|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Internet Porn | |||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
[quote]I have data which refutes it, it just doesn't fit your claims.[/.quote]
I looked back at the thread, I don't see anything rebutting my claims. Would you like to point to something specific?
quote: What? But surely, you've been arguing that only namby pamby man-hating femnisists would ever make a claim so absurd.
quote: Actually, that is EXACTLY what I am advocating; that the performers achieve the same rights; that racist tropes are not excused by artistic license or considering everyones kink equal.
quote: Well just because YOU have not means little; thats a tiny local anecdotal experience. I am NOT saying it is an illegitimate experience, but you simply cannot generalise and claim as you are doing that this is how it is always and everywhere. You cannot persist in pretending that the only concerns ever expressed about porn are fictitious and malicious slanders.
quote: Thank you for confirming your resort to ad hominem, and thus the admission you don't have a leg to stand on.
quote: A classic disengenuous response; it is of course obvious that we discriminate according to relevant criteria. Thats the key, RELEVANT criteria. The race of of soemone you sleep with is not relevant UNLESS you are buying into that whole racist trope I identified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
So lets have a look at the happy, wonderful, care-free world of porn:
Nato force 'feeds Kosovo sex trade' Ian Traynor in ZagrebFriday May 7, 2004 The Guardian Western troops, policemen, and civilians are largely to blame for the rapid growth of the sex slavery industry in Kosovo over the past five years, a mushrooming trade in which hundreds of women, many of them under-age girls, are tortured, raped, abused and then criminalised, Amnesty International said yesterday. In a report on the rapid growth of sex-trafficking and forced prostitution rackets since Nato troops and UN administrators took over the Balkan province in 1999, Amnesty said Nato soldiers, UN police, and western aid workers operated with near impunity in exploiting the victims of the sex traffickers. As a result of the influx of thousands of Nato-led peacekeepers, "Kosovo soon became a major destination country for women trafficked into forced prostitution. A small-scale local market for prostitution was transformed into a large-scale industry based on trafficking, predominantly run by criminal networks." The international presence in Kosovo continues to generate 80% of the income for the pimps, brothel-owners, and mafiosi who abduct local girls or traffic women mainly from Moldova, Romania, Ukraine, and Russia to Kosovo via Serbia, the report said, although the international "client base" for the sex trade has fallen to 20% last year from 80% four years ago. Up to 2,000 women are estimated to have been coerced into sex slavery in Kosovo, which had seen "an unprecedented escalation in trafficking" in recent years. The number of premises in Kosovo listed by a special UN police unit as being involved in the rackets has swollen from 18 in 1999 to 200 this year. A few weeks ago the UN's department of peacekeeping in New York acknowledged that "peacekeepers have come to be seen as part of the problem in trafficking rather than the solution". The sex slavery in Kosovo parallels similar phenomena next door in Bosnia, where the arrival of thousands of Nato peacekeepers in 1995 fuelled a thriving forced prostitution industry. International personnel in Kosovo enjoy immunity from prosecution unless this is waived by the UN in New York for UN employees or by national military chiefs for Nato-led troops. One police officer last year and another the year before had their immunity waived, enabling criminal prosecutions. "Amnesty International has been unable to find any evidence of any criminal proceedings related to trafficking against any military personnel in their home countries," the 80-page report said. The report said that US, French, German and Italian soldiers were known to have been involved in the rackets. Criticism of the international troops in Kosovo follows a recent broader indictment of the Kosovo mission by the International Crisis Group thinktank, which called for the mission to be overhauled. Women were bought and sold for up to 2,000 and then kept in appalling conditions as slaves by their "owners", Amnesty said. They were routinely raped "as a means of control and coercion", beaten, held at gunpoint, robbed, and kept in darkened rooms unable to go out. Apart from women trafficked into Kosovo, there is a worsening problem with girls abducted locally. A Kosovo support group working with victims reported that a third of these locals were under 14, and 80% were under 18. The UN admission in March that its peacekeepers were part of the problem was welcome, said Amnesty. Footnote: And yes, it is entirely likely that some of these performers will be seen in the West, via the internet. It is, after all, global - as is the demand. This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-29-2004 11:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Enough with the abuse; can you point me to where these claims are rubtted or not?
quote: Many such rights were only granted a few decades ago; this ovbservation is over too short a period to be meaningful IMO. But secondly, that only addresses criminal acts; any misogtyby not seen as criminal would not be detected.
quote: actually, I asked a genuine question. Now I see what data you meant, I can respond specifically.
quote: You're ignoring a salient point - the MARKET for these slave-traded girls was indeed WESTERN men. Men who are supposedly signed up to the equality of women and things like inaleinable human rights to life and liberty. But in fact what they did was de facto collude with the traffickers. Now if Western men can and will collude with slave traffickers, why should I not think theres a lot of blind eye going on domestically?
quote: Huh? Its already illegal to broadcast racist propaganda in most Western states, so the answer is "yes obviously".
quote: Well thats because you generalise it yourself as if any objection necessarily emanated from Mary Whitehouse. At no point have I ever stated that all of porn was corecive and yet you have attacked me AS IF I said that.
quote: Clearly not - the salient point about them is their poverty.
quote: and hereyou misrepresent my argument again. I have expWhat makes this really laughable is that it can only be made in a society where such "tropes" existed. You know there are people outside of western countries which also end up dating exclusively outside of their race?[/quote] I do, but as you also know, this is wholly immaterial to my argument.
quote: Actually, I specifically said that I was addressing one trope that existed as a subset of all interracial porn. But don't start addressing my ACTUAL argument now, whatever you do!
quote: ... as I said. In fact, I that was more or less THE POINT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: False comparison; I said I have "been privy to conversations between men which do degrade women", and you have turned this into "gossip about the men in the office". Gossip <> Degradation I said what I meant, I meant what I said; I did not say "gossip" and I did not mean "gossip".
quote: This is neither surprising nor relevant nor new. We only FIND it suprising because of the fictiotious "demure female" archetype.
quote: Resorting purely to textual criticism isn't going to help. But its is exactly this sort of apologetic that perpetuates the stereotyping; most guys don't even accept there is a problem and carry on. Whuch is exactly why dealing with the problem usually requires recourse to the law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Poisoning the well
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yep. It implies that no feminist author could possibly be well researched; that is direct well poisoning.
quote: The scenarios are not equivalent, because we are discussing a dispite in which the proponents of both sides are academiocs, not one in which only one side is an academic. You appear to be rejecting anything ever produced by the gender studies departments of any university based on a groundless slur to their integrity. Now I, and others, have picked you up for blanket abuse of "feminists". It has been conceded that their essentialists feminists, and extremists as in any field, and yet you continue to apply your generic abuse, merely, I presume, because you do not like their conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Well when you make it a point to abuse feminists and feminism, you don't come across as someone actually interested in debating anything, but merely banging your drum.
quote: Agreed. But if, as I and others may claim, we are talking about a social form that has been culturally embedded for millenia, then 30-40 years remains fairly insignificant. Taking Japan as an example, representation of women in work was protected by law, but all to often they were given sinecure positions with no responsibilities and were referred to as "office flowers" as late as the 80's, anyway. So there may be some doubt as to exactly how effective measures have been to date in changing the actual, as opposed superficial, culture.
quote: My point, as I have repeatedly and unambiguously stated, is that we do have just cause to suspect that not everything that goes on in the sex trade is voluntary, and this is a cause for concern. Your position appears to have been that porn is essentially voluntary (even if only of the pay-for-play variety). What I think is different in porn to most other industries is that the product that is sold is a person, or the image of a person. It cannot be treated exactly like industries where the product is an inanimate object. More care must be employed in porn than in most industries for exactly that reason.
quote: We do have reason to fear that there may be people in porn unwillingly; you cannot simply dismiss every such concern, as it appears to me you have done, on the basis that the charge is ludicrous. It is not ludicrous; you do not know, you simply do not know if the girls you see on pictures that could have been taken anywhere in the world and at nearly any date in the last decade are there because they choose to be or becuase there is a man behind the camera making threats. And the further point I made about this was that this seems to be a "see no evil speak no evil" apporoach which only serves to discredit porn further by denying there's any problem to be addressed.
quote: And the internet is unregulated, and therefore very convenient to the black market. So it is indeed plausible that on the internet, we may find coercive porn, or porn in which the performers were coerced. That is the position which you have hitherto been rejecting as unreasonable.
quote: You need to expand what you mean by that; it makes no sense to me.
quote: I just can't agree with that; it is openly and even proudly transmitting racist propaganda. And if it were not for the apologetics offered just becuase of its sexual content, it would be seen as just as unnacceptable as any other form of hate speech.
quote: First question: Are you aware of this particular kink existing anywhere outside the ex-slave-owning societies of the West? But secondly, you are asking for too much introspection. I didn't claim that such porn was causative of racsim; I said it was SYMPTOMATIC of racism. So what we should be looking for is porn duplicating tropes of racism, and that is indeed what we see. To the extent this plays a causative role, it is only through repitition and the reinforcement provided by others echoing your thoughts; that is, it normalises the prejudice. Thus, you ask:
quote: Publicly, yes. But privately, that is the consuming market as well; they have to be, because they are the only people who care about these particular issues. All there concerns as expressed in their outrage are hit one by one by the porn construction. This is similar to the argument that some homophobia is triggered by an individuals suppression of homoerotic desires within themselves.
quote: Yes, despite the fact I have repeatedly denied it.
quote: My arguments are watertight; knee jerk rejection of any criticism does porn a disservice.
quote: That is, the deciding factor in their participation was their poverty, not their skin colour.
quote: You're putting owrds in my mouth I'm afraid. I didn;t say that all sites exhibiting interracial sex make use of racist tropes; I said that some sites make explicit and deliberate use of racist tropes for the construction of porn; porn in which THE POINT is the frisson of crossing "race boundaries". In addition, I said someone selecting partners on the basis of skin tone is indeed making a racist decision. That does not imply that THIS rtacist decision is the same set of tropes as the miscegenation trope.
quote: That would depend on whether we see the whole suite: cuckolding, the allegedly greater sexual prowess of blacks, the white male rejected by the white female. If we do NOT see the whole suite, then the fact that some of the sex is "interracial" is irrelevant.
quote: Erm, yes exactly. And its this sort of paranoia about the sexual beast that is the black man displacing the white man from white womens affections that drives both the horror of miscegenation and the porn that presents, reifies and reinforces that fear. I'm not giving credence to the argument ; I'm demonstrating its still in circulation.
quote: Umm, just becuase they found person attractive? Why can;t it just be as normal and simple as that? Why does 'interracial' sex HAVE to be fetishised?
quote: Yes exactly. And the arguments for seperating dance halls included the inability of white women to resist the temptation of the black sexual athlete, as I pointed out many posts ago.
quote: No, it has always referred to the specific set of tropes I identified to you. And it specifically excluded porn in which 'interracial' sex is incidental. Thus, it is not a broad brush, its a fine and pointed one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
you ommitted a term; I have reinserted it for you:
quote: Its quite a ridiculous stereotype
quote: Well yes I did note that, which is in part why I think your traditional denunciation of "feminists" is mere rhetoric. Why keep appealing to these silly steroetypes if you don't agree with them?
quote: Why don't you just call them "feminists"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: No, I'm saying that these have been inappropriately named as champions of feminism, and used as exemplary icons of feminism, in order that the moderate case can be attakced through ther proxy of the extreme case. So there is much hysteria about Dworkin and her ilk - and even then, Dworkin makes more moderate claims than are often attributed to her - and insufficent recognition of OTHER feminists. A good example of this is the bra-burning hairy-legged man-hating stereotype.
quote: Well I would think that was most post-70's Feminism. Yes, why is it you think Feminism is monolithic and stuck in awe-struck hero-worship of Dworkin?
quote: And rightly so; you can't pick and choose who constitutes a feminist merely because YOU agree with them or not.
quote: Yes of course; thats what I was pointing out - feminism does not just have one opinion, and it is not fair to present it as if it does. There are pros', moderates, and anit's on this issue, and you are perfectly entitled to express your own position and preference. You are not entitled to declare who is and wqho is not a feminist based on your own position on this matter, nor can you fairly tar all feminists with the anti brush. Why not just deal with it as a field of reserach and opinion like any other, exhibiting various strands of argument like any other, and containing dievrse people and opinions, like any other?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Well, we don't know and cannot know I'm afraid; its an inherent limit of the medium and is a line of work already substantially underground. But to be frank, all I need is ONE incident to legimiately claim there is cause for concern. If you are going to claim there is no cause for concern, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate why I should have this confidence.
quote: I cannot see how that is relevant. In the first case, its unremarkable, because sex tourism by western men is well established; Thailand has been a prime choices for sex tourists for a few decades now. In the Kosovan case, they were definitely Western. Marc Dutroux starved kidnapped girls to death in his basement cell after a career of abductions anrd rapes. But I need not at any time claim that Western men necesarily consciously tell themselves they desire a trafficked person - my allegation is that they don't ask and don't care any more than most people care if their shirt was made by someone working in inhumane conditions.
quote: Oh no; I fully recognise its undemonstrabel, as its a claim to an insight into another persons thought process. I can only assert it is my opinion and impression, and manifestly I am not alone in either view.
quote: Thats been comprehensively dealt with already.
quote: here:
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Again, comprehensivly demonstrated. Is your word search function broken, Custard?
quote: Well funny you should mention that, Custard... I did not demand that anyone agree with my views. I attacked only two things: the bklanket denigration of feminists, and the assertion that all porn is inherently harmless. The people advancing those extreme positions are the ones carryiong the burden of proof. I have only indicated that there is CONCERN, and that it might not all be sweetness and light. Thats an entirely resonable position to adopt. Those who argue that there is NO REASON FOR CONCERN must demonstrate that it is comprehensivleym IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to come to harm in porn, and that therefore expressions of concern are unfounded. And furthermore, I don't have to tolerate resort to ignorantum; merely becuase you or holmes are unfamiliar with the research work indicating, for example, the degree of trafficking is frankly not my problem. I also openly acknowledge that my capacity to find such materials as they exist on the net is limited, and I make no pretensions, ever, to advancing an academic argument on the net. But then again, I don't have to: convincing YOU individually is a fundamantally trivial issue. Here's a discussion of the acceptance of violence against sex workers in New York: Page not found | The Sex Workers Project Identification of a client as a trafficked person, again in NY:http://www.sexworkersproject.org/...ationAndAdvocacy1103.pdf The sex workers project also notes:
quote: Research carried out by UK police departments indicates:http://209.190.246.239/ver2/cr/uk.pdf quote: quote: Appliance Repair Videos - find local appliance repair companies
quote: quote: From the US DOJ report:We apologize for the inconvenience... - United States Department of State quote: I reiterate: there is just and legitimate cause for concern. The burden of proof lies on those who claim that despite nearly a million people trafficked annually world wide, and despite a persistent and organic relationship between trafficking and the sex trade, that there is no cause for alarm and that the only peopole who consider there might be any concern are miliciously anti-porn.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Granted. They are also women, so women must be anti-porn. And they are also people, so people must be anti-porn. They are also hominids, so hominds must be anti porn. They are also mammals, so mammals must be anti-porn. They are also vertebrates, so vertebrates must be anti-porn. Etc ad infinitum ad nauseum; this is SYNECHDOCHE, I believe.
quote: You can maintain that, but I have quoted you above: "I am saying the feminist position is that porn is misogynistic" And as I pointed out a couple of posts ago, the fact that you were inconsistent in this declaration is how I know for certain that you were employing it as a rhetorical device to round up support from the anti-feminist brigade. I have you red-handed, holmes. And the perverse point about the whole issue is that centrally, we agree. IMO the point you have been advancing in this thread is too extreme for your own argument to defend; what you needed to do was advance a more moderate case and not assume that anyone who disagree with you about any detail has an axe to grind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Concern that some people in the tarde are there not volutarily, but due to coercion. Do you or do you not acknowledge that this is a possibility and a problem?
quote: Actually, you have - for example, you accused me of posting material to "discredit" porn. Your line of argument has been that any concern or cricisim is mischievous and ill-informed.
quote: Completely undemonstrable; there is no reason at all for thinking that. Porn on the net is more accessible than porn in the shops. There is no mechanism anywhere that leaves you absoluetly positive that an image you are looking at was not taken under coerced conditions. It may well be that many people are viewing images of coerced sex; but neither you nor I have any idea. This is a reality that you seem to persist in denying. Its manifest in your sentence above where you falsely conflate buying an amber lynn videa weith the slave trade. Thats clearly ridiculous, and is a spoiling argument artificially constructed to be false.
quote: Thats arrogant complacency. As you yourself say:
quote: But apparently NOT like any other industry, because according to you all "concerns" are "fear mongering".
quote: Thats quite true. But then again, I've never advocated picketing VCA pictures, have I? So I have caught you once again resorting to hyperbole and misrepresenting my argument to make a rhetorical point.
quote: ... as you do here again. Not very good with logic, are you holmes?
quote: And as I pointed out, the medium in which a racist trope is propagated is irrelevant. An undeniable racist trope is being propagated, the medium happens to be porn.
quote: Vaion protestations of innocence. [bart]"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can prove a thing".[/bart] quote: Well then what the fuck have you been objecting to?
quote: Also demonstrably false; in fact I can quote you acknowledging this up-thread:
[quote]me
quote:you quote: My position has been consistent through-out.
quote: I didn't hound you for stats. I asked you where the stats where that you claimed undercut my point that 1) not everyone in porn is there consensually and 2) that other pernicious tropes are propagated by porn. you ahve provided no states criticising any position I have advanced.
quote: What is the reason for thinking that porn, as a subset of sex work, is uniquely free of the problems that plague other sex workers?
quote: well clearly it does, unless you can show some reason for thinking that nobody who was coerced has ever appeared in internet porn. And that is blatently untrue; at the very least we can be confident that some paedophilic images were coerced. Can you provide any reason at all for ruling this out? If not, you must concede it is relevant to the topic of internet porn.
quote: Of course I do; thats why I stated that the poverty was a salient point up-thread. Have you even been reading what I write holmes or just leaping to conclusions? And the reason this is relevant to porn and sex work in general is becuase manifestly, human trfficking provides the PRODUCT - that is women - these industries sell.
quote: Yes absolutely. Or at least partially; I would still allege that there is misogynistic collusion between pimps and johns, especially where johns apply violence. But I fully agree that the solution is to make porn legal and bring out into the bright light of day where it can be regulated like any other industry and, among other things, suppress such hate speech as is propagated through this medium.
quote: You are imposing moralism where none exists.Somebody who sympathsaies with a girl getting beaten up to perform for camera or for johns is not satying that prostitution is bad; they are saying the violence is bad. quote: Shifting goal posts again (as you have already done with Lynn). Who said anything about mainstream porn? Did I? Does the thread title read "mainstream porn"? No, it reads "internet porn". You are demonstrating yet again that the entirety of your argument has depended on selective reading; you parse concerns about internet porn as concerns about mainstream porn, despite the fact that the distinction has been repeatedly drawn. Please start debating honestly.
quote: I see. And so its your contention that despite illegal status of sex work generally, if you found a relationship between any sex worker and organised crime you'd be suprised? Then you have been living in fantasyland. Yes, persistent and organic.
quote: I have no idea; its inherently unkowable where a picture was taken. I cannot in any sense verify the sourcing and origin of such material when it is so closely linked with the black- or grey-markets.
quote: "buy"? Thats only a subset. But yes, its entirely easy, becuase you cannot know the circumstances under which the material was shot. you have already conceded that much of porn includes the feigning of pleasure, so let me reverse the question and put it to you thus: how can you be sure that any given image is NOT coerced? What methods would you employ to determine that to your satisfaction?
quote: Haha. Yes, I know for certain I cannot tell. Because the black market was the the conjoining medium that brought porn and the hackers together. And I know that hackers can put together a web site that will in every detail be as good as one designed by a professional outfit. It is entirely possible for any site to be wholly illegal, andf no punter would be able to determine that. And if it were hosted oput of a data haven, there wouldn't be any way to find out either. So if you think you could tell, would you advise me as to what tools you would use to dinstinguish them? And while you're about it, can yuo explain whaty difference it makes if its consumed accidentaly or deliberately? The performer has still been coerced regardless of the punters interaction with whoever is taking the money.
quote: Absolutely correct; but then you will note that my argument from the very beginning is not that they are DEPENDANT on porn, but that porn serves as a VENUE. Will you now, finally and belatedly, acknowledged and address the point I have actually advanced? Or are you still a little high strung about the issue and prone to imagining persecution where there is none?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: More words in my mouth. I didn;t say it CAN be anywhere, although that is increasingly likely as sundry misogyny and racism are steadily defended. I said the PUNTER cannot be certain.
quote: What on eartjh is the relevance of this? It only serves to demoinstrate that your etnire argument, by your admission, has been a "joke"; I have already identified your belaboured attempt to switch the topic from internet porn to 'safe legal porn'. Please STAY ON TOPIC, or create a new thread.
quote: Great. So thats dealt with responsible consumers of legal porn. What does that have to do with this thread, though?
quote: Holmes continues with his distortion above; not only does attack me for sticking to the topic, he then draws conclusions from it and attributes motive!
quote: I'm glad you finally and grudgingly acknowledge the point I raise. Can you be bothered to address it yet?
quote: Well, the thread topic is INTERNET PORN; not 'regulated american porn' That means we are dealing with MANY origins, not merely yuour local legal arrangements.
quote: Whats that got to do with anything at all? I've never suggested anyone was making a mistake.
quote: Cpongratulations, Sherlock, I'm well aware of this. I merely don;t make the error of synechdoche and assume that this is representative of all INTERNET PORN; you know, the topic.
quote: Correct; they appear to operate by invitation only, and by donations of collections to an archive. Which demsontarets again that they are actively soliciting and producing this material, and real human beings suffer in its production.
quote: quote: Correct. Or indeed, exactly. And especially interesting in the light of the long history of male control over female sexuality. It is the reduction of humans to sexual objects that it sells.
quote: Really? What? I mean, clearly harsh working conditions in textile factories in 'free trade zones' are totally irrleevant to the problem of poor working conditions; becuase of course in the west we have unions and labour law. So clearly, there cannot be a problem anywhere... Holmes, your desperation to get yourself out of the hephalump trap you dug for yourself is dirving you to the miost absurd rationalisations.
quote: OK. Lets hypethsize I have bfroe me a porniographic image downloaded from the net. Where in that image is the manufacturer specified and their licence given? come on, holmes, I want you to show me the MECHANISM by which I can be SURE that there is no coercion. Go to it, step by step please.
quote: Oh I see Only perverts are a problem. But as you know, we for example differ over some content I say is racist; thus our perception of where the line is crossed differs. Therefore, appealing to your personal view of what is or isn;t mainstream is valueless to the question. Theres not even a reason to think that mainstream porn has anything to do with the actual topic, which I remind you again, is INTERNET PORN.
quote: No shit. I am sure they are getting exactly what they paid for.
quote: I assumed no such thing. Please try to address the argument I am making instead of this endless succession of straw men.
quote: ... yes, becuase of your complete inability to advance a case related to the actual thread topic.
quote: WHAT TAPES??????????? The topic is INTERNET PORN!
quote: But holmes, the topic, as I have pointed out to you many times, is internet porn, not 'white market regulated american porn'. As I identified a long time ago, your entire argument depends on distorting the topic your favoured ground. And thus your ranting is exposed again. You have criticised me an others for being concerned about porn in general, when by your own admission you can only be confident about a small subset of all porn. You did the same thing to feminists; you are distorting the argument, and then attributing malice to your opponent based on this distortion. Its difficult to imagine a less honest argmentative technique.
quote: With photoshop. Duh.
quote: Actually thats not true, to the extent I understand how hit counters work. But it presumes an ideal isolated transaction unsullied by the real world. Once the purchase has been made, there is nothing to prevent it being re-distributed to like minded fellows; there is nothing to prevent it from being redistributed for free. So once again, your entire defence rests on the assumption of ideal conditions.
quote: No. But that the grey and black markets are by definition unregulated, and so the extent of misogyny that appears in porn, the degradation of women, which you deny in mainstream porn, is here uncontrollable; and thus your complacency about porn in general is demonstrated as bogus rationalisation. You;ve already conceded your anti-feminists rants were "a joke"; and seeing as your entire argument rested on the claim that these feminsists were creating alarm where there is nothing to be worried about is totally discredited. Firstly becuase you have admitted that your description of feminists was innacurate, secondly because you grudgingly concede that in fact a grey and black market exists and is not regulated to the extent that the legal market is (duh), and third you have demonstrated the very tolerabce for, for example, racist imagery that constitutes one of the concerns. Case closed; you have been soundly whipped, kid. Go play in the shallow end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yeesh this is like attending a remedial social studies class. Lets start here:
quote: In the first instance, 'forever' is hyperbolic on a number of levels. More substantively however, note that all of these are FEMALE roles. So can restate the claim thus: women providing sexual services to men has been with us 'forever', or at least, quite some way looking back. But seeing as these coincide with women being the lesser partner, or a dependant, or reliant on (unsurprisingly) patronage, it is indicative not of free human expression but the sexual commification and objectification of human beings. So the case that this is demonstrably natural has NOT been demonstrated, becuase misogynistic coercion would also produce this phenomenon.
quote: And the myth you propagate is steeped in androcentrism, not least because authentic female perspectives of most historical periods are hard to come by. Its unsurprising that by and large we get a quite naturally self-serving analysis by men and for men. Now; please note that I am not asserting anywhere that monogamy is in any sense natural, or the the legislators of our morals have any serious argument. I can easily cite 'promiscuous' practices in many societies. But this has little to do with the allegation that the advent of the pill allowed a large degree of social and psychological pressure to be placed on women to conform to this new order, and indeed a language of 'frigidity' appeared to explain (and criticise) those women who declined to open their legs for anyone who asked. Observing that monogomy is a social construct does not mean that no such pressure was applied. This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-07-2004 07:39 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024