Misogynistic porn

[The Serbian Empire]

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.

Banning things like that would only make them more desirable. Just look at prohibition with alcohol during the 1920s in the US. All Prohibition does is put organized crime in the place of the reputable retailers and Richard Pryor, porn, and stand-up comedy special footage will be sold on the black market if people want to watch them. Not too much better than the Christian fundamentalists who seek ban alcohol, tobacco, pornography, and violent video games for morality reasons.

[Tubbsalot]

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.

Oh, I see.

I'm not sure I agree totally agree with your conclusions, but you were talking about something quite obscure which I can't be bothered thinking about, so that's that.

[Threlizdun]

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.

No, what is wrong is that it is depicting most women in a submissive role. Showing the occasional women in a submissive role is perfectly fine, because there are quite a few women interested in being submissive. However, showing almost all women in that manner is absolutely ridiculous and spreading absurd stereotypes about how the average woman behaves and what the average woman desires. The vast majority is targeted exclusively towards men, despite the fact that a rather significant percentage of women enjoy pornography as well.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

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.

So it is the opposite of what I thought?

Damn, this is too complex. -.-

There should be a Wikipedia article and a Wikimedia Commons map with all the pornography laws, explaining the differences and particularities of each country, just like there is with homosexuality.

[Sarzonia]

Porn certainly can be misogynistic.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

Well, it IS rated for 18 and older. Didn't certainly stop me from not giving an actual fuck and actually watching it since I was 16 or 17.

The fact that it does say "older than 18" doesn't really stop anyone, as your case shows. Anyone who wants to explore it will explore it no matter the age, so putting R18 labels is fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Same as those who want to try drugs will try drugs no matter what you tell them.

I am a sharp kid as well (almost being able to skip up to 11th grade when I came to the US but I was fucked over by staying in 9th grade when I was 14 and thus making me a slacker because I knew far too much), and while I do think the law has to be more practical, young boys will always watch what you make a taboo, and will most always certainly do what you tell them not to do for the most part.

Like a wise friend of mine said "try to hold on to something as hard as you can and you will eventually find it slipping out of your grasp". I think it has a certain value of truth here.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

I don't think porn is misogynistic or degrading so long that:
A. All parties consent to what is being filmed;
B. All parties are enjoying what they are doing;
C. People are not saying, in the video, shit like "Women are beneath us" or something in a serious way. I highly support disclaimers.

As a former adult actress, I didn't feel degraded. I really enjoyed what I did, and if something wasn't to my liking I just said no, I'm not doing that. What we need is more adult actresses who have the power to say no to a role and not feel pressured into preforming in a way that they don't like.

[IshCong]

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.

So it is the opposite of what I thought?

Damn, this is too complex. -.-

There should be a Wikipedia article and a Wikimedia Commons map with all the pornography laws, explaining the differences and particularities of each country, just like there is with homosexuality.

It's really not that complex. Porn can be and is produced legally in America. Thus, it isn't illegal to produce porn in America.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't think porn is misogynistic or degrading so long that:
A. All parties consent to what is being filmed;
B. All parties are enjoying what they are doing;
C. People are not saying, in the video, shit like "Women are beneath us" or something in a serious way. I highly support disclaimers.

As a former adult actress, I didn't feel degraded. I really enjoyed what I did, and if something wasn't to my liking I just said no, I'm not doing that. What we need is more adult actresses who have the power to say no to a role and not feel pressured into preforming in a way that they don't like.

Preach

[Tubbsalot]

Showing the occasional women in a submissive role is perfectly fine, because there are quite a few women interested in being submissive. However, showing almost all women in that manner is absolutely ridiculous and spreading absurd stereotypes about how the average woman behaves and what the average woman desires. The vast majority is targeted exclusively towards men, despite the fact that a rather significant percentage of women enjoy pornography as well.

It's not like I use a white noise generator to produce a random sample of porn for myself, so I can't really say whether this is true, but I'm pretty sure there's a *lot* of porn (and a lot of consumers of the same) which does not treat women submissively or in any degrading fashion. Has the distribution changed while I wasn't looking? Is there now no more porn where two people fuck without any surrounding context?

[Jagalonia]

Mmmno.

Mmmmja. It might take effort, but the right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it) mind can make anything seem whatever it wishes.

That's racist...

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

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

Banning things like that would only make them more desirable. Just look at prohibition with alcohol during the 1920s in the US. All Prohibition does is put organized crime in the place of the reputable retailers and Richard Pryor, porn, and stand-up comedy special footage will be sold on the black market if people want to watch them. Not too much better than the Christian fundamentalists who seek ban alcohol, tobacco, pornography, and violent video games for morality reasons.

I was not advocating banning it. I don't want to see anything, to the exception of irl kiddiporn, banned.

I just think that it is very weird that the average straight porn work today looks like a BDSM thing (I'm not even complaining how straight porn girl-on-girl is very distant from anything I'd call lesbian). In bed what your average male and female do is clearly different.

It should be something to be curbed to its appropriate domination-submission niche someway. It would make straight porn a lot better for those of us who aren't interested in it, it would be more realistic, it would send those being first exposed to sex or even close relationships by this kind of media better messages.

[Nailed to the Perch]

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.

You keep talking as if media that "appeals to a fantasy" somehow exists in a magical vacuum in which it does not shape society. That's such utter nonsense that I'm not sure how you can even type it with a straight face. All media influences people. There is no magical "off" button you can push on your brain that allows you to consume media without it affecting you in any way, shape, or form, and it's absolutely ridiculous to assert that porn viewers all push that nonexistent button.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Ask any woman under the age of thirty or so whether she feels pressure from society to remove her pubic hair. Ask the same question of a woman over the age of sixty or so. Betcha you'll hear somewhat different answers. Then come back and explain to me how exactly the mainstream view on pubic hair shifted in the last few decades despite no one ever being influenced in any way by media involving people's genitals.

[The Serbian Empire]

Banning things like that would only make them more desirable. Just look at prohibition with alcohol during the 1920s in the US. All Prohibition does is put organized crime in the place of the reputable retailers and Richard Pryor, porn, and stand-up comedy special footage will be sold on the black market if people want to watch them. Not too much better than the Christian fundamentalists who seek ban alcohol, tobacco, pornography, and violent video games for morality reasons.

I was not advocating banning it. I don't want to see anything, to the exception of irl kiddiporn, banned.

I just think that it is very weird that the average straight porn work today looks like a BDSM thing (I'm not even complaining how straight porn girl-on-girl is very distant from anything I'd call lesbian). In bed what your average male and female do is clearly different.

It should be something to be curbed to its appropriate domination-submission niche someway. It would make straight porn a lot better for those of us who aren't interested in it, it would be more realistic, it would send those being first exposed to sex or even close relationships by this kind of media better messages.

If it sells then the capitalist way is to make more of what sells. Unfortunately, this is what sells the best of all the pornography out there.

[IshCong]

Banning things like that would only make them more desirable. Just look at prohibition with alcohol during the 1920s in the US. All Prohibition does is put organized crime in the place of the reputable retailers and Richard Pryor, porn, and stand-up comedy special footage will be sold on the black market if people want to watch them. Not too much better than the Christian fundamentalists who seek ban alcohol, tobacco, pornography, and violent video games for morality reasons.

I was not advocating banning it. I don't want to see anything, to the exception of irl kiddiporn, banned.

I just think that it is very weird that the average straight porn work today looks like a BDSM thing (I'm not even complaining how straight porn girl-on-girl is very distant from anything I'd call lesbian). In bed what your average male and female do is clearly different.

It should be something to be curbed to its appropriate domination-submission niche someway. It would make straight porn a lot better for those of us who aren't interested in it, it would be more realistic, it would send those being first exposed to sex or even close relationships by this kind of media better messages.

I'm wondering what sort of 'average straight porn' you're looking at if it looks like BDSM. A bit of a dominant-submissive personality duo doesn't make something BDSM. It takes a quite a bit more than that.
I also imagine that if a great minority of people were not interested in that sort of porn, it would not be the average simply because it wouldn't sell as well. The sort of porn that the majority of people are interested in would be the average, logically.

[Aurora Novus]

No, what is wrong is that it is depicting most women in a submissive role.

How? If submissive porn of women isn't bad, then it follows that lots of people liking it isn't a problem. It does not make a moral difference if one or one billion people like a particular sexual fetish. Only whether or not that fetish can be said to be moral, immoral, or amoral.

The rest of your post doesn't really matter, because at best it's a complaint about a lack of critical thinking in society, and certain individuals inability or refusal to differentiate between reality and fiction. That's not grounds to complain about the popularity of a sexual interest though. What is this hipster nonsense?

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Showing the occasional women in a submissive role is perfectly fine, because there are quite a few women interested in being submissive. However, showing almost all women in that manner is absolutely ridiculous and spreading absurd stereotypes about how the average woman behaves and what the average woman desires. The vast majority is targeted exclusively towards men, despite the fact that a rather significant percentage of women enjoy pornography as well.

It's not like I use a white noise generator to produce a random sample of porn for myself, so I can't really say whether this is true, but I'm pretty sure there's a *lot* of porn (and a lot of consumers of the same) which does not treat women submissively or in any degrading fashion. Has the distribution changed while I wasn't looking? Is there now no more porn where two people fuck without any surrounding context?

Go to the 10 main online porn domains (with the appropriate Firefox or Google extensions to ban pop-ups, unwelcomed scripts and all), look the first 30 pages of each of them.

You will find many things that don't remotely look like what your average female would like to do in a normal day. Less than 5% of it would make a person with a strong interest in males and male love and male faces and a weaker - though existent - interest in females happy, and even less for those that don't have sexual interest in females at all. It doesn't need to be male-centered and phallus-culting to be interesting, it doesn't need it even for be perverted.

[Libertarian California]

Another thing, apparently the porn industry is kinda racist.
Inter-racial porn is considered to be 'extreme'.

Because a wealthy white woman getting gang raped by black thugs is extreme.

That's what interracial porn usually is. It's done deliberately.

[Threlizdun]

It's not like I use a white noise generator to produce a random sample of porn for myself, so I can't really say whether this is true, but I'm pretty sure there's a *lot* of porn (and a lot of consumers of the same) which does not treat women submissively or in any degrading fashion. Has the distribution changed while I wasn't looking? Is there now no more porn where two people fuck without any surrounding context?

Yes, there is quite a lot of porn that does not treat women submissively or in a degrading fashion, but the overwhelming majority does in fact still appear to treat women in such a manner. Their pleasure is generally depicted as less important, and their role is still for the most part to serve the men present and the audience. The men more or less take what they want and do as they please.

[Nailed to the Perch]

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.

No, what is wrong is that it is depicting most women in a submissive role. Showing the occasional women in a submissive role is perfectly fine, because there are quite a few women interested in being submissive. However, showing almost all women in that manner is absolutely ridiculous and spreading absurd stereotypes about how the average woman behaves and what the average woman desires. The vast majority is targeted exclusively towards men, despite the fact that a rather significant percentage of women enjoy pornography as well.

Yup.

Beyond that, a lot of male Dom/female sub porn goes WAY past "entertaining BDSM dynamic" and into the realm of "jesus christ this is some creepy shit." Speaking as someone who really ought to be in the target market for such porn, I pretty quickly gave up trying to find anything watchable, because a disturbingly large percentage of it seems to be less wank-fuel than nightmare-fuel, less "watch a dude dominate a chick in sexy ways" and more "watch a dude abuse a stupid fucking whore, which is all women are, fuck them all, worthless bitches."

[Warda]

I'm kinda wondering how we're legitimantly reviewing porn.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

I was not advocating banning it. I don't want to see anything, to the exception of irl kiddiporn, banned.

I just think that it is very weird that the average straight porn work today looks like a BDSM thing (I'm not even complaining how straight porn girl-on-girl is very distant from anything I'd call lesbian). In bed what your average male and female do is clearly different.

It should be something to be curbed to its appropriate domination-submission niche someway. It would make straight porn a lot better for those of us who aren't interested in it, it would be more realistic, it would send those being first exposed to sex or even close relationships by this kind of media better messages.

I'm wondering what sort of 'average straight porn' you're looking at if it looks like BDSM. A bit of a dominant-submissive personality duo doesn't make something BDSM. It takes a quite a bit more than that.
I also imagine that if a great minority of people were not interested in that sort of porn, it would not be the average simply because it wouldn't sell as well. The sort of porn that the majority of people are interested in would be the average, logically.

I'm in-between gay and straight, you know, so I thought it would be clearer for anyone.

Buttsex. Especially to the guy's butt. *blushes*

Perhaps because the guys that don't like the status quo of porn are held away from it because it became a turn-off? Only in this thread there already is two of them/us. Well, to me not exactly a turn-off, just something I would like to not be presented as if it was the most normal thing on this world by every video that focus on Rio's preferred niches. Or the first 100 pages in [èks]v...os.

[Aurora Novus]

You keep talking as if media that "appeals to a fantasy" somehow exists in a magical vacuum in which it does not shape society. That's such utter nonsense that I'm not sure how you can even type it with a straight face.

When you're done playing with your straw man, you might take a moment and go back and read my responses to you, in particular the post where I agreed with you media can influence people.

Key word being "can". Not "always will in the exact manner you say it does".

All media influences people. There is no magical "off" button you can push on your brain that allows you to consume media without it affecting you in any way, shape, or form, and it's absolutely ridiculous to assert that porn viewers all push that nonexistent button.

What I have asserted is not that media never affects people, but that people have the capability to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

Case in point, the fetish I spoke of earlier is one that involves my, rather painful, prolonged, and gruesome, death. Your reasoning seems to suggest I am now compelled to go seek out this demise, simply because I saw it happen on a screen.

I assert this is nonsense, because I have the capability to differentiate between fantasy and reality, and know that while something may be okay in fantasy, it does not make it okay, or even desirable, in reality.

Do you not agree with this assertion?


The rest of your post is nonsense not worth responding to, as it's attacking something I never claimed. Although I would point out that a woman shaving her pubic hair, because she wants to attract someone who she knows is attracted to shaved genital areas, is not in any way oppressed, nor is this a problem.

[IshCong]

It's not like I use a white noise generator to produce a random sample of porn for myself, so I can't really say whether this is true, but I'm pretty sure there's a *lot* of porn (and a lot of consumers of the same) which does not treat women submissively or in any degrading fashion. Has the distribution changed while I wasn't looking? Is there now no more porn where two people fuck without any surrounding context?

Yes, there is quite a lot of porn that does not treat women submissively or in a degrading fashion, but the overwhelming majority does in fact still appear to treat women in such a manner. Their pleasure is generally depicted as less important, and their role is still for the most part to serve the men present and the audience. The men more or less take what they want and do as they please.

Concerning the 'their pleasure is generally depicted as less important', I'm going to have to disagree. The woman's pleasure seems to be a major focus in the...er...dialogue, etc of a huge sum of porn videos.
Nor would I say that they are usually given any sort of 'serve the man' role. Maybe serve the audience, but considering the porn is being produced for the sole purpose of being consumed by the audience, that's only natural.
Can't say that I see a lot of men taking what they want and doing as they please. Most of porn seems to be for mutual pleasure.
Though, really, none of this means a lot because you're saying "A" and I'm saying "B" based on personal experiences, which are worth little to nothing.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

It's not like I use a white noise generator to produce a random sample of porn for myself, so I can't really say whether this is true, but I'm pretty sure there's a *lot* of porn (and a lot of consumers of the same) which does not treat women submissively or in any degrading fashion. Has the distribution changed while I wasn't looking? Is there now no more porn where two people fuck without any surrounding context?

Yes, there is quite a lot of porn that does not treat women submissively or in a degrading fashion, but the overwhelming majority does in fact still appear to treat women in such a manner. Their pleasure is generally depicted as less important, and their role is still for the most part to serve the men present and the audience. The men more or less take what they want and do as they please.

The woman's pleasure is less important from a commercial standpoint. Pornography that is marketed toward men will generally concern itself more with how the man is being pleasured, naturally, since the viewers are typically shagging vicariously through him (but not always - many men find women's pleasure quite attractive). That preference for men's pleasure over women's pleasure in pornography oriented toward men isn't necessarily misogynistic or degrading, though.