Misogynistic porn

[Hathradic States]

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-female-porn-stars-get-paid-for-different-types-of-scenes-2012-11

Stars

Well, to be fair, the woman is almost always the star of the film she is in.

[Aurora Novus]

Porn is not inherently misogynistic, but porn absolutely can be misogynistic (and a great deal of it quite definitely is). Similarly, porn is not inherently racist, but it would be stupid to pretend films with titles like "Oh No! There's a Negro In My Mom!" (which is a real title I just found in a cursory google search, sigh) aren't pretty damn problematic on that front.

Also, I think people get very confused about what is meant when we say that a lot of porn is repulsively sexist, because someone inevitably replies "but the women in the videos choose to be there!" Which is a great defense against "this porn is RAPE" but not so much against "this porn is sexist." The idea that pornos magically become non-sexist if a woman participates in them makes exactly as much sense as claiming that there would be nothing racist about a movie promoting the lynching of black people, provided black actors appeared in it.

In which case, we are then forced to ask, so what? Why is this sexism a problem? If all parties consented, this hardly seems like an issue. Which makes applying inflammatory labels to it entirely meaningless, and honestly, takes away from the importance of said labels.

[IshCong]

70 million copies isn't negligible.
And it's not the only book. I walk past whole shelves of female-focused ero-lit every time I walk into the local CVS. You know, the pharmacy, not the book-store.

You know, that statistic really only helps my case, not yours. Ask yourself: Why is that one book such a big seller? Because there is a lack of options. Just because porn isn't marketed towards women doesn't mean women don't buy porn. With male-aimed porn, there are so many various choices available that one single property never gets such exceedingly high sales. Men have options, and with options, men can pick things more focused on their individual desires. Women have no such capacity for choice and are only given the option of whatever books they find at the supermarket.

None of which makes it any less absurd to claim that female focused eroticism is 'negligible'. And there's hardly a lack of options out there. Maybe there are fewer options in pornographic films, but there's plenty of fan-made content, erotic pictures, and erotic literature.

Speaking of which, that fact is something else you brought up to try defending yourself which has only backfired on you. The reason your CVS doesn't have any male-aimed erotica books is because men don't need to buy books.

That's a pretty useless statement. There's no male-aimed books because men don't "need" to buy them. There's no female-aimed videos because women don't "need" to buy them. More likely there's just market forces at work. Men buy videos. Women buy books. Everyone views free porn online.

They can just go on the internet and easily find billions if not trillions of videos and pictures. Women can't do that. The few dozen books at CVS is all we have. That is entirely negligible. A couple hundred or even thousand books compared to a few trillion videos and pictures is so marginally low that when I tried calculating the ratio in my calculator, it just gave me an answer of '0'. That is the very definition of negligible.

There's plenty of even videos and pictures of porn for women out there if one but looks for it online for a few moments. 50 Shades was just something readily available with an easy to find count of sales.

Incidentally, here are two links on the sizes of respective industries.
Porn
Ero-lit

I wouldn't call $1.4 billion negligible either. Or 90% of ero-lit negligible, for that matter, considering that's about the right percentage of women. Not when compared to $500 million to $4 billion.

[Aurora Novus]

Are you implying there is some moral wrong with "degrading" porn?

I don't like it, but no. I'm saying there is something wrong with it being the default.

Why?

If it's not wrong, what's wrong with it being popular?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Porn is not inherently misogynistic, but porn absolutely can be misogynistic (and a great deal of it quite definitely is). Similarly, porn is not inherently racist, but it would be stupid to pretend films with titles like "Oh No! There's a Negro In My Mom!" (which is a real title I just found in a cursory google search, sigh) aren't pretty damn problematic on that front.

Also, I think people get very confused about what is meant when we say that a lot of porn is repulsively sexist, because someone inevitably replies "but the women in the videos choose to be there!" Which is a great defense against "this porn is RAPE" but not so much against "this porn is sexist." The idea that pornos magically become non-sexist if a woman participates in them makes exactly as much sense as claiming that there would be nothing racist about a movie promoting the lynching of black people, provided black actors appeared in it.

(Also, sadly, it's not entirely true that porn actors all make free and uncoerced choices to make the movies they make. I wholeheartedly recommend that anyone who consumes porn take the time to research the porn they choose to consume, and make a real effort to stick to porn where they can verify that the performers actually like their jobs.)

The idea that porn magically becomes sexist because of its marketing or portrayal makes as much sense as claiming that stripping is sexist because of its marketing and portrayal.

Which is to say, practically none.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

You know, that statistic really only helps my case, not yours. Ask yourself: Why is that one book such a big seller? Because there is a lack of options. Just because porn isn't marketed towards women doesn't mean women don't buy porn. With male-aimed porn, there are so many various choices available that one single property never gets such exceedingly high sales. Men have options, and with options, men can pick things more focused on their individual desires. Women have no such capacity for choice and are only given the option of whatever books they find at the supermarket.

None of which makes it any less absurd to claim that female focused eroticism is 'negligible'. And there's hardly a lack of options out there. Maybe there are fewer options in pornographic films, but there's plenty of fan-made content, erotic pictures, and erotic literature.

Speaking of which, that fact is something else you brought up to try defending yourself which has only backfired on you. The reason your CVS doesn't have any male-aimed erotica books is because men don't need to buy books.

That's a pretty useless statement. There's no male-aimed books because men don't "need" to buy them. There's no female-aimed videos because women don't "need" to buy them. More likely there's just market forces at work. Men buy videos. Women buy books. Everyone views free porn online.

They can just go on the internet and easily find billions if not trillions of videos and pictures. Women can't do that. The few dozen books at CVS is all we have. That is entirely negligible. A couple hundred or even thousand books compared to a few trillion videos and pictures is so marginally low that when I tried calculating the ratio in my calculator, it just gave me an answer of '0'. That is the very definition of negligible.

There's plenty of even videos and pictures of porn for women out there if one but looks for it online for a few moments. 50 Shades was just something readily available with an easy to find count of sales.

Incidentally, here are two links on the sizes of respective industries.
Porn
Ero-lit

I wouldn't call $1.4 billion negligible either. Or 90% of ero-lit negligible, for that matter, considering that's about the right percentage of women.

Yes, this. Thank you.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Porn is not inherently misogynistic, but porn absolutely can be misogynistic (and a great deal of it quite definitely is). Similarly, porn is not inherently racist, but it would be stupid to pretend films with titles like "Oh No! There's a Negro In My Mom!" (which is a real title I just found in a cursory google search, sigh) aren't pretty damn problematic on that front.

Also, I think people get very confused about what is meant when we say that a lot of porn is repulsively sexist, because someone inevitably replies "but the women in the videos choose to be there!" Which is a great defense against "this porn is RAPE" but not so much against "this porn is sexist." The idea that pornos magically become non-sexist if a woman participates in them makes exactly as much sense as claiming that there would be nothing racist about a movie promoting the lynching of black people, provided black actors appeared in it.

In which case, we are then forced to ask, so what? Why is this sexism a problem? If all parties consented, this hardly seems like an issue. Which makes applying inflammatory labels to it entirely meaningless, and honestly, takes away from the importance of said labels.

That is why extreme libertarianism is disgusting.

Of course economic and employer pressure to do things with your own body and image that you don't want to is something that the state should limit.

[Occupied Deutschland]

In which case, we are then forced to ask, so what? Why is this sexism a problem? If all parties consented, this hardly seems like an issue. Which makes applying inflammatory labels to it entirely meaningless, and honestly, takes away from the importance of said labels.

That is why extreme libertarianism is disgusting.

Of course economic and employer pressure to do things with your own body and image that you don't want to is something that the state should limit.

Look. A limit has already been found!

[Nailed to the Perch]

Porn is not inherently misogynistic, but porn absolutely can be misogynistic (and a great deal of it quite definitely is). Similarly, porn is not inherently racist, but it would be stupid to pretend films with titles like "Oh No! There's a Negro In My Mom!" (which is a real title I just found in a cursory google search, sigh) aren't pretty damn problematic on that front.

Also, I think people get very confused about what is meant when we say that a lot of porn is repulsively sexist, because someone inevitably replies "but the women in the videos choose to be there!" Which is a great defense against "this porn is RAPE" but not so much against "this porn is sexist." The idea that pornos magically become non-sexist if a woman participates in them makes exactly as much sense as claiming that there would be nothing racist about a movie promoting the lynching of black people, provided black actors appeared in it.

(Also, sadly, it's not entirely true that porn actors all make free and uncoerced choices to make the movies they make. I wholeheartedly recommend that anyone who consumes porn take the time to research the porn they choose to consume, and make a real effort to stick to porn where they can verify that the performers actually like their jobs.)

The idea that porn magically becomes sexist because of its marketing or portrayal makes as much sense as claiming that stripping is sexist because of its marketing and portrayal.

Which is to say, practically none.

...I'm sorry, you seem to have responded to some other post than the one I wrote.

Again, porn is not inherently misogynistic. Neither is stripping. Similarly, books are not inherently misogynistic. That does not somehow mean that if you wrote a book entitled All Women Are Stupid Whores, that book would not be misogynistic. This is not really very complicated.

[The Serbian Empire]

Porn is not inherently misogynistic, but porn absolutely can be misogynistic (and a great deal of it quite definitely is). Similarly, porn is not inherently racist, but it would be stupid to pretend films with titles like "Oh No! There's a Negro In My Mom!" (which is a real title I just found in a cursory google search, sigh) aren't pretty damn problematic on that front.

Also, I think people get very confused about what is meant when we say that a lot of porn is repulsively sexist, because someone inevitably replies "but the women in the videos choose to be there!" Which is a great defense against "this porn is RAPE" but not so much against "this porn is sexist." The idea that pornos magically become non-sexist if a woman participates in them makes exactly as much sense as claiming that there would be nothing racist about a movie promoting the lynching of black people, provided black actors appeared in it.

(Also, sadly, it's not entirely true that porn actors all make free and uncoerced choices to make the movies they make. I wholeheartedly recommend that anyone who consumes porn take the time to research the porn they choose to consume, and make a real effort to stick to porn where they can verify that the performers actually like their jobs.)

Apparently, it's a whole series of racist pornography called "Oh No, There's a Negro in My (Wife, Mom, and Daughter)" made by Grip and Cram Johnson.

[Aurora Novus]

In which case, we are then forced to ask, so what? Why is this sexism a problem? If all parties consented, this hardly seems like an issue. Which makes applying inflammatory labels to it entirely meaningless, and honestly, takes away from the importance of said labels.

That is why extreme libertarianism is disgusting.

Of course economic and employer pressure to do things with your own body and image that you don't want to is something that the state should limit.

That's not the point I was making. What I was saying, is that calling something 'sexist' or 'racist', when all parties have consented to doing something of their own volition, devoid the term 'sexist' and 'racist' of any moral meaning in the context. Which I think is a problem.

What you're talking about is something different, and while I agree to an extent, what we're talking about now is problems with an economic structure of a society. Not misogyny.

[Nailed to the Perch]

Porn is not inherently misogynistic, but porn absolutely can be misogynistic (and a great deal of it quite definitely is). Similarly, porn is not inherently racist, but it would be stupid to pretend films with titles like "Oh No! There's a Negro In My Mom!" (which is a real title I just found in a cursory google search, sigh) aren't pretty damn problematic on that front.

Also, I think people get very confused about what is meant when we say that a lot of porn is repulsively sexist, because someone inevitably replies "but the women in the videos choose to be there!" Which is a great defense against "this porn is RAPE" but not so much against "this porn is sexist." The idea that pornos magically become non-sexist if a woman participates in them makes exactly as much sense as claiming that there would be nothing racist about a movie promoting the lynching of black people, provided black actors appeared in it.

In which case, we are then forced to ask, so what? Why is this sexism a problem? If all parties consented, this hardly seems like an issue. Which makes applying inflammatory labels to it entirely meaningless, and honestly, takes away from the importance of said labels.

...because those of us who are decent people would prefer to live in a society in which sexism is not condoned and encouraged, seeing as we recognize that women are human beings? I'm a little staggered at the idea that "so why is sexism a problem?" is a serious question that requires addressing.

[Aurora Novus]

The idea that porn magically becomes sexist because of its marketing or portrayal makes as much sense as claiming that stripping is sexist because of its marketing and portrayal.

Which is to say, practically none.

...I'm sorry, you seem to have responded to some other post than the one I wrote.

Again, porn is not inherently misogynistic. Neither is stripping. Similarly, books are not inherently misogynistic. That does not somehow mean that if you wrote a book entitled All Women Are Stupid Whores, that book would not be misogynistic. This is not really very complicated.

That really depends. Is the book being written as supposed factual claims about reality, or for the purposes of amusement/pleasure? The intent really impacts whether or not it should be labeled misogynistic.

There's a difference between labeling something misogynistic, and something containing misogyny within it.

[Lion Vale]

There is both porn directed at male and female audiences, and it's simply a double standard to say a woman is degrading herself by being in porn, but a man isn't it. Frankly, it depends on the type of porn who is and is not degraded as an INDIVIDUAL, but as a whole, it doesn't affect a whole gender.

[Threlizdun]

It is overwhelmingly targeted towards men and seldom appears to give much thought towards the desires of a female viewer. However, it certainly is not entirely misogynistic, and generally at appears to be showing an increasing level of consideration towards the desires of female viewers, both in regards to porn specifically targeted towards women and porn that doesn't appear to have any truly definite audience. I would have to say erotic literature is far ahead of pornographic videos in terms of abandonment of stereotypes and not being directed specifically towards men, though both appear to be improving.

[IshCong]

You're talking about ones at the very top, I think.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-female-porn-stars-get-paid-for-different-types-of-scenes-2012-11

Huh.
As a side note, this seemed interesting to me, "upward of $350,000 a year, while top male performers can make more than $100,000 annually."
Seems to imply male porn actors make far less than female porn actors.
I wonder why that is.

(Also, mildly worrying that apparently agencies don't often represent men, but so long as there are enough agencies that do, it probably isn't a problem.)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

...I'm sorry, you seem to have responded to some other post than the one I wrote.

Again, porn is not inherently misogynistic. Neither is stripping. Similarly, books are not inherently misogynistic. That does not somehow mean that if you wrote a book entitled All Women Are Stupid Whores, that book would not be misogynistic. This is not really very complicated.

I do agree though that labels tend to be overtly sexist as fuck and I don't like it when a perfect porn scene goes by the name of "watch this slut getting banged" or some stupid immature shit like that.

Also, with the whole coercive thing you were describing (that not all women are entirely consensually entering the contract) I do realize it. International Relations was a huge part of my Historical Studies degree, so we had to look at this facet as well as many others. The porn industry needs to be reformed to be less misogynistic-trended for sure and less coercively manipulated, but it isn't in itself misogynistic.

[Aurora Novus]

In which case, we are then forced to ask, so what? Why is this sexism a problem? If all parties consented, this hardly seems like an issue. Which makes applying inflammatory labels to it entirely meaningless, and honestly, takes away from the importance of said labels.

...because those of us who are decent people would prefer to live in a society in which sexism is not condoned and encouraged, seeing as we recognize that women are human beings? I'm a little staggered at the idea that "so why is sexism a problem?" is a serious question that requires addressing.

That's not what I asked.

I asked why this specific form of "sexism" that you've pointed out, is a problem.

After all, if all parties involved have consented to this supposed "sexist porn", and it's something which men and women both enjoy, then where is the problem?

If you're just calling it sexist, to call it sexist, without any moral claim attached to calling it sexist, why should we care that it's sexist?

Alternatively, are you attempting to claim degrading porn is immoral?

[Occupied Deutschland]

In which case, we are then forced to ask, so what? Why is this sexism a problem? If all parties consented, this hardly seems like an issue. Which makes applying inflammatory labels to it entirely meaningless, and honestly, takes away from the importance of said labels.

...because those of us who are decent people would prefer to live in a society in which sexism is not condoned and encouraged, seeing as we recognize that women are human beings? I'm a little staggered at the idea that "so why is sexism a problem?" is a serious question that requires addressing.

The problem lies in labeling something as 'sexist' or 'misognystic' purely based on its packaging or portrayal and NOT its actual sexism or misogny.

Very few people claim that pornstars are actively promoting sexism. This logically suggests that their acts aren't doing it either. They may take part in a video or portrayal that appears sexist (a period-piece porno about the past for example, would have the woman playing a very submissive and sexist role both sexually and otherwise). That doesn't neccessarily make the piece sexist and saying it does cheapens the impact of the word when it can be applied to other portrayals which actually qualify in spirit as well as 'letter'.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

That is why extreme libertarianism is disgusting.

Of course economic and employer pressure to do things with your own body and image that you don't want to is something that the state should limit.

That's not the point I was making. What I was saying, is that calling something 'sexist' or 'racist', when all parties have consented to doing something of their own volition, devoid the term 'sexist' and 'racist' of any moral meaning in the context. Which I think is a problem.

What you're talking about is something different, and while I agree to an extent, what we're talking about now is problems with an economic structure of a society. Not misogyny.

My point is that the misogyny in question is the part that I described as "to do things with your own body and image you don't want to". They are forced to an extent, by life conditions, and the message it passes is surely not one of sex equality and sex-positiveness.

If it is misogynistic, I'd rather say no, but if it is sexist... Surely is! Everything can be tainted by sexism in the way of celebration of male privilege and machismo to various degrees. Just because to the average person it doesn't seem an equivalent of wife-beating, it doesn't mean it can't have a certain bias, and that this bias is to a large degree unjustified and that we should control it because just as in TV, we can't have every kind of shit being held as acceptable by our average person.

The world of fetish surely can go without those influences feminist denounce. As a male, I think it would make straight porn actually a lot more enjoyable.

[Tubbsalot]

Posted this in the other thread before realising this existed. Annoying.

Personally you may think so.

But as a whole? So long as it's not some creepy illegal Former ComBloc rape porn you downloaded, no it ain't. Because consent.

Just because they consent to it, doesn't make it degrading as a whole. Just because someone like being degraded doesn't mean the way women are portrayed by the porn industry isn't degrading to women. Consent and degradation don't have anything to do with each other.

Ridiculous. Women aren't degraded by the mere existence of porn in which women are degraded. There's plenty of porn where men are degraded by women, but you'd have to be a fucking zealot to claim that it somehow damages the entire male gender.

This is pornography produced by consenting actors for consumption by individuals who enjoy it. The content is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether a movie contains Nazi roleplay or whatever. It's just catering to fetishes. It's no more objectionable than regular porn.

[Meryuma]

There's certainly misogynistic porn out there but the solution is to fight misogyny, not to fight porn.

Even gay porn is made more for gay men than it is for women.

That's a good thing, unless by gay porn you mean either male solo porn or lesbian porn (which absolutely should not be a mostly male-oriented thing).

[Hathradic States]

There's certainly misogynistic porn out there but the solution is to fight misogyny, not to fight porn.

Even gay porn is made more for gay men than it is for women.

That's a good thing, unless by gay porn you mean either male solo porn or lesbian porn (which absolutely should not be a mostly male-oriented thing).

What's wrong with a guy getting off looking at two women doing it?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

...because those of us who are decent people would prefer to live in a society in which sexism is not condoned and encouraged, seeing as we recognize that women are human beings? I'm a little staggered at the idea that "so why is sexism a problem?" is a serious question that requires addressing.

See, the problem is that you, as well as many other people, think or come across with this mentality that somehow porn that displays something that you do not condone is somehow the death of the universe and you shame those women who actually engage, voluntarily, in said acts as well.

I agree with you in principle about the forced people in it, and it should be reformed that part. It does not mean, however, that women who consensually enter such a contract to be in a porn flick of such nature should be ashamed because you think they are promoting sexism, while they are doing what they enjoy.

[Occupied Deutschland]

That's not the point I was making. What I was saying, is that calling something 'sexist' or 'racist', when all parties have consented to doing something of their own volition, devoid the term 'sexist' and 'racist' of any moral meaning in the context. Which I think is a problem.

What you're talking about is something different, and while I agree to an extent, what we're talking about now is problems with an economic structure of a society. Not misogyny.

My point is that the misogyny in question is the part that I described as "to do things with your own body and image you don't want to". They are forced to an extent, by life conditions, and the message it passes is surely not one of sex equality and sex-positiveness.

If it is misogynistic, I'd rather say no, but if it is sexist... Surely is! Everything can be tainted by sexism in the way of celebration of male privilege and machismo to various degrees. Just because to the average person it doesn't seem an equivalent of wife-beating, it doesn't mean it can't have a certain bias, and that this bias is to a large degree unjustified and that we should control it because just as in TV, we can't have every kind of shit being held as acceptable by our average person.

The world of fetish surely can go without those influences feminist denounce. As a male, I think it would make straight porn actually a lot more enjoyable.

And what of those who actually enjoy these fetishes?

Hell, disregarding even the 'audience' of them, there MUST be at least some portion of pornstars who actively enjoy the acts they're doing that qualify as these undue sexist influences you want to stop, what of them? Fuck those bitches they shouldn't enjoy something so dirty?