A Sexually Open Society; Repression; the Issue of Porn

[Pure]

A Sexually Open Society; Repression; the Issue of Porn

A thread exists on the possibility of porn serving women and its asserted disservice to them; I'd like to emphasize the effects on men and those which are irrespective of gender

One can easily these days find directions for almost anything, for instance how to apply the riding crop to your partner's butt. One can learn of the variations of the sexual impulse during depression, or for the woman at the phases of the menstrual cycle. Further, one can find an image of most anything, such as the application of the riding crop, as above. Pictures of gay sex are easy to find, and even the more savage SM photos are likely to escape the law. There are your basic 'how to' pictures, as in 'The Joy of Sex' as well as porn pics, that is graphically detailed ones, and some that are intended to be erotic.

Generally all show enjoyment or pleasure or a semblance thereof, except for the SM and specialty ones.

There are manuals for everything from straight sex, gay sex, SM sex -- SM 101: A Realistic Introduction by Jay Wiseman--, etc.

It's common to point to the genuine advance in freedom in 'advanced' countries such as the US and UK. Adulterous wives are not stoned, and break no law. Even Texas, has had to eliminate its [anti] Sodomy Law[…]

There is however a 'down side' to the above phenomena, and it's been dealt with by Marcuse and Foucault, to take a couple prominent names. The former emphasized repression, and the latter, control.

In what way are people repressed (‘repression is meant to suggest that the individual is controlled, or at worst, tyrranized; i use the term both for suppression from society at large, and from within). It seems almost contradictory to say that enacting the sexual impulses might be part of a repressive situation. How does our society repress individuals through the 'openness' about sex. Without going into detail, it's through imposing a model of normality. To take an example, consider a disorder that is about to be recognized by shrinks: hypoactive [low] sexual desire. The woman, usually, doesn't want much sex. The condition can be treated.

Overall, we can say that woman are subjected to a model of how sexual they must be. Everyone knows the model.

Everyone knows the prescribed sequences. When she has met a new partner and both want to have sex, her partner executes the sequence: this much breast play, this much fingering, this much pussy eating; this pace of intercourse accompanied by clitoral stimulation.

If she does not come, there is a defect, and it's in her. […]

The explosion of porn, both in picture and writing has similar types of effects. (Porn, defined as graphic depiction of sexual detail with the intent to arouse the viewer.) I will concentrate this discussion on pictures and films. Most porn is male oriented and its graphic nature and minimal 'set up' are common features, along with the friendliness and voluptuousness of the woman portrayed.

The 'voluptuous' factor operates as a standard to which women are subject, just as the above example of normal sexual desire does. The 'ordinary' woman who does not come readily, is lacking. Her sensuality is to be uncorked. Perhaps she can take a course, maybe given by a porn star 'How be as voluptuous as a porn star.'

I don’t want to pursue this here, since this important line of argument has been extensively elaborated, e.g. by Wolf, “porn turns men off the real thing.”

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

[…]
So let’s look at the effect on many males *apart* from issues to do with consequent treatment of women. The male is repressed in several ways, ways that are not often spoken of. Again, on the surface, one might ask, Who is freer than the fellow who can call up the image of whatever-- woman being anally penetrated, let’s say-- and masturbate to it and come as quickly as he wants. If we start with the 'extreme' cases, so called 'addictions', the repression is pretty obvious.

The fellow, if he has a partner, withdraws from her. If he's single, he increasingly avoids social contacts with real women and lives in fantasies of women who present themselves, and find it causes them orgasms the way he gets off. Yet I want to focus on effects apart from the effects on these women. In general, it seems, he serves himself ill. Satisfied, he’s often vegetating, letting job responsibilities slide. Perhaps also we can say his creativity will likely suffer; it’s the phenomenon Hemingway had in mind when he said he’s left some of his finest chapters spilled on the bedsheets.

Clearly, though, the argument cannot center on the extreme, any more than an article on the issue of consuming 'carbs' can be based on the health of those who consume 10,000 calories of them, per day. How about the 'moderate' user? He perhaps has a girl friend and only, let's say, comes to porn 15% of the time (15% of the total orgasms).

Let's consider what he sees. Arguably the voluptuousness he believes he sees in the picture is something he may come to expect of his girl friend. Further her arousal will be assumed as a 'matter of course,' easy, that quality his finds in porn: her arousal is automatically triggered by his. If he's aroused coming on her face, then she is.


Let's look at his desire. 15% of the time he comes with porn. We have to look at the quick discharge of this desire as possibly posing a problem. So to say, the natural steps are skipped over, from social interaction to simple 'foreplay.'


We might say then that his surplus sexual desire is discharged harmlessly and routinely. We make further argument that this discharged state is a factor in social control of his behavior. Multiply this effect by millions and you have pervasive social control. There is some evidence of this in Japan, where an an apparent influence of porn is lowered incidence of rape. This is not to say rapes are desirable, but arguably for every rape there are lots of incidents of legal, 'desirous' behavior, perhaps as ordinary as trying to 'seduce a date.' Suppose these incidents are also in decline.

Now, someone might object, 'His masturbation is likely the same in frequency as before the advent of internet porn’ Reply: This is a factual matter to be investigated. However, even if we suppose no increase, then the *manner* in which he's aroused may be of concern.

With the porn, it's the images (pictures) of the ever-turned-on woman who's supremely accommodating. How does this affect him? He need not spin any kind of fantasy. There is no need to imagine a story. Rather, the image is there, the spread shot, the 'fuck me' look. Arousal, orgasm, done.

This, we contrast with the slower pace, due to narrative, in many fantasies unassisted by graphic pictues. I'd suppose a fantasy is NOT simply the scene in the porn photo; the woman with legs spread. Nor a pussy 'close up'. There is typically a story, I suggest. Is it possible that the decline in narratively constructed fantasy is limiting or even repressive of the individual? The critical element of search, even restless search, is eliminated. The millions of males jerk themselves quickly, with a minimum of imagining, into complacency.

In terms of Freudian categories, the man has lost some of his superego, and it is replaced by external social agencies. To translate, any internal standards by which he judges himself are eroded. There is simply the social standard of ‘healthy functioning’, and this by now, includes the use of porn. He does not judge himself in terms of pursuit of any personal objectives, but simply as accomplishing what’s pretty easily accomplished.

In some ways his situation of being controlled is similar to, but at the opposite end of a dimension, from the woman’s (and again we lay aside effects on the woman coming from male treatment).

The man has lost freedom while being sexually gratified at the simplest level; the woman has lost freedom, since ‘gratification’ on her terms is simply not on the agenda. Neither, as an individual, has effective control of the expression of their sexuality.

[revised and condensed, 2-28, 11:54 pm est; slightly revised 3-01, 2:45 am]
=====

to guide discussion, the following questions were posted the next day, posting #15; the first is due to Verdad:

1. can there be too much of a good thing? where 'the thing' is explicit sex pictures and films.

2. can it [the effects of so many pictures] raise the question, 'can there be too much mcdonalds food in one's life?'

3. to what extent does the regular consumption of mass porn make you more 'open' sexually? or to what extent does it lessen one's freedom and individuality?

4. to what degree does men's consumption of mass porn make them complacent-- kill desire by arousing and discharging the sexual tension right away?

5. to what extent does women's exposure to mass porn lead them to criticize themselves or even denigrate themselves as sexual beings with their own tastes? to what degree does the sexual discourse in general place a demand on them, 'BE sexual, BE HOT, and here's how, in exact steps'?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Has anyone ever suggested that just possibly you either think too much or go looking for problems that don't exist?

 

[sr71plt]

Umm, yes, well. One of the protagonists I write in GM (a lot) is the (usually high-priced) male prostitute. This pushes most of the repression stuff aside, and I find I can get right into a story and it can be more more freewheeling without all of that justification of action/feeling and will he/won't he foreplay on the front end.

Interesting response to that. Sometimes the same sort of moralistic "but he's being degraded" as the female prostitute stories get (and one really wacky unfavorable book review--by a female, naturally--of a book entitled Man's Man--Tales of a High-Priced Gay Hooker of being put off by a man selling himself for money. Well, duh, why'd she pick up the book to review it then?). Those stories sell quite well, though--so maybe some readers would just as soon get by the repression issue as well.

I have no idea how this connects to that long, convoluted Pure ramble, but the word "repression" jumped out at me.

 

[amicus]

"...A Sexually Open Society; Repression; the Issue of Porn ..."

~~~


You always do a nice job of research and presentation.

The quote from Hemingway interests me as well, read that before somewhere, sometime.

That was the easy part of what is running through my addled mind as a response to your essay.

There cannot be, but if it were possible, a level playing table in judging your essay, from my point of view, and my commentary, from your point of view..., might be interesting.

You did not state, but your title implies, that a sexually open society is a 'good' thing and that 'repression', (porn?), is a bad thing.

I don't know where this is going, exactly, just a direction that begins with stating the 'known', and that is that hard core pornography has a limited audience and the effect on society in general, is debatable.

I understand that cloistered groups, such as the Jesuits and others, seeking total intellectual involvement, view the 'pleasures of the flesh', to be detracting and non productive, intellectually. Not that I fully agree with that, but...

Suffice it to say that I conclude that the sexual addictive nature of Pornography is common to but a small percentage of society and that societies in general, suppress total exposure to Pornography as a self protective method to maintain the productivity of society in general.

Not that you are assuming or not assuming any of that, as the scope of your essay was purposely limited by what I assume to be your acceptance of the concept that social repression is a bad thing and sexual openness, a good and needed asset to society.

When I attempt to objectively consider the sexual roles of males and females, it is in the context of a functioning society with some kind of 'normative' behavior set as a standard.

Let me hasten to add that I agree, if that is necessary, that sexual repression in most of past human history was a detriment to understanding the sexual nature of man.

Let me also posit, on the same hand, that total opennesss, without reservation and without social taboo, is not an open ended journey; that the concept of too much concentration of matters of sex, Pornography, can be also a detriment to the society in general.

In summary...there is a place, of course, for those who devote their full productive energy to sexual matters, to the pursuit of pleasure, Hedonism, not a new avenue in human history.

There is also a place, I suggest, for continuing the natural innocence of an individual from birth through consumation within a mating pair, who hold in the highest esteem, the chastity of themselves and their partner.

Our good ole 'soul mate', the one meant just for you and you can only have that first experience one time.

I somewhat consider hard core pornography, as detailed by the thread starter, to be comparable to a biologist that spends every waking hour classifying butterflys from the Amazon Rain Forest. Certainly not something I would do, but if you get your kicks....to each his own in my little world of individuals.

For what it is worth...


Amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

This would be the thread where I, and I hope any other women, listen.

 

[Pure]

a relatively brief addendum!

addendum and note to amicus
________________________________________
although i've spoken at length, perhaps an effort now to clarifiy the central point is worthwhile. IOW, i’m trying to answer the question, ‘what the fuck is pure trying to say?’


what i've called the sexually open society is one where 'frankness' is the rule, where the diversity of sexual practices is evident, and where, in the present case, visual pornographic imagery is widespread and accessed by millions on the 'net and in the corner store.


i'm arguing that despite the benefits of openness, it has repressive effects; individuals, both men and women, are subject to social controls as well as internal ones. this is NOT, however, an essay that is meant to say what to do, e.g., 'give up porn' or ‘ban porn.’ similarly an essay to identify the dumbing down effects of TV is not meant simply to be material to justify the directive, 'turn off your TV' or ‘set up state controlled TV stations.’

further, let me say that when one speaks of 'widespread sexual openness,' there is a dogmatic stance which contrasts with mine, which i will call social-critical. the dogmatist is concerned that there is 'too much' openness. social controls are eroded, and 'license' prevails. *new controls are necessary*.

sharing the bed with the dogmatic position is the radical stance of A. Dworkin: that the increase in porn is reflective of men's increased efforts to degrade and violate women. the erosion of controls on men's behavior was Dworkin's issue, as Wolf points out in her essay. hence thus Dworkin called for *more social controls* based in community outrage against porn commercialism, and the launch of lawsuits against all persons involved in porn production or dissemination.

by contrast, the social critical stance that i take maintains that the apparent license is itself repressive; the widespread practices operate, paradoxically, to control and take away freedom and individuality. a man’s desire is short circuited, and a woman’s, despite the alleged orgasmic moans of the porn actresses, is eclipsed. yet attempts to control by laws, so favored by dogmatists and by Dworkin, are NOT seen as the answer; the present-day problem is not solved by running backward.

=============

to answer the point of ami:, since others may read the essay in a similar way.

ami: //your essay was purposely limited by what I assume to be your acceptance of the concept that a) social repression is a bad thing and b) sexual openness, a good and needed asset to society.//

============
pure: to a) yes; social controls of the individual, beyond those needed for peaceful, thriving, and orderly society, i.e. “repressive” controls, are not advocated. social repression limits, holds down, and restricts the social development of individuals. the old style of social repression particularly affected women,e.g. denying a right to hold property. or see present-day Saudi society.

the new style of repression, discussed in the essay, is likewise not approved. it is subtle and not exercized by law enforcement persons, but by the impersonal workings of the market.

as to b), it should be evident by the above, that i'm NOT taking the simplistic position that 'sexual openness,' and widespread dissemination of graphic imagery is "a good and needed asset to society." this is not an essay, as ami may be suggesting, that proclaims 'liberalism.'

if anything, the main thrust of the essay is to identify the repressive effects inherent in this so- called 'openness' and 'frankness', which in fact control desire, lessen it and channel it in prescribed modes.

========

that's about 500 words, the most concise i can be, at present. thanks to all who participate.

 

[jimmyjoyce]

I'm glad to see this thread. There's an enormous amount that could be said about it - but I won't be saying it all here. A few disconnected notes, though:

1. Pornography certainly constructs sexual responses, in my opinion. That is, we learn to respond to specific kinks as we explore them. Something that didn't seem interesting at first glance can suddenly feel like the sexiest thing in the world once we've (I've) tuned into it.

Is this true for both men and women? I suspect women have a different set of responses to porn, but I don't know.

2. Pornography is about obsession. It generates fixation but then, eventually, disenchantment and frustration. I think a large part of the process of using porn is the obsessive search for the (almost) unattainable.

3. I think adrenalin shock is probably the key here. We look (I look) for a new, powerful, dirty thrill in porn. After a while, the power of that particular thrill fades. Then I search - sometimes obsessively - for a new thrill.

4. Pornography can sometimes meet my desire head on. That is, sometimes I get exactly the sexual/adrenal rush I've been looking for. But usually I don't. The porn I read or view usually points me towards that rush without actually taking me there.

5. Pornography constructs psycho-social responses. I think the way some women have recently begun to express interest in and excitement about pornography indicates a change in mental set brought about in part by exposure to porn. (For me, by the way, the terms 'erotica' and 'pornography' are interchangeable. I use both terms to mean 'material produced to provoke sexual excitement'.)

6. I think the old chesnuts about women 'not really getting excited by pornography' were simply the result of an earlier construct (the imposed ideal of female purity - 'sugar and spice' - vs socially-sanctioned male vulgarity - puppy dogs' tails). I think we're moving into a new paradigm now. In fact, I think that's obvious.

7. I've always suspected that the increasing availablilty of pornography throughout our society - in advertising and main-stream entertainment, for example, as well as in dirty books and films - is a transitional stage and that people may find porn just boring in, say, fifty years time. However, I realise that may be a very simplistic ideal of social 'progress'. In fact, I doubt the idea more and more as time goes by.

8. I can't imagine being shocked/excited in the way pornography shocks me and excites me without feeling 'transgressive'. For me, a large part of the attraction of porn - its 'pull' - is precisely the fact that I'm breaking a powerful taboo in watching or reading it. In short, that I'm doing something 'dirty'.

9. I don't think I'll ever lose that need for sexual dirtiness, but I wonder if porn can survive without it.

10. In '1984', Julia is a member of the Anti-Sex league. She also works in the state printing works, churning out cheap, low-grade pornography. The purpose of this state-produced porn is to deflect the proles from rebelling politically. That is, the proles are secretly encouraged to spend their time wanking over porn in order to deflect them from organizing against their manipulators/masters.

11. I write pornography because the porn I find 'out there' doesn't quite fit my own fantasies. (The porn I write never quite fits my fantasies either, but that failure is mainly to do with the difficulties of writing. )

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think what you're asking is how does porn function as propaganda.

Like most propaganda, it works if you're naive enough to believe it.

 

[Safe_Bet]

... I suspect women have a different set of responses to porn...Pornography is about obsession. It generates fixation but then, eventually, disenchantment and frustration....We look (I look) for a new, powerful, dirty thrill in porn....I think the way some women have recently begun to express interest in and excitement about pornography indicates a change in mental set brought about in part by exposure to porn....I think the old chesnuts about women 'not really getting excited by pornography' were simply the result of an earlier construct (the imposed ideal of female purity - 'sugar and spice' - vs socially-sanctioned male vulgarity - puppy dogs' tails)....the attraction of porn - its 'pull' - is precisely the fact that I'm breaking a powerful taboo in watching or reading it. In short, that I'm doing something 'dirty'....I don't think I'll ever lose that need for sexual dirtiness, but I wonder if porn can survive without it...

DAMN DUDE! Do repressive sexism much?

Obsessions... fixations... frustrations? Sex is "dirty and nasty? Women have "recently" begun to express interest? Powerful taboos?

Ever think that it might have been the male oriented porn that didn't hold women's interest? Ever think MANY of us don't (and never have) thought of it as "dirty", but as a wonderful part of life? Ever think that female sexuality / interest has always been there it has just been slapped down by Victorian thinking like you have just expressed?

Got some news for you bucky - sex ain't never been "dirty," women have always LOVED to fuck and look at GOOD porn and if you are seeing a change in female sexual perception it's solely because we are no longer willing to be forced into Queen V's (and old white men's) "opinion" of propriety.

 

[Verdad]

Pure, if I try to boil down your essay to mere 9 words, would it be fair to put it like this:

Can there be too much of a good thing?

I realize that's a sound bite, but perhaps it gives a handle for joining in to a bigger number of posters.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Going with the porn as propaganda idea, I can only speak from my experience, but I never thought that graphic porn was anything but a product directed at an audience, and a male audience at that. I never thought porn was or is reflective of actual human desires or practices. I think you'd have to be pretty naive to assume that porn was a reflection of reality.

Not that it doesn't happen. Certainly the topic of inadequacy occurs to men as well as women. Women compare themselves to the silicon-enhanced figures of female porn stars and find themselves wanting, and men are similarly cowed by the endowment and athletics of male porn actors. Luckily, that's not enough to make us give up sex as hopeless, though.

Considering Wolff's thesis that porn devalues what life offers, I think that's kind of ridiculous. It's analogous to saying the concentrated experience of literature cheapens the experience of ordinary life. I've yet to meet the man who would give up any kind of live sex for the comforts of filmic fantasy.

Porn lies. That's the first rule of porn--that it's fantasy. Trying to put truth into the lies is what we do as authors, and we count on our readers being able to separate one from the other. If they don't, we're all in a world of trouble.

 

[Recidiva]

I have no problem with porn and I think porn serves women quite well, as they profit from it.

But the problem with "sexually open" is that many people like, want and have to have shame in their sex or it is no fun for them.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]
Considering Wolff's thesis that porn devalues what life offers, I think that's kind of ridiculous. It's analogous to saying the concentrated experience of literature cheapens the experience of ordinary life. I've yet to meet the man who would give up any kind of live sex for the comforts of filmic fantasy.

Porn lies. That's the first rule of porn--that it's fantasy. Trying to put truth into the lies is what we do as authors, and we count on our readers being able to separate one from the other. If they don't, we're all in a world of trouble.

I think Wolf's thesis was that porn devalues what women offer.

 

[Recidiva]

I think Wolf's thesis was that porn devalues what women offer.

But it's fantasy. It's only devaluing in those who don't know the difference.

A certain section of the population will always have a disconnect between fantasy and reality.

But just like video games and rock music. You can blame those things for "desensitizing" but large numbers of people experience no such difficulty.

 

[Pure]

thanks, verdad,

here are a couple other soundbite-sized questions (well, *almost* soundbites!). give reasons for your answers

1. can there be too much of a good thing? where 'the thing' is explicit sex pictures and films.

2. can it [the effects of so many pictures] raise the question, 'can there be too much mcdonalds food in one's life?'

3. to what extent does the regular consumption of mass porn make you more 'open' sexually? or to what extent does it lessen one's freedom and individuality?

4. to what degree does men's consumption of mass porn make them complacent-- kill desire by arousing and discharging the sexual tension right away?

5. to what extent does women's exposure to mass porn lead them to criticize themselves or even denigrate themselves as sexual beings with their own tastes? to what degree does the sexual discourse in general place a demand on them, 'BE sexual, BE HOT, and here's how, in exact steps'?

[revised 4:45 pm est, 3-01-09

 

[voluptuary_manque]

here are a couple other soundbite-sized questions (well, *almost* soundbites!).

1. can there be too much of a good thing? where 'the thing' is explicit sex pictures and films.

2. can it be likened to 'can there be too much mcdonalds food in one's life?'

3. does the regular consumption of mass porn make you more 'open' sexually? or does it lessen one's freedom and individuality?

4. does men's consumption of mass porn make them complacent-- kill desire by arousing and discharging the sexual tension right away?

5. does women's exposure to mass porn lead them criticize themselves or even denigrate themselves as sexual beings with their own tastes? does the sexual discourse in general place a demand on them, 'BE sexual, BE HOT, and here's how, in exact steps'?

1. possibly
2. no
3. depends on the person
4. not mine
5. see #3.

 

[Recidiva]

here are a couple other soundbite-sized questions (well, *almost* soundbites!).

1. can there be too much of a good thing? where 'the thing' is explicit sex pictures and films.

2. can it be likened to 'can there be too much mcdonalds food in one's life?'

3. does the regular consumption of mass porn make you more 'open' sexually? or does it lessen one's freedom and individuality?

4. does men's consumption of mass porn make them complacent-- kill desire by arousing and discharging the sexual tension right away?

5. does women's exposure to mass porn lead them criticize themselves or even denigrate themselves as sexual beings with their own tastes? does the sexual discourse in general place a demand on them, 'BE sexual, BE HOT, and here's how, in exact steps'?

1. Having good things is good. Abusing them isn't.

2. See 1.

3. I don't actually...watch porn as it makes me laugh. So there are at least portions of the population who are entirely immune to a visual allure.

4. See 1.

5. It makes me giggle. More power to the actresses/stars making their money this way. Got a good body? Flaunt it. I'm fine with it. It's fantasy, any man who can't determine the difference between theater and reality isn't going to be someone I would be compatible with anyway.

 

[Stella_Omega]

here are a couple other soundbite-sized questions (well, *almost* soundbites!).

1. can there be too much of a good thing? where 'the thing' is explicit sex pictures and films.
a There are two answers to that; one is the purely personal answer, which depends on the individual and his or her tolerance against addiction.
The other is the capitalist market, and it's pretty obvious that the market has not hit its saturation point yet...

2. can it be likened to 'can there be too much mcdonalds food in one's life?'
A; absolutely!

3. does the regular consumption of mass porn make you more 'open' sexually? or does it lessen one's freedom and individuality?
A; depends on the person and the porn they consume; for myself, I was always "open sexually" (ad nauseum, sorry,) and I've sought out porn that would take me in new directions. We can see readers here on lit however, that have no desire to open up, and who stick to one single genre, and many of them stick to one single scenario. They don't want any more freedom than they already have.

4. does men's consumption of mass porn make them complacent-- kill desire by arousing and discharging the sexual tension right away?
A; That' something I can't answer for 'real' men! speaking from my semi-masculine brain though... no, it tends to leave me unsatisfied, because whatever it was, however outrageously impossible, Id rather be doing it than reading it...

5. does women's exposure to mass porn lead them criticize themselves or even denigrate themselves as sexual beings with their own tastes? does the sexual discourse in general place a demand on them, 'BE sexual, BE HOT, and here's how, in exact steps'?

Again, I'm not a normal woman, so I can't answer this one in quite those terms. What the exposure did for me was lead me to denigrate mass porn for misrepresenting women so blatantly.

And as I've said, I feel that it often encourages men to denigrate women for being sexual beings with their own tastes.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

1. can there be too much of a good thing? where 'the thing' is explicit sex pictures and films.

Absolutely. If we feed our desires for the unattainable and ignore the beauty of the possibilities around us, we ruin our lives somehow.

2. can it [the effects of so many pictures] raise the question, 'can there be too much mcdonalds food in one's life?'

No doubt about it. If we live on junk, we die on junk. If we feed ourselves on high-quality art and high-quality thought, we die on them.

3. to what extent does the regular consumption of mass porn make you more 'open' sexually? or to what extent does it lessen one's freedom and individuality?

Being "open" is something that comes from being exposed to new ideas and new concepts. If, however, we are exposed to horrible and ugly images and ideas, does it automatically follow that we become more "open" to them? I have seen my share of horror films and it hasn't made me feel any more open-minded toward people who do horrible things.

I have also seen my share of bad porn. It hasn't made me any more "open" to being treated as an object.

4. to what degree does men's consumption of mass porn make them complacent-- kill desire by arousing and discharging the sexual tension right away?

Sexual tension is what makes life interesting, in my opinion. And, if we spend our days releasing our urges in ways that don't include flesh-and-blood lovers or real emotions, then I'm not sure the energy was spent well. That's for every individual to decide, of course. I believe in holding onto my sexual tension until I can release it with someone I care for.

5. to what extent does women's exposure to mass porn lead them to criticize themselves or even denigrate themselves as sexual beings with their own tastes? to what degree does the sexual discourse in general place a demand on them, 'BE sexual, BE HOT, and here's how, in exact steps'?

I think it very much depends on the self-image of the woman in question and also her age and maturity level. When I was much younger, I think I placed a lot more importance on trying to fit some mold or type. Now that I'm older, I work with what I have and enjoy it for what it is. I'm proud of my body and of who I am, so it follows that I don't waste time comparing it to other bodies.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Writer Ann Garry says in Sex, Lies and Respect that, in pornography, "losing respect for men as a class (men with power, typically Anglo men) is more difficult than losing respect for women or ethic minorities as a class."

From her perspective, it is difficult to imagine pornography that degrades a group of individuals who hold the majority of power in our social structure. In typical porn, men are the ones with the control and they dominate. How are they degraded by it?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Writer Ann Garry says in Sex, Lies and Respect that, in pornography, "losing respect for men as a class (men with power, typically Anglo men) is more difficult than losing respect for women or ethic minorities as a class."

From her perspective, it is difficult to imagine pornography that degrades a group of individuals who hold the majority of power in our social structure. In typical porn, men are the ones with the control and they dominate. How are they degraded by it?

As a class, guys, please. There are always exceptions, in any class. They do not negate the class itself, okay?

 

[Pure]

note to lesbiaphrodite and stella,

Note to lesbiaphrodite and to stella,

Lesbiaphrodite asked From her perspective, it is difficult to imagine pornography that degrades a group of individuals who hold the majority of power in our social structure. In typical porn, men are the ones with the control and they dominate. How are they degraded by it?

You quoted her as saying, Writer Ann Garry says in Sex, Lies and Respect that, in pornography, "losing respect for men as a class (men with power, typically Anglo men) is more difficult than losing respect for women or ethic minorities as a class."

Stella said, //As a class, guys, please. There are always exceptions, in any class. They do not negate the class itself, okay?//

I addressed this point in two earlier paras, which drew on my experience, and I will add comments below.


Post #1 [pure]
We might say then that his surplus sexual desire is discharged harmlessly and routinely. We make further argument that this discharged state is a factor in social control of his behavior. Multiply this effect by millions and you have pervasive social control. There is some evidence of this in Japan, where an an apparent influence of porn is lowered incidence of rape. This is not to say rapes are desirable, but arguably for every rape there are lots of incidents of legal, 'desirous' behavior, perhaps as ordinary as trying to 'seduce a date.' Suppose these incidents are also in decline

Post #6
by contrast, the social critical stance that i take maintains that the apparent license is itself repressive; the widespread practices operate, paradoxically, to control and take away freedom and individuality. a man’s desire is short circuited, and a woman’s, despite the alleged orgasmic moans of the porn actresses, is eclipsed.

Note also post #7, point 10, by jimmyjoyce

==
To be brief. From a social critical perspective, Stella, “men” are not a class, or a sufficiently homogeneous social grouping which could exercise power or dominance. The gender dimension unfolds in a complementary way to the underlying social structures, the more fundamental power dynamic. To take a simple case, the antebellum US South. “male power” is almost a joke, even though Black males *might* dominate with their family sphere. Further “white male power” is likewise inaccurate, in view of the large number of poor males. The fundamental power dynamic is the white slave holders’ power over all others (which flows from their class position).

I don’t know ms garry’s work, but her thrust might be a bit like Dworkins: powerful male bosses share the spoils (pussy) with their lieutenants and workers, who vicariously share in the bosses’ power. Males become the culprits; females their victims.

The male porn consumer, however, is often the 15-30 year old male. The character of Tony Manero, played by John Travolta, in Saturday Night Fever, comes to mind. He in fact has little social power; his life is tossed about like a small boat on the ocean. A layoff may destroy his ability to act as the father in his family. And there are older males. Taken together, Stella, they are so numerous that calling them exceptions to the rule [of male dominance] is implausible.

The typical male consumer of porn is degraded; he is a dick with a wallet, and he’s made to spurt asap. Then he is quiescent for a time, until the unsatisfied yearnings cause him to sally forth to another site-- into another blind alley of ‘sexual release.’ The owner of a porn site--and i've dealt with one-- views the customers much like the fisherman views a school of herrings. And he, too, is small fry, in relation to his corporate masters.

The general low level of sexual tension of the porn consumer, as you (LA) point out, deprives him of the fuel for a multitude of endeavors in real life society. I say this holds even for the ‘non addict’; indeed, it holds where there is an apparently normal marital life as in my 15%-release-through-porn example in the original post.

Of the males with creative powers, some may limit their recourse and use porn for occasional ‘de stressing’; but others follow Hemingway’s path or do worse, and spill their best chapters on their hands. It will depend on the individual, just as with alcohol or hookers: does the recourse de-stress? or is it, at least to an appreciable extent, depleting?

Marcuse invites us to look beyond the apparent picture of ‘consumer satisfaction.’ The needs are created and their satisfaction is manipulated. The real underlying needs of persons, which vary individually, are left unsatisfied; in that sense the persons are repressed or even degraded. I’d invite you to consider a housewife in the 1950s with her new vacuum cleaner and a smile on her face. Were she in the 1970s she might discover she was a lesbian.

I don’t, in this thread, wish to say men’s treatment of women is a non issue. But I want to focus on how both fare under the prevalence of the ‘sexually open society.’ I propose they are both repressed; hindered in their development as individuals, in slightly different ways. Since Wolf did a good job discussing effect on women, I’ve more stressed the effects on men, in this thread.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, I understand, pure; just wanted to remind people that there is a classification.

The male porn consumer, however, is often the 15-30 year old male. The character of Tony Manero, played by John Travolta, in Saturday Night Fever, comes to mind. He in fact has little social power; his life is tossed about like a small boat on the ocean. A layoff may destroy his ability to act as the father in his family. And there are older males. Taken together, Stella, they are so numerous that calling them exceptions to the rule [of male dominance] is implausible.

Tony Manero, if I recall, vented his frustrations on one woman attempting to rape her, and spat on the other woman, who would have done anything for him, for being a slut...

All those men who have no social power among other men, can focus their frustrations on women. And much of porn as we see it right now tends to buttress any angers that a man might have, point those frustrations femalewards, in the same manner that Rush Limbaugh encourages his listeners to blame minorities for their powerlessness.

I swear, absolutely, that's the last time I will argue the point in this thread!

Because I agree with this, every bit;

Of the males with creative powers, some may limit their recourse and use porn for occasional ‘de stressing’; but others follow Hemingway’s path or do worse, and spill their best chapters on their hands. It will depend on the individual, just as with alcohol or hookers: does the recourse de-stress? or is it, at least to an appreciable extent, depleting?

and not only for men.

 

[Verdad]

Pure, Stella, Lesbia, Amicus, Jimmyjoyce—good posts all.

To backtrack a little for the benefit of others, though, I wonder if the repression Pure speaks of sounds a bit counterintuitive to some.

Repression, after all, is a word that primarily evokes the idea of people being discouraged from exploring their sexuality in a way that includes prescriptions such as "don't do it", or at least, "don't enjoy it." Since such repression is still a reality for a number of people—the people for whom it's a genuine and hard won victory to say that they enjoy sex, or enjoy porn, or indulge in a variety of acts—it might sound ridiculous to say that the profligacy of sexually explicit materials represses in its own right.

And yet, there must be an equally large number of people whose experience is better described by Wolf's article, who've lived under an equally firm imperative to do do it, only to do it exactly as seen on TV, and to better enjoy it no matter what it is. This experience merits some reflection as well.

Its key points are not to be found in the extremes, though. Pure has mentioned the so-called porn addict, and something that's close to the so-called asexual person, but neither is all that interesting. The addict makes one want to say, well, some people will get addicted to a chewing gum; it's no reason I shouldn't indulge, and it sure as hell isn't the gum's fault. The other extreme makes one mildly sympathetic, as it must be weird for them in a world whose main obsession they don't share, but all in all, it's no reason for the rest of us to stop talking about something that's important to us.

I find it hard to believe, though, that precisely this "rest of us" is so suave and self-contained as not to be influenced in any way. Does one really have to be a blithering idiot for the porn myths and prescriptions to sneak into one's psyche? And even if one is a hundred percent resilient rugged individualist right from one's earliest age, mightn't s/he still have to deal with it in others?

The experience of people who've crawled from under the old-school repression is usually not discounted. When they give an example like, "I felt bad for years because my pastor told me I'm going to hell if I masturbate," no one responds with, "And you're actually so dumb you believed him?" No more dumbness, I don't think, is required for the messages of porn to be believed, at least on some level. Less, perhaps.

My own conclusions are not as grim as Wolf's, as I like to think that the internet with its amassing and decentralization of info has a better chance than anything of beating the sexual totalitarianism. Yet totalitarianism often parades under the banner of liberation, so I like to remind myself that "good girls do swallow" isn't an inherently better message than "good girls don't swallow".

Ideally, 'good' girls and 'good' boys have enough info but also enough breathing space to find out what they want to do, and it's not trivial to wonder how the long hand of 'experts', once it's found its way in the most private areas of life, affects that.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

You people are daft.

The typical male consumer of porn is degraded; he is a dick with a wallet, and he’s made to spurt asap. Then he is quiescent for a time, until the unsatisfied yearnings cause him to sally forth to another site-- into another blind alley of ‘sexual release.’

You seriously believe that one is degraded by patronizing porn? How and in what way? How is masturbating to a picture morally inferior to masturbating in front of a live woman? And what does that say about all of us here at Literotica? That we're a a bunch of degenerates? You honestly believe this?

I'm rather shocked to hear you take such a morally opprobrious tone toward the end use of pornography. Only last year you were arguing for porn without limits, the more abject, the better.

Of the males with creative powers, some may limit their recourse and use porn for occasional ‘de stressing’; but others follow Hemingway’s path or do worse, and spill their best chapters on their hands. It will depend on the individual, just as with alcohol or hookers: does the recourse de-stress? or is it, at least to an appreciable extent, depleting?

This is just nineteenth century nonsense. The idea that creativity is somehow tied up with one's precious sexual fluids belongs with the notion that masturbation makes hair grow on the palms of your hands. Hemingway is a fine example to quote, since he was a notorious prude who thought that each man was given only so many orgasms in his life and when he ran out, he was done for, which is probably why he blew his head off with a shotgun at the age of 60.

Sexual tension and the release thereof has nothing to do with creativity. If it did, Catholic priests would be our most brilliant artists, which is hardly the case. Sexual energy is not a finite store. It's constantly replenished. The idea that porn leads to an instant diminution of sexual energy is debatable. It's also been argued that porn incites the libido and riles up the blood, increasing the appetite for authentic sex.

Honestly, what in the world are you talking about here with repression by porn? Are our attitudes toward sex influenced by pornographic propaganda? Of course they are if you're naive enough to let them be. But if you're naive enough, your attitudes toward sex are influenced by everything, from fashion ads to TV shows to pop music to you name it. But does that constitute some new form of repression of individual freedom and liberty? Hardly.