Misogynistic porn

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

Snort. I love when people project made up arguments onto me. It's extra funny in this case, when you've inadvertently picked quite possibly the single most inappropriate poster on this site to accuse of shaming women who enjoy acts that could be construed as degrading.

Perhaps, rather than telling me what I do, you should try reading what I actually say. It's crazy, but it just might work!

Well, I do not know your history, so it is hard for me to say whether you are the single most inappropriate poster on this site to accuse of such thing or not, like you have so gladly pointed out.

And perhaps, instead of trying to read what you actually say, maybe I could try and ask next time what you mean by that which is a better alternative than trying to guess what you mean by trying to decipher it half an hour.

[Threlizdun]

Also remember that not all women think in terms of how honorable is their job, oftentimes some women also think about exclusive monetary terms, and some even would do porn for a living seeing it can make more money than most things they would be doing. I am not saying it is right, but there's that consideration to make as well.

I understand this, and have nothing against those who choose to make a living in such a manner. What I was saying is that those involved still are often playing misogynistic roles, and are furthering misogyny in that sense. Again, I don't view the actors that negatively for doing so, but I cannot deny that it still is misogynistic.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

I find Encyclopedia Dramatica and Portuguese Uncyclopedia more objectionable than English and Spanish Uncyclopedia because the first uses racism, sexism and homophobia and the second homophobia for humour purposes, while the latter do not.

Yeah, but sex is different from a lot of other content. If you prefer black people, normally that's considered racism; in the context of sexuality it's more like an aesthetic preference, and one which isn't condemned.

If you find that such content makes you uncomfortable, quite reasonably, then feel free to not read/watch it. That's not much of an argument for eradication, though.

I would be glad if I'd have a certain category of porn where straight sexuality is portrayed in a nice, realistic way, where both enjoy each other with respect, but it is kind of focused in men.

Most porn is male-focused, therefore you, a male, don't enjoy much of it?

Are you sure you've correctly identified the issue here?

They shouldn't even do it because pornography is not exactly legal in the United States. The compensation should be standard in such cases.

I was not saying every porn is sexist. I was saying that porn that thinks women getting screwed up badly in degrading ways is a celebration of the phallus as a symbol. It is not wife-beating, woman-hating or woman-mocking, but it still is sexist in the definition of a lot of people. And pretty common sense among all minimally intellectualized people in my highly left-leaning coutry.

Doing porn is illegal in the US...? I'm... pretty much 100% certain that's not true.

Again, if you find that "celebration of the phallus" or sexist tones in porn aren't something you agree with, feel free not to watch it. Unless you can come up with a more compelling reason than "I don't enjoy it" you're not showing that it's undesirable in any other way.

1 - I was not asking for ban. I was asking for opt-outs, and labels. More rules. Your average boy is starting to watch hardcore porn at 10 nowadays. We need a message that says content (A) is the average of how nature works and what is held appropriate for people who believe in gender equality and sex-positiveness and (B) is the content that people who have a fetish for submission would rather like, but is not the kind of porn the average person with its average values would like.

Gay porn works pretty much that way. (A) looks like a normal fuck, (B) is people being paid to be bitches and bosses.

2 - Of course it is illegal, the government just pretend it doesn't exist. Wikipedia Miller Test.

[Aurora Novus]

I'll be back in a bit. Gotta go sell three character's locker/inventories worth or turnips in animal crossing.

I'm about to make over 30,000,000 bells in profits, wewt. This person's town is buying them for 624!

[Nailed to the Perch]

Please link me to where I proposed banning porn, stand-up specials, or Richard Pryor movies.

Hence why I added in 'dissaprove of'.

It's a "soulless world" if anyone, anywhere doesn't like all the same stand-up specials you do?

Oooookay then.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Because media shapes society. Media that is sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted shapes society in ways that are sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted.

So we must ban/disapprove of porn that's too 'extreme', stand-up specials that feature any kind of stereotypes, and every Richard Pryor movie ever made?

What a dull, soulless world.

It is not disapproving. It is calling a duck a duck.

[Nailed to the Perch]

Supply and demand. The fact that straight men are by far the largest market of porn consumers should make it fairly obvious why the demand for specific female porn actors exceeds the demand for specific male ones.

But that's of porn consumers. If we're going by supply and demand, then there would have to be way more male actors in porn than female actors for them to be paid very much less. If I'm following you right.
Specific actors don't seem to be what this is referring to, so much as averages and general wages.

You specifically referenced the wages of "top performers." Those are specific actors. Actors portraying "random person who gets banged in the background of the orgy scene an hour into the movie" don't make that kind of money, regardless of gender.

Also, I'm not sure you entirely understand "supply and demand." There don't need to be more men in porn than women for "supply and demand" to apply here; there simply need to be more men able and willing to fill the part of "some dude the viewer doesn't care about who has a penis or whatever" than there are women able and willing to fill the part of "blonde chick with enormous knockers who can pass for 18 and who can fit five dicks in her at once and act like she enjoys it," because those are the sorts of things the target market is demanding. If there were anywhere near as much porn targeted at straight women as porn targeted at straight men, you'd likely see a LOT more parity in pay across gender lines for top performers.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Also remember that not all women think in terms of how honorable is their job, oftentimes some women also think about exclusive monetary terms, and some even would do porn for a living seeing it can make more money than most things they would be doing. I am not saying it is right, but there's that consideration to make as well.

I understand this, and have nothing against those who choose to make a living in such a manner. What I was saying is that those involved still are often playing misogynistic roles, and are furthering misogyny in that sense. Again, I don't view the actors that negatively for doing so, but I cannot deny that it still is misogynistic.

That seems to be missing an entire element of misogyny though, as such pornography would just be representing it as other such things are represented.

I'd go back to an earlier comparison. Just because there is a porno set in sixteenth century Europe wherein the women are submissive and subservient both sexually and otherwise to the men doesn't mean that portrayal is promoting sexism/misogyny.

In the same way, so long as it's consensual etc., a porno wherein a woman or man gets slapped around or 'forcibly' fucked or teased or dominated or any other fetish under the sun, doesn't seem to me to make it a piece promoting sexism or misogyny or misandry. It's a fantasy. And while these certainly might be frequented by people who hold such views and perhaps even, however unfortunately, convince some poor porn-watching schlub that women/men *like* something like [insert fetish] it doesn't make the piece itself a part of that, but how the piece is being used by the observer.

In short, the fault for 'misognystic porn' is entirely dependent on what the watcher makes of it because the porn act itself is nothing but a fantasy being portrayed in a completely consensual and safe manner (barring, of course, that porn done illegally in some manner which obviously doesn't have the same protections).

[Occupied Deutschland]

Hence why I added in 'dissaprove of'.

It's a "soulless world" if anyone, anywhere doesn't like all the same stand-up specials you do?

Oooookay then.

Comedically missing the point is quite funny.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I understand this, and have nothing against those who choose to make a living in such a manner. What I was saying is that those involved still are often playing misogynistic roles, and are furthering misogyny in that sense. Again, I don't view the actors that negatively for doing so, but I cannot deny that it still is misogynistic.

This I can agree to. Misogynistic roles for me it's not really quite a good thing, for I do not see women as mere tools or other shit like that. I'm far more introverted and I tend to think sex comes with feelings, not just the act of sex itself, which is why I do not tend to watch much straight out porn but I try and seek more female-friendly porn.

[Nailed to the Perch]

If someone enjoys "sexist" porn, and someone enjoys making "sexist" porn, and so they engage in a trade with one another, there has been no harm committed, and harm only enters the situation when another party (you) attempts to shame them and others for this. That is immoral.

I seriously love how many people are insisting that I go around viciously and immorally shaming porn actors, solely on the basis of my saying that some porn is pretty damn sexist. I have to wonder if you'd apply the same silly standard to any other forms of media criticism I offered. If I say that "Birth of a Nation" is racist, does that mean I "shame filmmakers"? If I say that Fifty Shades of Grey is a really shitty book on a wide variety of levels, am I "shaming authors"? Is this "immoral" of me? Pray tell, what opinions about media am I permitted to hold?

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

In short, the fault for 'misognystic porn' is entirely dependent on what the watcher makes of it because the porn act itself is nothing but a fantasy being portrayed in a completely consensual and safe manner (barring, of course, that porn done illegally in some manner which obviously doesn't have the same protections).

What is the exact legislation in the United States regarding to this and the extent of its power?

As far as I know, by the Miller test, American pornography is theoretically filming firms for amateur couples or groups have their own sex tapes and then selling it with their consent. As if those guys were consumers rather than employees.

That is clearly different from what happens in the real world, with the already mentioned pressure put at porn stars to comply.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If someone enjoys "sexist" porn, and someone enjoys making "sexist" porn, and so they engage in a trade with one another, there has been no harm committed, and harm only enters the situation when another party (you) attempts to shame them and others for this. That is immoral.

I seriously love how many people are insisting that I go around viciously and immorally shaming porn actors, solely on the basis of my saying that some porn is pretty damn sexist. I have to wonder if you'd apply the same silly standard to any other forms of media criticism I offered. If I say that "Birth of a Nation" is racist, does that mean I "shame filmmakers"? If I say that Fifty Shades of Grey is a really shitty book on a wide variety of levels, am I "shaming authors"? Is this "immoral" of me? Pray tell, what opinions about media am I permitted to hold?

None

I'm joking, you make perfect sense, I just try to be the one who plays the moralistic devil's advocate in this topic.

Although, I still have to say, not all porn is misogynistic, and I do agree with you that it has to be less misogynistic as a whole in its practices and acts, but the truth remains that the market will drive the demand for porn and what they porn industry is willing to put out there. Also, being that it is a fantasy and all, I would expect a completely normal adult to distinguish the difference.

Although, from what I have experienced in America, it is pretty damn fucking hard to ask that and I am not talking about you, I mean in general, people do not know when to distinguish fact from fiction, which is why some of the most retarded bullshit happens.

[Nailed to the Perch]

It's a "soulless world" if anyone, anywhere doesn't like all the same stand-up specials you do?

Oooookay then.

Comedically missing the point is quite funny.

I would love to hear what point you feel you are expressing by claiming that disapproving of certain movies or comedy acts creates a "dull, soulless world" besides "disapproving of certain movies and comedy acts creates a dull, soulless world."

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

I understand this, and have nothing against those who choose to make a living in such a manner. What I was saying is that those involved still are often playing misogynistic roles, and are furthering misogyny in that sense. Again, I don't view the actors that negatively for doing so, but I cannot deny that it still is misogynistic.

This I can agree to. Misogynistic roles for me it's not really quite a good thing, for I do not see women as mere tools or other shit like that. I'm far more introverted and I tend to think sex comes with feelings, not just the act of sex itself, which is why I do not tend to watch much straight out porn but I try and seek more female-friendly porn.

Female-friendly porn almost always equals female-focused porn i.e. boring porn.

Female-friendly porn is never very liberal in terms of fetishes and sex acts. I don't think it is disgusting, and I don't think it should be always affectionate... I call a duck a duck, and I know what is happening there. But I think it doesn't need to be so cartoonish and playing with sexist roles as it is now, especially with the complex situation of the legality of pornography in the USA.

I like well-done straight porn way more than gay porn, but if I want to see people making sexy things that at the same time don't creep me at some point, I have almost always to stick to the latter.

[Aurora Novus]

If someone enjoys "sexist" porn, and someone enjoys making "sexist" porn, and so they engage in a trade with one another, there has been no harm committed, and harm only enters the situation when another party (you) attempts to shame them and others for this. That is immoral.

I seriously love how many people are insisting that I go around viciously and immorally shaming porn actors, solely on the basis of my saying that some porn is pretty damn sexist.

Which brings me back to my original point.

If you don't find people engaging in this behavior with one another, immoral, then what purpose does it serve labeling it "sexist"? All that does is give us a reason to not care about something be labeled sexist, and takes away from the meaning of the term.

I have to wonder if you'd apply the same silly standard to any other forms of media criticism I offered. If I say that "Birth of a Nation" is racist, does that mean I "shame filmmakers"? If I say that Fifty Shades of Grey is a really shitty book on a wide variety of levels, am I "shaming authors"? Is this "immoral" of me? Pray tell, what opinions about media am I permitted to hold?

There is a large difference between shaming a book that attempts to convey a factual reality, or a reality that society should take, and a book/piece of film that appeases a person's sexual interests. I think that should be obvious.

If porn's secret intent was to get men to abuse women, you might have a case.

But...it's not. It's intent is to appeal to a fantasy men and women have. That's not harmful, and therefore, deserves no criticism.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This I can agree to. Misogynistic roles for me it's not really quite a good thing, for I do not see women as mere tools or other shit like that. I'm far more introverted and I tend to think sex comes with feelings, not just the act of sex itself, which is why I do not tend to watch much straight out porn but I try and seek more female-friendly porn.

Female-friendly porn almost always equals female-focused porn i.e. boring porn.

Female-friendly porn is never very liberal in terms of fetishes and sex acts. I don't think it is disgusting, and I don't think it should be always affectionate... I call a duck a duck, and I know what is happening there. But I think it doesn't need to be so cartoonish and playing with sexist roles as it is now, especially with the complex situation of the legality of pornography in the USA.

I like well-done straight porn way more than gay porn, but if I want to see people making sexy things that at the same time don't creep me at some point, I have almost always to stick to the latter.

I find myself being too affectionate, which is why female-friendly porn appeals to me, because of the affection.

And lol you obviously do not know where to look if what you find creeps you out

[Tubbsalot]

If there were anywhere near as much porn targeted at straight women as porn targeted at straight men, you'd likely see a LOT more parity in pay across gender lines for top performers.

Oh, really. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the market fails, on occasion, but this isn't how it happens. If there were anywhere near as much commercial potential in female-oriented porn as male-oriented porn, that content hole would be rapidly filled (hur hur). The issue is that demand for female-oriented pornography is far lesser than demand for its counterpart.

[IshCong]

In short, the fault for 'misognystic porn' is entirely dependent on what the watcher makes of it because the porn act itself is nothing but a fantasy being portrayed in a completely consensual and safe manner (barring, of course, that porn done illegally in some manner which obviously doesn't have the same protections).

What is the exact legislation in the United States regarding to this and the extent of its power?

As far as I know, by the Miller test, American pornography is theoretically filming firms for amateur couples or groups have their own sex tapes and then selling it with their consent. As if those guys were consumers rather than employees.

That is clearly different from what happens in the real world, with the already mentioned pressure put at porn stars to comply.

The Miller Test defines what is and is not obscene, where obscenity isn't protected speech. Specifically, using three criteria. Whether the average person would find that it depicts something sexual, whether it is 'patently offensive' in its depiction of sexual acts, and whether it lacks any scientific, literary, artistic, or political value. If all three criteria are met, it is obscene. But I'm not seeing how that somehow makes porn illegal unless done by 'amateur couples...selling [their own sex tapes] with their consent'.
Pretty sure porn falls under 'artistic' in the third prong, making it protected.

[Threlizdun]

That seems to be missing an entire element of misogyny though, as such pornography would just be representing it as other such things are represented.

I'd go back to an earlier comparison. Just because there is a porno set in sixteenth century Europe wherein the women are submissive and subservient both sexually and otherwise to the men doesn't mean that portrayal is promoting sexism/misogyny.

I presumed we were primarily addressing pornography depicted in the modern era, both because it is the most common and reflects the most the attitudes of the industry towards women now. I don't really have much issue with depicting women as being more likely to be submissive in certain settings, nor do I oppose depictions of submissive women in modern settings. I do however oppose how common it is for modern settings, and how often it simply depicts stereotypes.

In the same way, so long as it's consensual etc., a porno wherein a woman or man gets slapped around or 'forcibly' fucked or teased or dominated or any other fetish under the sun, doesn't seem to me to make it a piece promoting sexism or misogyny or misandry. It's a fantasy. And while these certainly might be frequented by people who hold such views and perhaps even, however unfortunately, convince some poor porn-watching schlub that women/men *like* something like [insert fetish] it doesn't make the piece itself a part of that, but how the piece is being used by the observer.

Again, I have no problem with such a thing. I actually am a woman who is interested in being in a submissive role or having others submit to me, so I fully recognize that many scenarios simply are fantasies. However, a few cases are neveral really a problem. What is a problem is that submissive women in stereotypical roles is the standard for the industry. It is certainly getting better, but it still is an issue.

In short, the fault for 'misognystic porn' is entirely dependent on what the watcher makes of it because the porn act itself is nothing but a fantasy being portrayed in a completely consensual and safe manner (barring, of course, that porn done illegally in some manner which obviously doesn't have the same protections).

Heterosexual sex acts between a dominating man and a submissive women certainly are natural fantasies for those interested in domination and submission that are attracted to members of the opposite sex. It wouldn't make sense for a heterosexual man interested in domination or heterosexual women interested in submission to desire it differently. However, the fact that this is not just a trend amonst BDSM pornography, but pornography in general, is beyond a simple fantasy and is dealing with a widespread depiction of women in general.

[Nailed to the Perch]

If there were anywhere near as much porn targeted at straight women as porn targeted at straight men, you'd likely see a LOT more parity in pay across gender lines for top performers.

Oh, really. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the market fails, on occasion, but this isn't how it happens. If there were anywhere near as much commercial potential in female-oriented porn as male-oriented porn, that content hole would be rapidly filled (hur hur). The issue is that demand for female-oriented pornography is far lesser than demand for its counterpart.

...yes, I know (although there's undoubtedly some degree of chicken-egg complication there). I think you misread my post. I didn't say anything whatsoever about the reasons in the disparity between male-targeted porn and female-targeted porn. I simply said that it exists, and in a world where it didn't exist, things would work differently.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Soldati, in the developed countries porn is really seriously R18?

I started watching it when I was 9, and all of my male school colleagues already did so at 11.

I'm afraid the generation of my children will start even earlier (since children are each day more intelligent and well-informed earlier, we are having puberty earlier too; I was a case myself, though completing only at 14-15, I started puberty at 5-7, and the school system to which I was exposed was already pretty outdated for me, with my first 7/10 rate in a subject other than Math only happening in the 6th grade, and I having it all 10/10 until the 3rd), and it will cause problems.

I think law should be more practical than theoretical (there I'm being against prohibition of abortion and drugs), and in such cases exposing young boys to those examples is not creating very nice things. Especially since the capitalist system will make those who are already in a victimized situation of economic poor more susceptible to ignorance and distorted media and culture representations and actually increase sexism to a degree, want us or not.

[Threlizdun]

Female-friendly porn almost always equals female-focused porn i.e. boring porn.

Female-friendly porn is never very liberal in terms of fetishes and sex acts. I don't think it is disgusting, and I don't think it should be always affectionate... I call a duck a duck, and I know what is happening there.

Hun, you've been viewing the wrong porn

[Aurora Novus]

I presumed we were primarily addressing pornography depicted in the modern era, both because it is the most common and reflects the most the attitudes of the industry towards women now. I don't really have much issue with depicting women as being more likely to be submissive in certain settings, nor do I oppose depictions of submissive women in modern settings. I do however oppose how common it is for modern settings, and how often it simply depicts stereotypes.

So...what you find to be immoral isn't the subject itself, but the prevalence of the subject?

What?

If female-sub, male-dom porn isn't immoral, it's not immoral period, regardless of how popular it is. Popularity doesn't make something good or bad. Only popular or unpopular.

The best you could say about it's popularity is that it could be seen as becoming "cliche" and "unartistic". But something to be morally opposed to? Hardly.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

In short, the fault for 'misognystic porn' is entirely dependent on what the watcher makes of it because the porn act itself is nothing but a fantasy being portrayed in a completely consensual and safe manner (barring, of course, that porn done illegally in some manner which obviously doesn't have the same protections).

Heterosexual sex acts between a dominating man and a submissive women certainly are natural fantasies for those interested in domination and submission that are attracted to members of the opposite sex. It wouldn't make sense for a heterosexual man interested in domination or heterosexual women interested in submission to desire it differently. However, the fact that this is not just a trend amonst BDSM pornography, but pornography in general, is beyond a simple fantasy and is dealing with a widespread depiction of women in general.

Exactly what I was trying to say!