According to Toby Young in today’s Daily Mail, there’s nothing wrong or pervy or exploitative or objectifying or sexist or degrading or anything even remotely problematic about men looking at and enjoying pictures of naked women.
Why not?
Because ALL MEN DO IT, and if ALL MEN DO IT, then it must be ok.
And anyway, it’s only a bit of fun. And why shouldn’t men be allowed to have some fun, you humourless, joyless femnazi bluestockings?
Oh yes, and did you know that 99.9% of women working in porn are there of their own free will? It must be true, ‘cos Toby says it’s true, and Toby knows, ‘cos he likes porn.
But whatever you do don’t misunderstand Toby, because Toby’s a nice guy who agrees that coercion is wrong, and that exploitation is a bad thing (especially when it’s men that are being exploited):
“Where women have been coerced into taking their clothes off or appearing in pornographic films, that is clearly wrong and we should do everything in our power to stop it.
But anyone who thinks that such practices are common in the adult entertainment industry simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Believe it or not, 99.9 per cent of women who have sex in front of a camera do so of their own free will. They are not being rounded up by gangs of white slavers and forced to perform degrading acts. On the contrary, it is a choice on their part, not least because they can earn good money.
In fact, every serious study of pornography has concluded that it is the men who appear in blue movies that are the exploited ones. These wretched stud ponies are paid a pittance compared with the female stars. If anyone deserves our pity, it is them, not the fake-breasted bimbos bursting out of their spandex on the covers of adult videos.”
Porn encourages men to view women as sex objects you say?
Don’t be daft. Toby and all the rest of the men who like looking at porn are apparently perfectly able to distinguish “between the women in the pages of Playboy and the ones in our lives.”
So they don’t regard all women as sex objects then, just the “fake-breasted bimbos” who appear in porn. Glad that’s sorted, and nice to see that Toby’s porn consumption hasn’t had any kind of negative impact on his attitudes towards women…..
At the end of the day, when all’s said and done, women should be grateful to porn Toby reckons, because if they weren’t tossing themselves off to pictures of fake-breasted bimbos, most men would be having affairs or demanding sex 24/7 from their real-life partners.
And just think how much worse that would be.
Meanwhile, in more Daily Mail sexist shite, while the statesmen (and a couple of women) over here for the G20 summit got on with all the important stuff last night, Sarah Brown, Michelle Obama and other notable women had a girls’ night in.
And the mother of Rhys Jones’s killer is a lying whore.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Interesting to discover that the dictionary definition of “everything in our power” has now been changed to mean “everything in our power that doesn’t involve stopping watching porn or even taking special measures to ensure the porn we do watch is non-coercive”. Thanks for your efforts Toby, feminism is grateful. No really…
But who needs fake-breasted bimbos when you can get fresh flesh like this?
Phwoooaaaar!!!
Double standard #12,307:
It’s fine and dandy for Toby Young to tell us “bluestockings” (pretentious arse) that ALL men watch porn and if we just accepted that immutable fact, even our own partners might come clean to us! (B-but… we’re not worthy, surely?)
However, we are constantly reminded of how we don’t speak for All Women, how all the women *they* know love porn, think stripping exploits the ‘foolish punters handing over their cash’, and wish those unattractive feminists would stop telling everyone what to do.
Meh.
Christ Tim, you could have put a warning on that link, I’m going to have nightmares for weeks now!
Anyway, I hadn’t realised Toby Young was such a pron aficionado:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/cartoons/9073/mums-the-word.thtml
“Oh yes, and did you know that 99.9% of women working in porn are there of their own free will? It must be true, ‘cos Toby says it’s true, and Toby knows, ‘cos he likes porn.”
How is that different from the Jacqui Smith perspective? It is the same deal for her, that’s her view.
I already know Harriet Harman’s and that was a nightmare from hell, why is there no campaign against her as she is worse than any
Toby is a complete innocent compared to Harriet.
Gregory
Ah the oracle speaks again – ergo Toby Young proclaiming all men love porn so women get over it!! Interesting is it not Young’s essentalist claim is taken at face value. But what Young is really saying is ‘how dare feminists challenge men’s pseudo right to view porn and have sexual access to women, girls and boys whenever and however they wish.’
It is called male supremacy. Or to put it another way – how about I claim all white men view non-white men as less than human. Does this make it acceptable that a non-white male group are deemed non-human simply because the dominant more powerful group says so. Ah male supremacist logic is always contradictory – because it is all about upholding and maintaining men’s social and economic power over women.
As an aside just why was the man holding a book in front of his genitals? Was he afraid of showing something shocking? Now women’s totally naked bodies are commonly on public display for men to gawp at and no one bats an eyelid. I wonder why?
Hah hah hah, Toby actually got something right:
Summed himself up perfectly.
And he is completely dishonest (as are the many men who comment on feminist blogs):
Logic would dictate that a user could NOT be “an impartial observer”. Unless Toby is maintaining person or persons unknown are FORCING him to watch porn?
As a young man, I learned far more about the birds and the bees from reading the letters in Penthouse
Que? So the letters in Penthouse are normally explanations of human biology are they, with possibly a short diversion into Mendel and Darwin?
Fortunately I don’t have a husband, so don’t have to accept his porn habit. Phew….
So Toby doesn’t mind masturbating over images of women as long as he can also despise them then.
What a guy!
sorry this is off topic. polly i like your blog and miss it. please come back.
I hope to be back soon antonia. I am unfortunately occupied with evol doing at the moment, which necessitates secrecy. Cloak and dagger stuff.
Sorry that’s me Polly. Under my supersekrit identity.
thanks for letting me know, i suggest getting rid of the evil via chasing a bunch of (metaphorical) cows at it.
If I had some trained cows to hand, I would do it. But I’m stuck using the law at the mo.
Julie Burchill had some rude things to say about Toby Young, something about sexual harassment of women at the Modern Review I think it was.
I got his book (god knows why) and it’s one of the few that I’ve had to throw in the bin after reading it. I couldn’t face passing it on to Oxfam where someone else might possibly end up reading it.
Could you shut up about Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith please Gregory. You sound like a raving loony misogynist.
I felt the same about American Psycho. Though the film was good.
“Could you shut up about Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith please Gregory. You sound like a raving loony misogynist.”
Sticks & stones
I’ve done more for real feminism than all the people on this blog combined. Jacqui smith’s people were talking about me the other day to remark that I had organized *all* the party political input into ‘Paying the price’.
That word used by Jacqui Smith’s minions was *all*.
I also wrote most of it.
Harriet Harman was in an organization that wanted to legalize incest.
It was also home to home to the British pedophile leadership.
Whatever complaints you have against the average porn endorsing male, Harriet is in a different league altogether.
Gregory
I am afraid to say that Gregory speaks sooth. A lot of the Blair lot got caught up in some very dodgy stuff in the eighties, when I constantly heard people raving against the age of consent as destroying under 16’s right to a sex life. (And I’ve got a book which proves this included feminists). They were suckered good and proper by the paedophile groups. And the chief culprit was Margaret Hodge, who allowed horrific abuse to rage unchecked in Islington children’s homes. She is now a minister.
I never understood why feminists go on about men loving porn. Why not aim your ire at women succumbing to the lure of porn, the vast majority of whom do it voluntarily. Why not launch a campaign to educate young girls about the “dangers” of porn as you see it, rather than harping on about how bad men are? There is so much intellectual paralysis in the feminist movement, all you ever do is shriek and shriek again instead of calmly and collectedly bringing WORKABLE SOLUTIONS to the table. The problem with women is that they allow feminists to speak up for them. Shame that.
Dear topsekrit
Harriet Harman was reflected upon very fondly by the pedophile leadership.
“The Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP, Secretary of State for Health, became General Secretary of NCCL in 1974. The very next year, 1975, NCCL invited the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation to affiliate. In the year after, 1976, the now-notorious paedophile Tom O’Carroll was invited to address the NCCL conference, which promptly voted to ‘deplore’ the use of chemical castration treatments for paedophiles.”
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press040.html
The NCCL was used as a PIE/PAL political office.
The gay-subcommittee were a straightforward pedophile front group.
Thousands of ordinary British women helped Mary Whitehouse, the labor party crew, before and after, well we just don’t know what side they were or are on.
Feminism (today) is doing no better, why demonstrate at a reclaim th night with an organization truing to legalize sex between foster parents and foster children?
It is not trolling, it is absolutely true.
Gregory
Dear Ramilie
Stop wanking to pornography. You know it exploits women.
I think that’s a workable solution.
Love
Delphyne
“The problem with women is that they allow feminists to speak up for them. Shame that.”
What did they ( London feminists) do with the envelope of listening in Ireland?
The political party for the UVF ( who refuse to give up their guns) and who cut young women’s throats in recreational killings were part of the pro-abortion initiative at Westminster.
The PUP/UVF are also pro-prostitution.
Some so-called feminists have more in common with pimps and pornographers than with ordinary women, and I am not just talking about Paglia etc.
The fact one can legitimately say ‘so-called’ is their problem, because what is it (in London).
This is the glitch, an Irish republican believes in X, there can be a dozen strands, but X is it.
Feminism has a manifesto of diametric opposites.
Gregory
As a red blooded, pussy loving hetereosexual man, I will continue to wank over legal ponographic images a long as I damn well like. And where is the feminist with her divisions that would stop me? I hear no tanks rolling, do you?
I hear no tanks rolling, do you?
No, but I see your name in very erect CAPS for the first time… RAMIIE.
Honestly RAMIIE, no one is even suggesting for a moment to deprive you of your wanky-spanky. Seriously, calm down with the hysterical wandering testicles.
There are no tanks, your porn is safe…
So why are you getting so aereated over this imaginary threat then Ramiie? We’re not your mother…..Though you sound like a two year old.
Tanks! We need tanks!
Apparently asking nicely not to degrade and objectify women just isn’t cutting it.
They wants tanks … we should give ’em tanks.
Sorted.
He’s not imagining a threat though Polly, he’s saying that violence is the only thing that will stop him degrading and exploiting women. That’s the workable solution according to Rammiie. Like Stormy says, asking politely has no effect whatsoever.
How about a sledgehammer Rammiiee? Do you think I could persuade you with one of those?
Anyway you hate women. That’s why you degrade them by masturbating over their sexualised objectified pictures. You probably hate yourself quite a lot too though.
“Pussy-loving”. Puke, puke, PUKE.
That Toby bloody Young pops up everywhere these days… he was on Woman’s Hour the other day where they dedicated half of the programme to male baldness, I mean, WTF?!
Ramiie: would you say you had a problem which you might want to talk to someone about? Coz if that’s the case, FFS go away and talk to someone about it!
That’s just to show how heterosexual he is. And red blooded too.
Anyways Ramiie you’re a wanker. Self confessed.
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our porn, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches, with tanks
we shall fight on the landing grounds, with tanks.
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, with tanks
we shall fight in the hills; with tanks.
we shall never surrender our right to porn.
As soon as one radical feminist figures out how to drive one of these tanks, we can elimate porn users.
HAH HAH HAH. Notice I did not say porn, but porn users.
It’s how RAMIIE wants it, we should accomodate by all means.
BTW, as a strategy, getting rid of porn users actually solves the problem (an “industry” driven by demand”). Flatten the “demanders” with tanks – no more users, no more demand for porn.
Soooo excellent.
That’s just to show how heterosexual he is. And red blooded too.
Anyways Ramiie you’re a wanker. Self confessed.
Actually, I thinketh he protest just a little too much on the raving heterosexual front.
Analysing the two “i”s in his screen name, it is fairly obvious that they are penis substitutes. Therefore, the two “i”s represent a nice little homosexual thing going on.
Have you ever encountered a pussy outside of ponographic images though Ramiie? (Shades of are you being served…)
Good chat up line.
“Hi there,I’m a red blooded, pussy loving heterosexual man”
Being a nurse for boing boing years and very familier people bleeding (red blood) all over me, what the frack is with this “red blooded” thing? Serious question…
“very familiar with people” ruddy thing posted with a life of its own.
I was under the impression that all humans had red blood?
Makes him just a tad ordinary?
So, in translation:
Hello, I am an ordinary, feline-loving, protesting just a little too much (to be) heterosexual manz.
Oh dear.
A little something for Ramiie.
MIAOW!
Ramiie seems to have disappeared. Can’t think why, but he’s probably got some important ponographic images to wank over.
Yeah, looking at pictures of “pussies”
I was going to go on holiday but I’m just gonna ‘satisfy’ my self with a Thompsons’ Brochure instead.
In my experience, the only women who hate porn are those who despise the distance between the reality of their physicality and that which they once dreamed it could be. Porn is as different to sex as written poetry is to recorded music..I am with Camille on that one..porn dramatises sex, presents it as idealised..no smell,now awkardness, a well rehearsed ballet signifying pleasure and the crushing of taboo.
(This comment has been edited. Cath)
Hello girls
Porn is “idealised” sex? For who?
It seems to be pretty much directed at those who hate women.
@JenniferRuth
….actually, it’s an alternative to women who said no, and a celebration of women who said yes! yes! yes!
In yer dreams Ramiie. Because there obviously aren’t too many women (not girls) saying yes, yes, yes in your real life are there?
“Asian Rose speared by massive cock” sounds a bit racist to me. Not to mention small cock-ist.
NB Biskieboo that pussy site is really good. Who woulda thunk chocolate was poisonous to cats?
Polly, my power..or lack thereof..in the sexual attractiveness stakes has nothing to do with my healthy appetite for hetereosexual relief and my love, love, love for the female of the species.
I adore women..I am in awe of the spirituality, the power over us, the generosity..like God’s own water to our hard earth.
As political women, strident feminists will never come to terms with what men need..I accept that. But thankfuly, you are in a very small minority, laughed at by the general, patronised by most women who identify with your frustrations, but who reject the extremes of your mindset and the aims of your struggle.
I pity you. Where are you divisions?
Wow, this Ramiie is a real sick-o. Nasty stuff.
“heterosexual relief”
is that some kind of charitable cause?
Buggle..I am waiting for you to demonstrate how clever you are…I already know you as reactionary.
So cum on, the thread is yours…say something that would really impress me with your understanding of the politics – both feminist and counter-feminist- of the male gaze.
(actually I am not holding my breath …all I expect from someone like you is cant, dogma, insult (the feminist’s spitfire), support from your sisters and er.. your impotent rage.
But have you ever actually shagged a woman Ramiie? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink….
Thankfully, as a lesbian I have no need to come to terms with what men need.
I can imagine the charity single now Steph – Girls aloud with a guest apperance by Horne and Corden for heterosexual relief….
Whoops typo ‘appearance’ of course.
Oh yeah Ramiie – porn as high art – right.
Toby Young is an idiot. I ended up debating with him on BBC twice about whether you could watch Sex and the City and be a feminist (I know – I get all the good jobs). I said that if you could watch that show without reeling in horror at the independent lifestyles and freedom for sexual experimentation shown you already supported a level of freedom for women that would be impossible anywhere without the proud history of feminism and which is still a very very distant dream for women in most of the world.
He said that he thought the show was great cos it was convincing women to have sex with people like him without expecting anything in return (like a relationship). Which tells us the following: Toby Young is rubbish in bed. Because when I have sex I generally get something out of it. Like fun and intimacy and maybe even an orgasm. Unless it’s really rubbish sex.
I must have missed the bit in Sex and the City where one of them slept with a rubbish journo who’d fallen out with Julie Burchill.
I do think Toby Young is generally a fool, and it’s not a great article even by his standards, but one of the quotes Cath picks out is almost interesting:
I think Cath is right to pull this up as implying ‘it’s only the bimbos in the porn films that are objectified’, but there’s a broader point: that everybody objectifies people in different ways on an everyday basis. It’s inevitable that other people become means to our ends, to put it in Kantian terms, but what’s important is we recognise they are real people who have their own ends.
For example, if I buy some fast food, I’m objectifying the person at the tills as a food-provider. At that point, that is all they are to me. I don’t care about them as people, or what they’re getting out of it, but a moment’s reflection would lead me to say “of course, this is not just an object handing me a bag – they’re here for their own reasons, I respect that, and I understand full well their ability to serve me food doesn’t define them as people. There is far, far more to them than that”.
The same with pornography – which I’m not a fan of, by the way. While watching it, a woman (and indeed a man) might be objectified to suit the ends of the audience. But that doesn’t mean a broader objectification must follow. You can appreciate the physical sight of someone – reduce them to that for a time, even – and still be aware there are a hundred other facets to their character that are ultimately more important.
interesting point damagedoor, and as the lesbian polly styrene would know..at the heart of the volcano..both lovers are objectified by the other..and certainly by the watcher. Temporary Objectification, irrespective of how it’s echoed outside of the theatre(she is on the tube in her McDonalds uniform, making her way home after a hard days work, she is still viewed as a “crew member”) is essential to the achieving of satisfactory sex.
I think that’s stretching it a bit to say that buying something from a person in a shop is objectifying them.
Objectifying a person means taking away their humanity and using them for your own needs. In the case of pornography, turning someone’s body into a sex object for a person to masturbate over with no thoughts to how they feel about the person masturbating over them or being used in that way.
You appear to be arguing that porn ain’t so bad because we buy things in shops damagedoor, or am I not following you?
BTW Polly, I think you had better have a word with Delphyne..she is off message. Radical feminists must learn to love the punani..that girl need re-educating..
Delphyne..I am not the one who hate pussy..you do..call yourself a feminist? I am probably more feminist than you could ever be. For starters, I never “puke puke PUKE” when I think about loving the cat.
Opps..on evidence of her last post.. Delphyne is a virgin going through the rebellious anti patriachy undergraduate phase/or, if an adult, she has never been kissed in an adult way by someone she loves/or,if trapped in a female body but self identifying as a man, she is rightly repulsed by the male gaze… as I would if I was the target of a homosexual’s lust.
Whatever, you probably need some theraphy Delphyne..feminism is not for you..its taking you down the wrong road.
damagedoor, your well-reasoned perspective assumes men demand legions of anonymous women be stripped naked and penetrated because men desire the benefits of sex and the objectification follows after that point.
What if men demand legions of anonymous women be stripped naked and penetrated because men desire the benefits of seeing women as objects and are following after that point?
I’m a linguist and once I did a study to answer the question, “Are gay men despised because they are seen primarily as sex personified and sex is seen as dirty, or are gay men despised because they are seen primarily as women and women are seen as dirty?
To make my case I noted words for gay men across various languages and connected how they consistently evoked feminized images like fairies, butterflies and birds. Usually men who have a lot of sex are lionized as positively-connoted animals like “dogs” and such, and if gay men were seen primarily as men who have a lot of sex then we should expect language to reflect that. Instead, what we see are gay men’s notorious promiscuity derided in feminized terms, for example, “birds” are women and gay men in several languages.
Which came first?
1. the ‘dirtymaking’ of females
2. the ‘dirtymaking’ of sex
3. the hypersexing of females
@Sam..while I know you are seeking a dialogue with damagedoor about this, I will however put my tuppence worth..knowing of course it would be roundly ignored by you..because in Britain at least, the class society demands that discussions are not so much conducted, but orchestrated. But since I am not British, do I give a fuck? Naw.As an African American, I do not stand in queues.
I am however puzzled that, as a linguist (do you mean you speak a number of languages, or, that you have studied linguistics?) you do not know the answers to these questions. Anthropologists will tell you that all societies have taboos around sex..which infers that sex is in some way both sacred and dirty. You will also have learnt that it’s christianity which first objectfied the female in the garden of eden myth..it wasn’t the male figure (satan) that brought about the fall, but “female susceptibility, her wandering eye, gullibity, sensuality..thirst for more.” The dirtymaking of females/hypersexing of females and by extension the dirtymaking of sex is a western patriachial construct, rooted in the church, and designed to keep women under foot.It makes sense the church would hate women..after all it blames her for the loss of Eden, and the sacred book curses her. As feminists your hatred of porn (i.e female sexuality expressed) is only helping patriachy..the church, the state, to do its dirty work.
On the matter of homosexuals (the thought of two men making love make my flesh crawl)but I would have thought you knew the answer to your simple question. All pre industrial human societies despised gays..in spite of propaganda about the Romans. Its a primeval reaction..like racism..fear/misunderstanding of the other, bafflement. Moreover, they are also despised because they let themselve be penetrated, in horror of all horrors, the anus. Fear of disease, the male hetereosexual’s naural disgust of his own sexual self, the violence he is biologically driven to as he objectifies the other in sex, the fear that he too could be objectified by a male..all leads to a fear/hatred of the homosexual.
McDonald’s uniforms? Volcanoes? It means nothing to me, (oh Vienna). Don’t judge everyone else by yer own pervy standards eh Ramiie…..
But I think you should talk to somebody about your homophobia acksherly. And you need to learn some history as well, before you start blathering on about pre industrial societies.
Doesn’t a lot of pon feature anal penetration anyway? Did last time I looked
(nb I vote we all ignore Ramiie now).
I second that Polly.
Would everyone stop feeding the troll now please 🙂
ha ha.. I suppose a MA in social anthroplogy disqualifies me as a troll. Well, the education system in Britain is shite anyway..so I will happily leave you with your inability to think.
Trolls always win the argument because to win is to troll.
Anyway I mut admit the lack of intellectual firepower on this site bores me shitless n e way..bye Cath..you great loser.
I only asked you to stop using porn Raaammmiie. It’s not a huge request.
Delphyne –
No, I’m not arguing that. For one thing, I wouldn’t say anything about ‘porn’ being good or bad, because it’s too wide a term. It could refer to anything from the professional industry to homemade amateur films, from extreme S&M to ‘vanilla’, or even from the production and distribution of the films themselves to the personal effects on the different viewers, or the social effects beyond that.
I was just talking about that one specific argument used against it – put simply, that it objectifies women as sexual objects, thereby encouraging men to objectify women as sexual objects in real life. I don’t buy that. I can see it objectifies women (and men) in that way, but my point is that we all objectify people depending on context, but are capable of appreciating there’s more to them than the way we are ‘using’ them at that particular moment.
Don’t we do that in small ways all the time in our interactions with people? The person behind the counter in McDonalds is there, at that moment, to provide you with food: you’re not interested in them as a person, or how they feel about serving you; they’re just a means to reach your ends. You objectify them, surely? But you know deep down there’s more to them than that, outside of the context.
At the risk of being whataboutery, my perspective is that porn is quite damaging to men. I have watched porn in my life, and never, for even a second, expected a woman to perform or look like an actress in a porn film; but I did feel an enormous pressure to live up to the male ideal as it was presented. And I can understand how girls/women watching it would feel similarly, or resent the role displayed. Like I said, I don’t think it’s a ‘good’ thing. At its worst, I think it’s really dehumanising for everyone involved, in complicated ways.
Sam –
I’ve waffled on enough. Will have a think and reply tomorrow hopefully, but thanks for your reply.
Oh righty, the “we can’t possibly define pornography” argument. I’ve never seen that one before.
Like I said, you’re stretching it to claim that buying something from somebody in a shop is objectifying them. An impersonal exchange isn’t objectification, if that word is to have any meaning, it’s an impersonal exchange.
Feminists use words like “objectification” for a reason, to explain what is going on in a particular situation. What I see you doing is using obfuscation to try and get away from the fact that men objectify and use women’s bodies for their own enjoyment without a thought to women’s humanity. One of the ways they do that is through making women’s bodies into pornography.
I’m also not sure why you think you can’t have an overall opinion about pornography (“writing about whores”). Just because there are sub-genres doesn’t take away from its dehumanising hateful context.
But as we’re on to “What about the men?” now I’ll probably leave you to it so please don’t bother replying.
Oh yeah, and if you want to really think about what porn means to women, imagine yourself being put in the position of the women in those porn films you watched. Your anus can be a stand in for the vagina. Imagine wearing the same clothes and shoes, having to simper and preen in the same way they do, imagine your orifices being penetrated the way theirs are, imagine being called a slut, whore and bitch because you are being filmed having sex. Imagine being used that way. Then imagine the blokes like Raammmieee wanking off to it.
I’m pretty sure you’ll stop doing the “what about the men?” nonsense if you can find the ability stretch your imagination that far.
Yup it’s true. Every time I’m in John Lewis buying some wool I’m picturing the sales assistant being anally penetrated. Though you shouldn’t wank in the queue, it’s just not British.
Do you also have the urge to say “no, you little cumdumster, whore, c*** I said two ply!”
Aran does it for me.
Once someone admits they are a troll, can’t you just not publish his comments? I don’t understand why a feminist blog would publish this woman-hating crap.
Because I wasn’t around when most of the comments went up buggle, so by the time I got here if I’d wanted to delete his comments I’d have then had to delete half the posts on the thread responding to him.
Ah, I gotcha- thanks. I was kinda confused!! How dare you not be at your blog 24/7? 🙂
Delphyne –
I’m certainly not saying you can’t define pornography; of course you can. I’m saying the term covers too much ground for me to be comfortable using simple words like “good” and “bad”.
Your last response to me kind of makes my point. I’d worry about a person who got turned on by a video where a woman was being anally penetrated and called a whore, slut or bitch, and yet I know those people and those videos exist. At the same time, there are normal, loving couples out there who record themselves having normal, loving sex and then post it online. It’s about the only type of porn I’d consider watching – freak that I am – and although it’s not industry porn, it’s still porn. All I’m saying is that stating “porn is bad”, as though both examples are equivalent, doesn’t work for me. It’s too black and white.
With the whataboutery, I’m talking about the effect of porn on the viewer, so your disturbingly unpleasant vision of me being anally penetrated in a film is missing the point. I was talking about the idea that porn encourages men to objectify women apart from while watching the film itself. You may wish simply to state this. If so, fair play for being that open. I was just offering my experience that, actually, it led to no change in my expectations of women, but much teenage insecurity about my own abilities and what was expected of me as a man. In a discussion about how porn can be damaging, is it so terrible or irrelevant to point that out? Maybe it is.
In terms of objectifying people, I think it’s you stretching the definitions. I still believe we objectify people all the time – literally dehumanise them as a means to our ends – whether it’s a shop assistant taking our money and giving us a bag of food, an athlete we watch running purely for entertainment, or a woman having sex. It doesn’t mean the objectification necessarily extends beyond a particular moment. Well, it doesn’t for me.
Sam –
I can only offer my own perspective, which is that – visually – sex looks nice. I don’t think there’s much more to it than that for most people, but I might be wrong. As I’ve said, I’m not a porn fan, so maybe I’m the wrong person to comment. But when I have watched it, it’s not to dehumanise or objectify women, and that has never followed (at least, as far as I’m aware). It’s just a means to an end, which has never changed my attitude to female friends and colleagues even slightly. I mean, I don’t actively notice the people around me as women or men. They’re people: individuals.
With the homosexuality thing, I’ve thought about it from various angles, and – again – maybe I’m not best placed to comment, as I don’t see sex as dirty, and I don’t judge people for who they have sex with, or how many, or whatever. I simply don’t know what the basis for male homophobia is. Perhaps it’s a ‘dirtiness’ thing, or a religious thing, or an ‘uncanny valley’ thing in terms of men supposedly acting like women, or simply some people needing a group to kick at. All I know is, amongst my circle of friends – late twenties to late forties – being gay, straight, promiscuous, straight-edge or whatever is completely irrelevant.
At the same time, there are normal, loving couples out there who record themselves.
“Good & bad” you’re above, as well as “black & white”, but you’re awfully comfortable distinguishing “normal & abnormal” pornography when it suits you.
I don’t actively notice the people around me as women or men.
I don’t believe for one second that “male & female” eludes your consciousness, and the preposterous claim makes me distrust you.
All I know is, amongst my circle of friends – late twenties to late forties – being gay, straight, promiscuous, straight-edge or whatever is completely irrelevant.
Then all you know is how to tell self-placating lies.
“I’m talking about the effect of porn on the viewer, so your disturbingly unpleasant vision of me being anally penetrated in a film is missing the point.”
So it’s bad when it’s your body we’re talking about being used, but it’s fine when it’s happening to women. Why didn’t you see the *real* porn that you watched as a disturbingly unpleasant vision?
Do you really not see the rationalisations and double standards you are working with? I didn’t miss the point in the slightest. It’s the whole point – you don’t mind women being used in this way and you’ll use ridiculous rationalisations and obfuscations to justify it (like everything is objectification so we can’t worry about what happens to women in porn) or to pretend there is no issue with it. However, if it was your body on the line, suddenly your humanity (unlike that of the women being used in porn) comes zooming back into focus.
Your opinion that porn hasn’t changed you is worthless. The only people’s opinion which would count is women that you’ve come into contact with sexually and they aren’t here to tell us what the truth about you is.
Oh and bullshit to the normal loving couples who post porn on line story, particularly the “loving” bit. It’s the same perv boyfriends/husbands who have always existed who tell their female partners that it will be “private” and then as soon as they get the opportunity broadcast it for the world to see. Before video and the internet it was called readers wives and the readers were scum then too. Have you ever done anything like that as a matter of interest?
What’s funny is I’m pretty damn sure you know exactly how much many men sexually hate women, but you’re doing this complacent stonewalling act to pretend that none of this sexual hatred exists. The only time you came close to acknowledging it was when I described a standard piece of pornography, except in this case you’d be taking the role of the female performer and then suddenly it was “disturbingly unpleasant”. I’ve heard narcissism is a real problem for a lot of men. You seem to be proving that theory.
Sam –
Perhaps I phrased it badly: it doesn’t elude my consciousness. I’m aware which of my friends are male and female, just as I’m aware some are black and white, a couple are Jewish, several are gay, and so on. But it doesn’t affect the way I interact with them. The differences between people are generally more pronounced than the differences between arbitrary groupings of people.
I’m sorry – in the feeling sad for you sense – if you don’t approach people in this way, but I won’t apologise for not being prejudiced, and I’m actually slightly bemused you think there’s anything strange or unbelievable about taking people as people rather than the categories they may belong to.
I’m not above good and bad for individual examples, just for mindless, broad-brush approaches to entire subjects. “Normal”, again, was a bad choice for a blog where people are keen to score cheap semantic points for no ultimate gain. By “normal”, I meant a realistic depiction of actual sex rather than a staged narrative between people who don’t know or care about each other.
Delphyne –
You missed it completely.
It’s certainly not my point, so please try reading and replying to what I’ve actually said. All I did was talk about the argument about the effect of porn on the viewer: that the viewer objectifying the people in a porn film does not entail them objectifying people sexually outside of that film. Whether I, personally, would like to be buggered onscreen is totally irrelevant, which is why I said your peculiar, prurient little imagining was unpleasant. If the answer was yes or no, does it change whether my watching an undefined pornographic act will alter my attitude towards women? No, it doesn’t. Learn to read.
Brilliant! They’d be able to compare me with their other male partners, who they would know for sure had watched pornography or not. How scientific.
More concerning than the lack of critical thinking is the fact you would clearly take a woman’s word over a man’s. Prejudiced, much? My experience doesn’t count, but a woman’s would. Although, presumably, only if it she said things that supported your pre-existing beliefs.
While I’m sure this happens, I don’t think you have either the right or the knowledge to speak on behalf of every woman in the world. Have I ever done anything like this? Not posted anything online, no. I’ve been filmed, for what it’s worth. The woman in question may still have the footage, but I trust, if so, she’s kept it to herself. I guess many couples do that kind of thing, and it certainly wasn’t my idea.
I actually don’t think “many” men sexually hate women, but I’d never deny that some do. I just refuse to admit that all pornography is anal penetration accompanied by shouts of “bitch! slut! whore!”, or that anyone who watches onscreen sex is going to turn into a slavering, objectifying freak. Because it’s absolute rubbish. For some reason, you seem to enjoy believing otherwise.
I don’t really know whether it’s worth prolonging this, but damagedoor you’re full of rare old shite. There is no such thing as an unprejudiced human being, and white heterosexual men (guessing, but am I wrong?) who claim they’re unprejudiced are usually the worst, as they’re entirely unaware of their privilege. And where is this porn that just consists of depictions of two people making love? Can you give us a link? I’ve never seen any.
And on misogyny I would take a woman’s word over a man’s. For the same reason I’d take a black person’s word over a white person’s about racism. There’s no substitute for personal experience.
On second thoughts it isn’t worth prolonging this, as all I’ll get is another few hundred words of self justification.
Yeah, God forbid I take the time to reply to what people have said. I should just have dismissed people, shouldn’t I, since it doesn’t really matter and I’d get the same fuckwitted responses whatever I said.
Posting on Cath’s blog: the triumph of hope over experience.
Posting on Cath’s blog: the triumph of hope over experience.
Maybe, it’s because that as women we understand our experience better than you do – damagedoor.
Seriously – why are you hanging around a feminist site?
Oh yes, and do some research on the amount of ‘anal’ ‘atm’ and ‘name calling’ – bitch c*** whore et al in mainstream pornography before you say I just refuse to admit that all pornography is anal penetration accompanied by shouts of “bitch! slut! whore!”,
You can “refuse to admit” all you want but that’s the reality. No, not ALL but round about 80%+
Gail dines et al done some stats which I don’t have to hand at the mo – maybe someone else has?
Or maybe do your own research.
“All I did was talk about the argument about the effect of porn on the viewer: that the viewer objectifying the people in a porn film does not entail them objectifying people sexually outside of that film. Whether I, personally, would like to be buggered onscreen is totally irrelevant, which is why I said your peculiar, prurient little imagining was unpleasant. If the answer was yes or no, does it change whether my watching an undefined pornographic act will alter my attitude towards women? No, it doesn’t. Learn to read.”
No you learn to read and stop being such a patronising fool. You were claiming that the effect of pornography was equal on men and women. I pointed out that what women experience seeing women portrayed in porn is something quite different from what men experience.
You got your jollies from seeing some guy fucking a woman and because you objectify her you don’t give a shit about what is happening to her. What we as women see however is a woman being sexually degraded, used and exploited for men’s pleasure.
I think it’s hilarious that you describe my average porn scene (the only difference being that you’d be the performer in it) as prurient and unpleasant. You don’t mind watching women being used exactly like this, so it’s obvious that porn has made you callous, stupid and inhumane. Clearly it has had an effect despite your bleatings to the contrary. However that was beside the point – the point was what effect does it have on women seeing their sex being potrayed like this. It is corrosive and disturbing and you yourself know this because when you, damagedoor, are the porn performer being penetrated suddenly pornography becomes prurient and unpleasant. However you being a porn user, can’t see past yourself and your orgasm to the real people who you get off on being degraded. I tried to appeal to your imagination, but I knew it wouldn’t stretch that far – well you can imagine it would be unpleasant for it to happen to you, but you still won’t admit that it is awful for women to be used in pornography like this in real life.
And refusing to admit the truth is called denial. I guess like Rrrraaammmiie you’re going to keep on wanking to women being degraded because you don’t want to admit the real meaning of what you are doing. Try humanity in your next life.
Anyway Damagedoor why don’t you fuck off now? I assume you have some pornography that needs wanking to. You’d better get right on to that – at the moment only Raaammmiiieeee is on the case.
“Have I ever done anything like this? Not posted anything online, no.”
I didn’t just ask about on-line – that looks like a politician’s answer to me. I asked about the old-fashioned readers wives thing too and also general sexual filming or photographing of female partners.
So once again, have you ever done anything like that?
Oh noes damagedoor – the women refused to be convinced by your manly wisdom! You’ve found a place where your male privilege is meaningless! So now you’re going to take your ball and play somewhere else.
You haven’t answered any of my points BTW or told me where to find the nice porn. I could say that’s “a lack of critical thinking”. But dawg forbid you should extend your critical thinking to your own attitudes and whether you’re the immaculately unprejudiced human being you claim to be eh?
(Was that evol enough?)
Or you could just look at the Ann Summers site if you can’t be bothered to do research Damagedoor. This mainstream site for a high street shop sells a few ‘Anna Span’ DVDs (which universally get the thumbs down as just not porny enough from people who’ve bought them) and a load of hardcore stuff.
Polly –
The sad thing is … you really think that, don’t you? That I’m somehow surprised or annoyed by women disagreeing with me? Arguments are arguments – it’s only you that seems bothered by the fact I’m a man. Sadly, Polly, eventually you’ll have to face up to the fact that when anyone – male or female – disagrees with you, it might not be because you’re a woman but because you’re you. Intellectually simple to hide behind that defence, I know, but maybe you’ll have to work harder. Thorry, and all.
Delphyne –
Maybe I should have been clearer: I’m in my early thirties, and ‘readers wives’ is a bit before my time. I wouldn’t have done anyway, just as I wouldn’t post footage online. In my head, I was taking the latter as covering the former, because, to me, it’s the contemporary equivalent. It’s not a politician’s answer. I’d never even talk about an identifiable lover’s sexual performance, never mind show it like that.
No, you missed the point. I described the obvious glee you took in describing it – almost as an act of vengeance – as prurient and unpleasant.
Actually, I do mind watching women being used in such a way. And sorry, I can see past my orgasm. Again with the glee. Seriously, Delphyne, go back and actually read my posts. I’ve said I have seen porn – you have too, yeah? – but that I have various problems with it in general and I’m not a fan. I’ve said the only type I would even consider watching these days is bog-standard, real couples voluntarily posting their footage online. But I haven’t even said that I do, because I don’t.
You’re clearly an intelligent person. But you’re arguing with me on autopilot. As I said, my point was solely about objectification on the viewer’s part, not whether I would liked to be anally raped. Keep it to yourself.
sparklematrix –
It’s not your experience that was being discussed, sparkle – it was mine. My experience of watching a small amount of porn, like most people. Delphyne suggested my experience didn’t matter: that it was worthless, and the only people who could comment on its effect on me were my ex-girlfriends, despite the fact they wouldn’t know which of their exes had also viewed porn, and the fact they only met me at one time, therefore having no point of reference. So it was as unscientific as it was – obviously – gender-biased. Delphyne would take a woman’s experience as truth probably with a forum post. A man posts a negative experience of porn, and his opinion counts for shit. Idiotic.
Delphyne and Sparkle –
Who do either of you think you are? I’ve said I like Cath’s writing, even when I don’t agree with it. The times I do, I don’t go clapping like a seal; the times I don’t, I’ve said so carefully and politely. Cath has my email and URL – she can ban or warn me if she wants. Why don’t you two mind your own business? It’s not your site.
Sorry – Cath has my email and IP.
“Why don’t you two mind your own business? It’s not your site.
What a man says is every woman’s business”
Like wise Cath can tell Delphyne and me to stfu. Or are you speaking for Cath?
I’m not telling anyone to stfu
Well, apart from Raaamiiiieee and a couple of other trolls.
Sparkle – that’s a bit desperate. I’m not the one questioning people’s motives for posting here, or their eligibility or right to do so.
Damagedoor, you are mistaking me for someone who cares what you think is sad. Why don’t you mind your own business? It’s not your site either…….
You haven’t disagreed with me because you haven’t answered any of the points I’ve put. You’ve just said you should have known better than to post on Cath’s site and you’re going to take your ball and play elsewhere. So why are you still here exactly?
Ugh – at 9:58 punctuation marks in wrong place.
And once more for the (cracked) record. As a privileged white heterosexual male who refuses to recognise his own privilege, you have no business commenting on mine, or any other woman’s experience of misgogyny and sexism. As I have no business telling somebody who’s black that I know the reality of racism better than they do. Because you ain’t lived it. When you have you can. Not before.
That should be misogyny BTW.
Now if you think we’re so fuckwitted why are you still talking to us?
Polly – what points haven’t I answered? Links to the porn I don’t watch?
And for the (cracked) record, I’d say you don’t have any right to comment on any woman’s experience of misogyny either – only your own. Regardless, follow the posts back and you’ll see I was commenting on my own experience of watching pornography, and the effect it had on me. I know you don’t care, but at least base your comments to me on things I’ve actually said, or else address the issues I raised in my last main post about how absurd it is to ask my ex-girlfriends instead.
Yup the nice porn. Where is it?
Also why of all the male white heterosexual men in all the world are you the only one who is completely without any form of prejudice? You haven’t answered that one either.
Can we have Ramiie back please Cath? At least he was funny…..
Damagedoor – you state that you enjoy Cath’s writings, but here’s the clincher – Cath is a feminist, so obviously she is going to attract a feminist following. Hell, I like Cath’s writings too – but I’m a feminist and that’s why I’m here.
Again – if you don’t like the company then why are you bothering commenting and then wondering why your anti-feminist postulations are attacked?
My guess is because you want us to take heed of your “dudely wisdom” which brings me back to that it ain’t gonna work on a feminist site.
There’s something that’s not quite clicking with you DD, Life for women is not an equal playing field and ALL men have privilege over women. You really need to suss this one out before you imagine that you can comment (no matter how much you like the authors writing) on a feminist site without contradiction.
You know I mentioned comment length and how it seems to be sex related (men like writing huuuuuge long ones, out-typing all the women in the vicinity) on one of the earlier threads here.
Damagedoor is PROVING MY POINT!! Thank you so much damagedoor.
“Dudely wisdom” to defend porn is utter garbage, IMHO. Men are not the ones being gagged, gang-raped, tortured, degraded, ejaculated upon and forced to have all their body parts exposed & filmed/photographed for the whole world to see, and millions of folks to jerk off to, FFS.
We live in a society in which men can (usually) preserve their whole bodily integrity while they are viciously creating the demand for such a woman-hating pornstitution industry. Men defending porn only prove one thing: that they indeed love to use women as “fuck-objects” and want this whole sexual slavery system to be maintained. We’re obviously questioning their so-called “rights” to treat women as non-human things; and that pisses them off, those patriarchists!
If hardline lesbo feminists like Cath and her coterie of hatchet faced man haters ruled the world it would it would be a cold, joyless place. So It’s a good thing that 99 percent of women- who all love dick –would not agree to angry lesbo power ever having any influence on politics or culture. Hurrah! Let the angry lesbo-feminists stew in their pink hot hell. Hurrah! And while they stew the heteros wil carry on fucking or watching porn.Hurrah!
Happy now Polly 🙂
It’s a good thing that 99 percent of women- who all love dick
You have your stats wrong Rammmiiiiiieee and even if it was ‘just’ one percent that’s a robust enough figure.
🙂 such a silly boy.
oh that raaaaammmmmiiiiieee.
Me thinks it is menz who luv the dick. They think about it all the time. They want to do things with it all the time. They promote others that have one all the time.
Come on, what’s so precious about a dick, seriously?
[…]a well rehearsed ballet signifying pleasure and the crushing of taboo.- (Rammmmiiiiieeeee)
Apart for him thinking that his is a ballet dancer (doing the Nut Cracker – no doubt)
And the ‘crushing of taboo’ sounds like some hefty right wing Christian reactionary rhetoric.
mmmm, I should rename my screen name to nutcracker.
Sounds, well, rather fetching.
But the truth is I just don’t think about dicks or balls that much. And don’t fancy being reminded of their existence.
Waddyathink of the new screen name?
Raaaammmmmiiiiiieee, I have made you redundant.
Whoops, sorry, you did that yourself.
And I love the way that “man-hater” is said in such a way to suggest, err, “mental illness” – or something.
While he wanks to woman hatred.
well..I dont mind making an offering of light relief(lol) at the altar of this Church of Righteous Females Against the Evil Anti-Female Male.
Mr ‘red blooded heterosexual man’: loosen up will ya?, after all, if women just luuurve your dick and you wanking over pictures of them, then why be so negative about homosexual men doing the same with you?
Oh wait… 😉
I am not 100% sure, but it sounds as if raaaammmiiiie is offering himself up as human sacrifice.
We do do that sort of thing around these parts.
i know i keep coming to these debates really late but i only just discovered this blog.
the thing that pisses me off the MOST about idiots like toby young are the famous phrase:
“women make more money than men – it’s the men who are exploited by porn”
nice. and if this is true (which i don’t think it is) surely the more pertinent question is why the hell are we living in a society where a woman’s most valuable money making possession is her ability to fake sex and sexual arousal? why are we accepting a society that thinsks it is ok for women to earn more money selling sexuality than say, a large percentage of other jobs. surely that isa messed up system! so don’t tell me that men are being exploited by porn mr young, because it is bullshit. what in fact is happening is that porn exploits women because it is created in a context where women faking sex is considered to have such high value.
if porn did not do this, if women were respected in the workplace, if women didn’t suffer from a gender paygap, if women weren’t taught from an early age to look pretty and be sexy, then porn wouldn’t be exploiting women. because women wouldn’t see becoming a porn star as a good career move.
also, if no one is being exploited, then why the hell are so many women in the porn industry victims of abuse, suffering from ptsd? why did jenna jameson say she would rather lock her daughter up than have her work in the sex industry? why is this happening if women aren’t being exploited by porn?
it’s like lad’s mags, when people talk about moving them top shelf etc is censorship. what about the censorship of women’s bodies and sexualities that porn and lad’s mags promote?