--far from male porn-consumers' predictable viewpoint in which usually some variation of: "It isn't/I'm not hurting anyone!! Lighten up!!!", I see "pornography" as materially, socially, politically being *exactly* what the word means etymologically: the graphic depiction of women-as-wh*res". <br /><br />This means that pornography, <i>by definition</i>, is a form of sexual abuse and a form of sex-based discrimination disproportionately against girls and women as a class of human beings, for men and boys.<br /><br />Porn exists in the context of capitalism, racist patriarchal capitalism, and it exists to make racism, misogyny, and consumption of 'things' into "sex" which I call "sexxxism". <br /><br />If there are other materials--images--not produced by those corporate racist pimps, that doesn't sexually subordinate women, that isn't racist, that isn't making people into things-only, that you enjoy looking at, that's a non-issue for me. It is beyond the scope of this post, honestly.<br /><br />If there are images or videos that the corporate pimps make that you enjoy looking at, then that places you within a population of people who, probably, are a majority of people. In societies where pornography is ubiquitous, and available 24/7, our sexual lives are, necessarily, shaped by the values and aesthetics of that industry.<br /><br />Similarly, if we like McDonalds food, we have been shaped by capitalism-induced desires for fast food. That doesn't make the McDonalds corporation and its international practices politically or ethically "good", however.<br /><br />I wouldn't shame anyone, including myself, for enjoying some of what CRAP (corporate racist atrocious patriachy) produces and makes ubiquitous. I watch "Glee". I like "Skins", the UK and US versions--except for seasons 3 and 4 (UK). <br /><br /><b>My issue is with <i>men</i> who believe they aren't doing anything wrong at all, nothing unethical, nothing politically problematic, nothing oppressive, nothing at all triggering to many women, when the dudes look at pornography, consume it regularly, and then want to grossly shame women who object to the industry's production of misogyny, racism, and rape.</b><br /><br />The shamers to be concerned about, in my view, are the corporate pimps who rape and exploit women, who put women down, literally, and the men who consume it and then believe all women want what women in pornography are economically or sexually coerced or forced into doing.<br /><br />Looking is "dehumanising" to me if you forget that the people you are looking at are people. And if their rapes and other experiences of abuse aren't as important to society as the pleasure some derive from consuming the images. That's a pretty basic definition of "dehumanising" to me. We are similarly dehumanised by not being aware of or concerned with the genocide against Indigenous people globally, the mass trafficking and rape of girls and women globally, and the in-home terrorism and beating up of women by men, globally. If being insensitive or oblivious of all of that isn't a form of collective, social dehumanisation, what is it?<br /><br />And, we are, necessarily, dehumanised in a grossly inhumane society that calls itself "only good". That's the shame of society-at-large, and the rules of its institutions, not ours individually.Julian Realhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02933612851144914687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-18746828615040275012011-02-21T14:28:09.708-05:002011-02-21T14:28:09.708-05:00I'm a 20 year old woman, and I don't think...I'm a 20 year old woman, and I don't think porn in itself is wrong. I think it is only wrong if it is demeaning to women or is made by actors who were forced or coerced into participating.<br /><br />I don't think that 'looking at' is necessarily synonymous with 'dehumanizing'. You can enjoy an image but recognize that the people in the images are real people.Unknown Agent Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277347378796209921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-29666430002207351792009-09-18T21:23:35.304-04:002009-09-18T21:23:35.304-04:00I'm glad this post was supportive and validati...I'm glad this post was supportive and validating! I've been trying to put that (succinctly!) into words for many years too, and it's pissed me off that it took me this long to say it!<br /><br />I greatly appreciate your comment and I hope to be standing in solidarity with you for many years to come.<br /><br />Peace after patriarchy.Julian Realhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02933612851144914687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-84558143960477998722009-09-18T19:30:48.590-04:002009-09-18T19:30:48.590-04:00This passage of yours hit on what I've been tr...This passage of yours hit on what I've been trying to put into words for so long: "First of all, let’s be clear that men are not “just looking” when seeking out and finding and enjoying pornographic images of women. They are being male supremacists. They are practicing woman-hating.... They are reinforcing a key tenet of male supremacy: the right of men to have unquestioned access to women’s bodies."<br /><br />Thank you. It is incredibly encouraging to know that there are men who are going against the grain and standing up for what is right.<br /><br />Stay strong,<br /><br />A heartened feministAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-42908090529234781912009-09-04T15:45:55.607-04:002009-09-04T15:45:55.607-04:00I've written a paper about rap's denigrati...I've written a paper about rap's denigration of woc, but I had to write it to the professor's tastes and I need to edit it so it says what I REALLY wanted i to say. If/when I do that, maybe I'll send it along.<br /><br />How can you more effectively stand in solidarity with me? :) Make ur presence known on my blog, comment, disagree/agree/expand etc. I'm unsure of any other way to do so at the moment, but a true ally (and ally you are) who is also male is hard to find. I'm very hard on male allies, we women need to be, and I'm sure you will agree with that given the piece I just read about your friend's male "feminist" associate who blamed street harassment on HER. (idiot)<br /><br />I've been lurking around following you and reading your brilliant comments for about 2 years now. Thought I might as well make my presence known. Just started blogging 2 months ago, but have been out there raising hell and tellin' it like it is for 2 or so years off and on. <br /><br />I'm diggin your blog, and will definitely come back and comment more. I might even borrow from time to time to support posts I'm writing as well. (namely the post on how NOT to be a white male supremacist.)<br /><br />Take care and thanks for responding!<br /><br />ALD/Divine PurposeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-72760459801125661102009-09-03T20:33:59.286-04:002009-09-03T20:33:59.286-04:00Hello, aladydivine,
I'm very happy to stand i...Hello, aladydivine,<br /><br />I'm very happy to stand in solidarity with you, and please let me know how I might more effectively be able to do that.<br /><br />Thanks for taking the time to read the posts here. I obviously welcome any comments you might have, and if there's anything you've written that I could put up here at A.R.P., let me know.<br /><br />Peace to you.Julian Realhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02933612851144914687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-28593635718465558412009-09-03T11:55:56.588-04:002009-09-03T11:55:56.588-04:00Julian,
Thank you for this post and for your comm...Julian,<br /><br />Thank you for this post and for your comments as well to Chuck. I was actually going to comment on his comments, but you were thorough enough. :)<br /><br />I've long been a fan of your work (since I first read your post on white male supremacy and comments on the ferral scholar) and have enjoyed reading your blog. I might not always comment, well cause I hardly disagree with what you write or have anything to add, but I do read a lot.<br /><br />Just posting in solidarity!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-65736195995155631942009-09-02T13:54:01.250-04:002009-09-02T13:54:01.250-04:00Some more thoughts in response to your comment, Ch...Some more thoughts in response to your comment, Chuck.<br /><br />First, a post more recently made about consent and contempt for women was inspired by your comment.<br /><br />I accept that pornography, as an industry the product of which is manufactured primarily by men using and abusing women, is "violence against gender" in the way that non-pornographic neo-Nazi propaganda is "violence against ethnicity". But it doesn't take long to note, with abundant evidence, which gender this violence is primarily aimed at, which gender it is trying to subordinate and destroy, and which gender has the cameras and guns with which to do the shooting. (See the image accompanying the post inspired by your comment.)<br /><br />On to more theological--or is that thealogical?--questions and concerns.<br /><br />From the dominant societies in which I have lived, it seems pretty clear that "God" was, quite arrogantly, created in the image of white men, not the other way around. "God" is theorised by some people as both female and male. We assume they are not talking about female and male giraffes.<br /><br />If the image of a creator sky-god is seen as manifesting in female and male humanity, whose humanity is that? Western white Europeans? Black Aborigines? The Black and Coloured people of sub-Saharan Africa? If Western religious progressives are willing to make both female and male humans into a reflection of such a god, what is the race of that god? What is its age? Is the maple tree and hummingbird not as brilliant a reflection and manifestation of G-d? Is the universe or multiverse not also a manifestation of G-d?<br /><br />It seems many humans need G-d to be both "a being" and "a white man". That way of conjuring G-d would appear to imply that all Life that isn't a white man is a less perfect, or less beautiful reflection of "He, who is the Light and the Way".<br /><br />If G-d is neither male nor female, nor "a being"; if G-d is not anything the human mind and heart can fully comprehend, why are we not satisfied to sit humbly in the wonder of that?<br /><br />Why would something so mysterious and wondrous as G-d limit its existence to looking, in any way, like any white man, or by being gendered at all? This seems to reflect a need or requirement on the part of white male supremacist supporters, including those impacted by WMS violence who may be experiencing Stockholm Syndrome, to worship the most structurally empowered humans in the Western world. Some analysis is in order, yes?<br /><br />It appears white men, with institutional training, must, rather insecurely, if adamantly, find his own human reflection everywhere, including by projecting it onto the alleged face and body of a presumed sky-god. I welcome your response to this.<br /><br />Given the amount of degradation and murder done in G-d's name, might we more accurately conclude G-d, if "a being" with a mind, is heavily into S/M?Julian Realhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02933612851144914687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-50394524014507666852009-09-01T23:11:53.615-04:002009-09-01T23:11:53.615-04:00Hi Chuck, and welcome!
Thanks so much for adding ...Hi Chuck, and welcome!<br /><br />Thanks so much for adding in your perspective on this, which I'm thrilled to hear: to know an especially male therapist "gets it" about the power abuses inherent in gender, and how, often, consent is a meaningless concept. For me consent might be meaningful if any woman, and women collectively, could "choose" to live a life/lives NOT AT ALL impacted by pornography and misogyny and racism. From that life's vantage point, one would be in a position to better understand what one is "consenting" to as well as a good point of comparison!<br /><br />I know choice and consent aren't understood these ways generally (we tend to see the status quo as a naturalized given), and so, again, I'm pleased this perspective serves as a foundation for the therapeutic work you do.<br /><br />Regarding point two of your comment, such terms (and manifesting realities) as femininity and masculinity are so thoroughly shaped by white supremacy and born and kept in place by patriarchy that I find "the glory and beauty of masculinity" to be oxymoronic. (Needless to say, G-d has no gender whatsoever for me.) Can we really discern--really--a "masculinity" that is somehow not a product of patriarchy? How do you do that? I understand in the context of being a therapist that you likely strive to help anyone not have toxic shame about "who they are", but that's different than telling a man that his "masculinity" is somehow natural or a product of G-d.<br /><br />So, what do you think of the book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Love-Pornography-Dealing-Saving-Relationship/dp/098187438X" rel="nofollow"><i>Love and Pornography</i></a>? If you haven't read it yet, and have time to do so, please write a review for this blog and beyond, and I'll put it up. If writing isn't something you have time for, in addition to everything else in your life, such as, possibly, taking care of kids, cleaning the home, cooking, doing laundry, etc, then just toss me a summary of your perspective on that book. I'd like to discuss it here more and whatever you send I'll make into a separate post on the subject.Julian Realhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02933612851144914687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-56721612905358196962009-09-01T16:58:15.383-04:002009-09-01T16:58:15.383-04:00I am a professional counselor who specializes in s...I am a professional counselor who specializes in sexual addiction - I work with men who "use porn" often, and am often struck by their reactions to 2 assertions that I make when we talk about pornography:<br /><br />1. Porn (particularly for a man - but also true of the increasing numbers of female porn addicts) is at its core, a woman who will not - or more accurately, CAN not (as in doesn't have the choice to) say "no".<br /><br />Very often this casts the objectification into the category of rape...which is exactly what it is, IMHO.<br /><br />2. Porn is violence against gender. Not just femininity, but also against the glory and beauty of masculinity.<br /><br />My theological roots show here, but if it is true that humanity (both male and female) are created in the image of God, then anything that degrades or demeans that image is a shaking of the fist in that Creator's face, as well as a violent act towards any person who shares that image.Chuck Andersonhttp://www.storyrestoration.comnoreply@blogger.com