A Sexually Open Society; Repression; the Issue of Porn

[Stella_Omega]

*raises hand*

I feel very insecure about my rope-tying skills. I'm working on it, but I know I'm pretty rough compared to real Shibari.

But you know what? Discussing the mechanics of anal intercourse? I think that's a very good idea. There wasn't any discussion like that when I was a young adult. I learned how to take it up the ass from William Burroughs.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think our perception of this issue will be largely shaped by our concept of pornography. When presented with the word, I immediately think of written porn, and when Pure talks about the proliferation on the web, my exemplar is Literotica. It's hard for me to conceive of a way that reading stories on lit "degrades" men.

Either written porn, or maybe I think of still shots of relatively benign sexual congress, the occasional anal sex shot included; the kind of porn I first encountered when I first encountered porn. Graphic porn never appealed to me as much as written, so I haven't really kept up with the state of the art, and I think I own one XXX DVD from the days when such things were novelties. So maybe I'm missing some new, dark, trend in adult video that Pure's taking as his archetype.

But the glut of information that accompanied the porn explosion is no different from what happens in other fields when they become popular. The same thing happened in exercise maybe 30 years ago when people suddenly woke up to the benefits to be had from jogging. Suddenly everything was about jogging and there was a certain palpable social pressure put on everyone to jog. No one complained about our freedom to lay about being repressed though.

We do lose the freedom of our ignorance in an explosion of information like this, but is this worse than the alternative of losing our freedom of knowledge?

I have to say, what interests me most about this whole subject is the personal side. Back when we had our discussion about abject sex, Pure came down firmly on the side of porn with no limits, no censorship, not even self-censorship. Now it seems like he's suddenly aware that this policy might have social consequences, and I'm curious as to how he squares the two views.

 

[Pure]

reply

doc asked,

Back when we had our discussion about abject sex, Pure came down firmly on the side of porn with no limits, no censorship, not even self-censorship. Now it seems like he's suddenly aware that this policy might have social consequences, and I'm curious as to how he squares the two views.

doc, i said in posting 6,

//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.’//

this thread is meant to be DEscriptive and the social and psychological levels. it does not address either public policy or 'personal' policies (one's standards to be applied to guide one's own conduct.). it does not PREscribe.

therefore it cannot be inconsistent with my other postings about public policy, PREscriptions i may have made.. in the policy area, my anti censorship views are well known, standard ACLU positions.

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

this thread is not recommending to lawmakers, not telling anyone what to do, not telling anyone they are wicked, nor even scolding anyone, as we do kids who don't brush their teeth.

no one is coming to pound on doc's bathroom door.

Huck, also, seems not to get the point that no one, including all the women posters, is telling or advising him what to do, or even trying to find out.

Huck said: [to pure]It's just imposing a different set of sexual politics, is all.

This was said in relation to my discussion about one way some writers have given themselves impetus by heightening their sexual desires without satisfaction. And it was specified that normal relations with partners and 'stress relieving' masturbation were not being frowned on.

Huck //are you [lesbiaphrodite] not simply sanctifying sex, with yourself as the Priestess of the Portal? //

I know of no poster who is trying to impose a view on anyone, in particular as regards the 'sanctity' of sex. As far as I'm concerned, all of us are free to pick a 'priest' or 'priestess' of our choice, or none at all.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]Huck, also, seems not to get the point that no one, including all the women posters, is telling or advising him what to do, or even trying to find out.

Huck said: [to pure]It's just imposing a different set of sexual politics, is all.

This was said in relation to my discussion about one way some writers have given themselves impetus by heightening their sexual desires without satisfaction. And it was specified that normal relations with partners and 'stress relieving' masturbation were not being frowned on.

Huck //are you [lesbiaphrodite] not simply sanctifying sex, with yourself as the Priestess of the Portal? //

I know of no poster who is trying to impose a view on anyone, in particular as regards the 'sanctity' of sex. As far as I'm concerned, all of us are free to pick a 'priest' or 'priestess' of our choice, or none at all.

You're kinda sounding like Box in the rest of your post.
I know you don't mean to frown on anything, Pure, but you asked why I thought 'sanctifying sex' was a bad thing. I told you, in one brief sentence.

Now, in your "tyranny of experts" post, you also compare that repression to Priests. What a novel idea!

Whether the repression comes from society, in the form of psychological self-repression, or from partners, in the form of psychological abuse, is an interesting question, but it's like drawing a distinction between the point and the blade.

 

[Verdad]

Huck, it would be too easy to pick apart your posts from any number of angles, from logical fallacies to psychosexual issues to rampant bad manners, but let's be short and sweet:

The posters you're trying to insult and pick a fight with have presented their thoughts on the topic/s, and they've done so with clarity and grace. Can you say the same about you?

 

[Huckleman2000]

Huck, it would be too easy to pick apart your posts from any number of angles, from logical fallacies to psychosexual issues to rampant bad manners, but let's be short and sweet:

The posters you're trying to insult and pick a fight with have presented their thoughts on the topic/s, and they've done so with clarity and grace. Can you say the same about you?

I'm not picking a fight with anyone. But if it's so easy to pick apart my posts from any number of angles, why don't you do it? Instead, people post that I'm ill-mannered, that I clearly misunderstand things, that I'm "pathetic", that I'm picking a fight, that I'm compartmentalizing.
And that while lauding as brilliant a Naomi Wolf article where she says, essentially, "I don't like burkhas, but I can see their point."
Why is pointing out that "I control your sexual behavior by viewing you as property" acceptable, but pointing out that "I control your sexual behavior by elevating sex to sacrament" raises hackles?

 

[Stella_Omega]

... a Naomi Wolf article where she says, essentially, "I don't like burkhas, but I can see their point."
Why is pointing out that "I control your sexual behavior by viewing you as property" acceptable, but pointing out that "I control your sexual behavior by elevating sex to sacrament" raises hackles?

Is that what you think Naomi said?

And, is that what you think lesbaiaphrodite said?

By the way, I do agree with you; its perfectly common to control sexuality by elevating sex to sacrament. And it;s just as deletorious as any other means.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Sadly, for some people, the web offers those who need it a nice way of hiding so they can say horrible and hateful things without fear of reprisal. This makes chat rooms and discussion boards a wonderful spot for individuals full of hate toward a given group. The haters choose their victim, make their attacks and then if the victim responds to defend him or herself, they reply with vitriole and unsubstantiated claims.

"Hate crime is a low-level form of terrorism designed to disenfranchise, stifle, and ultimately remove certain people from the public sphere by forcing them to erect imaginary boundaries of fear in their own heads. It causes people to change their behavior, shrink their horizons, and stop participating fully in their own lives. Suddenly, there are places -- the synagogue, the clinic, downtown after dark, professional conferences, the comments threads that form the living rooms of their own online homes -- that they can no longer approach with a feeling of acceptance, belonging, and safety."--Sarah Robinson, Virtual Hate Crimes: Misogyny on the Web

 

[Verdad]

I'm not picking a fight with anyone. But if it's so easy to pick apart my posts from any number of angles, why don't you do it? Instead, people post that I'm ill-mannered, that I clearly misunderstand things, that I'm "pathetic", that I'm picking a fight, that I'm compartmentalizing.
And that while lauding as brilliant a Naomi Wolf article where she says, essentially, "I don't like burkhas, but I can see their point."
Why is pointing out that "I control your sexual behavior by viewing you as property" acceptable, but pointing out that "I control your sexual behavior by elevating sex to sacrament" raises hackles?

That's a cute attempt to challenge me, but it would end up with my expanding two pages on describing all your offenses against the art of debate, to which you'd respond with, "Oh yeah, and what are you, the thought police?"

Thing is, either your reading comprehension truly is as abysmal as you pretend, in which case I can't help you, or, you're being exactly as disingenuous as it appears, and I choose not to help you derail yet another thread.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Is that what you think Naomi said?

And, is that what you think lesbaiaphrodite said?

By the way, I do agree with you; its perfectly common to control sexuality by elevating sex to sacrament. And it;s just as deletorious as any other means.

Did you read the rest of the article, after the quoted bit?

LA has some issues about Narcissism, and that's not just based on her posts in this thread. She'll say anything or take offense at anything she wants to - I just push her buttons on that topic, I guess. Having had a long, symbiotic relationship with a Narcissist myself, she pushes some of mine as well.

Look, I'm all for two lovers deciding to 'save it up' for a good one, if that's what they want to do. That's what porn stars have to do before filming, after all, for both performers' health and artistic (erm...) reasons. It allows hormones that are discharged in sex to store themselves up, so there are biological reasons as well for such behavior.

But to infer that one ought to refrain from too-frequent sex or masturbation out of deference to some spiritual force transference that happens is a repressive attitude. It's based on an article of faith in one's own point of view, that somehow sex between a particular set of persons (usually 2 or more, but occasionally 1+ any worthy supplicant/master) is uniquely transcendent. Call that obsession, passion, chi, romantic love - all of it smacks of the grandiosity and desire to control of narcissism, to impart such import onto what is a basic biological act.

And thank you for acknowledging my point.

 

[Huckleman2000]

That's a cute attempt to challenge me, but it would end up with my expanding two pages on describing all your offenses against the art of debate, to which you'd respond with, "Oh yeah, and what are you, the thought police?"

Thing is, either your reading comprehension truly is as abysmal as you pretend, in which case I can't help you, or, you're being exactly as disingenuous as it appears, and I choose not to help you derail yet another thread.

And that's a darling attempt to make me look childish and stupid instead of responding to a point of view that seems to make you uncomfortable.

I understand what we've been talking about quite well. And basically, I'm pointing out the sexual repression that exists in some people's points of view. And instead of acknowledging that, like Stella has, they're saying, "Stop pushing my hot buttons."

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

"It seems in vogue to be a closet misogynist homophobe."--Tori Amos

If you hurry, you might be able to get downtown to catch that Closet Misogynist Homophobes of America meeting down at the YMCA. I hear they have donuts.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Pure-- It's just that I thought your laissez faire attitude toward porn was based on a belief that porn had no effect on the consumer. I guess that's not the case though.

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

I'm afraid I don't see Huck as being as out of line and irrelevant as most of you do. I think he raises a very valid point about the repressive aspects of the sanctification of sex and the kind of orgasm worship that have usually been considered the upside of porn. Books like The Joy of Sex series (which I always considered quite pretentious and pompous) did much to turn sex into a kind of consciousness-raising exercise and stifle any spontaneity.

Sanctification of sex makes what should be an easy and spontaneous act into a big ceremonial to-do, with allotted times for setting the mood, foreplay, afterplay, etc. and severely structures lovemaking. Insofar as structuring a spontaneous activity is repressive, sanctification of sex is very repressive. The extreme comes with the rituals of tantric yoga, which is so highly structured that the sex isn't even enjoyable anymore.

Sanctification is idealization, just like porn itself is idealization of sex

 

[Verdad]

I'm afraid I don't see Huck as being as out of line and irrelevant as most of you do. I think he raises a very valid point about the repressive aspects of the sanctification of sex and the kind of orgasm worship that have usually been considered the upside of porn. Books like The Joy of Sex series (which I always considered quite pretentious and pompous) did much to turn sex into a kind of consciousness-raising exercise and stifle any spontaneity.

Sanctification of sex makes what should be an easy and spontaneous act into a big ceremonial to-do, with allotted times for setting the mood, foreplay, afterplay, etc. and severely structures lovemaking. Insofar as structuring a spontaneous activity is repressive, sanctification of sex is very repressive. The extreme comes with the rituals of tantric yoga, which is so highly structured that the sex isn't even enjoyable anymore.

Sanctification is idealization, just like porn itself is idealization of sex

You're right on target now (well, one of them, at any rate) except you've got your posters confused! The point you've just made about the Joy of Sex is precisely the 'tyranny of experts' Pure's been speaking about all along, down to a t. To the best of my understanding, Huck never made a similar point, or any point at all, apart from accusing LA of trying to enforce her private views as a universal policy.

I'm relieved you've got the issue, though—I'd have been surprised to see us disagree about it so completely.

 

[Pure]

note to doc.

i never called for 'sanctification' of sex. if you think i did, quote me.

rather i gave three examples of deferred gratification, one from the Marquis de Sade, for heaven's sakes!!

pure in my view, one's experiences with sexual imaginings can be, in a similar way, relevant. reality or imagining may be depleting, but they both might be used to foster the creative impulse, which is apparently what Baudelaire did, with his favorite prostitute/lover. such 'atypical' use may contrast with the 'routine' use i mentioned in the original posting and addendum. this might occur in a number of ways.

A. here is one, due to Sade. he recommends that in order to write something truly forceful, give oneself over to imagining for a couple weeks, driving oneself with the most depraved scenes possible. i believe the assumption was 'no release.'

B. similarly, the images of hardcore porn, can be used to *excite*; the peaks of excitement are reached, but there is no release, rather provocation is continued; sustained evocation of lust is sought. then one writes, draws, etc.

C. being with one's lover too, might serve the same function, if one does NOT come, for purposes of this exercise. let him or her drive you to the furthest pitch of excitement, without going over the edge. the harrowing experience, the unbearable craving can be immediately be harnessed in creative production.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

i never called for 'sanctification' of sex. if you think i did, quote me.

No, I'm not saying you ever called for the sanctification of sex. I just wanted to mention that I thought Huck had a point saying that sanctification is one form of repression.

Verdad-- Yes, that's a good point, that the glorification of sex that happens in books like Joy of Sex is an example of the tyranny of the experts, but I'm thinking (and I think Huck was envisioning) of a true beatification of sex where the act is given a divine importance beyond the purview of mere mortals. Again, Hemingway, with his finite number of orgasms (as if allotted by heaven) and his fear of squandering his seed, comes to mine, as do the rituals of Tantra. The search for the cosmic orgasm becomes something like a religious quest. The G-spot furor, female ejaculation, and multiple male orgasms come to mind as modern examples.

The repressive effects of porn concern me as a writer, because I'm aware of the necessary lies and exaggerations I include in my stories in order to achieve a certain artistic end. I've been taken to task for suggesting that women are or aren't a certain way (which is inevitable when you write) and for inflating the impact of sex on my characters' lives, but hey-- It's porn. It's propaganda. When you get down to it, I think the repression consists of (1) desensitization, (2) distortion of the norms, (3) Tyranny of the experts, and (4) sanctification.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

When talking about the repressive effects of porn on society, I wonder if we shouldn't include the (largely) feminist backlash against it. We're talking about ways in which freedom can be repressive here. What about the ways in which license provokes a reactionary response? That's an effect of porn too.

Female reaction against the "kind of things men like" has been amply demonstrated in the thread about Porn in the Service of Women, and I know I, for one, am quite a bit more circumspect about revealing my true tastes in public forums because I don't want to go through the hassle of defending myself. It's just not worth it to me.

It's not that big a deal, but it is a form of repression brought about by the prevalence of porn available today.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Michel Foucault makes some interesting comments in the History of Sexuality about binaries. In his view, "Power is essentially what dictates its law to sex. Which means first of all that sex is placed by power in a binary system: licit and illicit, permitted and forbidden."

To my view, you can argue either side of the equation, but as long as you only see sexuality in terms of binaries, you are rather missing the whole point in any serious theoretical discourse on the subject because you are trapping yourself into an either/or line of reasoning.

As has been seen in this thread and the "porn in the service of women" thread and countless others, it is assumed that if one makes a given point or states an opinion, then one is arguing exclusively for one way or the other. I do not operate that way intellectually or emotionally or for that matter sexually.

When I say, for example, that I like the idea of holding onto my orgasm for awhile to achieve a bigger one later, I get pigeon-holed as everything from a narcissist to a repressive sanctifier of sex. But, by sayinig that the technique I mentioned is something nice, it does not mean that is the only technique or belief I follow in my sex life.

If someone here says that they view sex as a release, I do not presume that is all they view sex as. That just makes it all about black/white, yes/no, male/female, good/bad....and on and on.

I think binaries trap us and limit us, and I don't subscribe to them.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

The basis of thought and philosophy in the entire world, though dominantly so in the west, has been the conflict of binary oppositions. We see this in our every day use of words with such things as right and wrong, good and evil, truth and lies. As stated however, this is not unique to the west and can be seen in Buddhism with the idea of ego and oneness, and in Communism with the idea of self and state. The result of these binaries is that one is always favored over the other, based on the subjective ethics of the individual and the community that produces the particular binary. The end result of that particular bias is a form of dogma that rarely allows for alternate explanations, and leads ultimately to a skewered and narrow view of the world. --Shaun Michael Jex, Killing the Binary

 

[Stella_Omega]

When talking about the repressive effects of porn on society, I wonder if we shouldn't include the (largely) feminist backlash against it. We're talking about ways in which freedom can be repressive here. What about the ways in which license provokes a reactionary response? That's an effect of porn too.

Female reaction against the "kind of things men like" has been amply demonstrated in the thread about Porn in the Service of Women, and I know I, for one, am quite a bit more circumspect about revealing my true tastes in public forums because I don't want to go through the hassle of defending myself. It's just not worth it to me.

It's not that big a deal, but it is a form of repression brought about by the prevalence of porn available today.

Once more; I did not react against "the kind of things men like"; I am reacting against;
a) the lack of things women like (For which there is a solution already in play) and
b) the tendency that men so often have, to blame and denigrate women, in response to their (men's) exposure to 'the kind of things men like'.

The basis of thought and philosophy in the entire world, though dominantly so in the west, has been the conflict of binary oppositions. We see this in our every day use of words with such things as right and wrong, good and evil, truth and lies. As stated however, this is not unique to the west and can be seen in Buddhism with the idea of ego and oneness, and in Communism with the idea of self and state. The result of these binaries is that one is always favored over the other, based on the subjective ethics of the individual and the community that produces the particular binary. The end result of that particular bias is a form of dogma that rarely allows for alternate explanations, and leads ultimately to a skewered and narrow view of the world. --Shaun Michael Jex, Killing the Binary

YES BABY!


That bump of Ogg's, of that very old thread shows people trying pretty sincerely to un-binary. I hereby promise and swear to try to un-binary myself, especially in these discussions.

Who's with me? I'll need help, yanno-- kind help. "Stella... you're sounding awfully binary, there."

That sort of thing.

 

[Pure]

note

SO That bump of Ogg's, of that very old thread shows people trying pretty sincerely to un-binary. I hereby promise and swear to try to un-binary myself, especially in these discussions.*

if you're trying to 'unbinary yourself,' you've set up a contrast of the new UN binary self and the old BInary self. [the new clearthinking stella and the old kinda messed up, muddy-thinking stella]and that itself is a binary activity and concept.

all the zen teachers dealt with this paradox, and concluded that, in a sense, 'enlightenment' is not something that can be striven for or achieved.
--

*perhaps this is tongue in cheek, of course.

 

[Stella_Omega]

SO That bump of Ogg's, of that very old thread shows people trying pretty sincerely to un-binary. I hereby promise and swear to try to un-binary myself, especially in these discussions.*

if you're trying to 'unbinary yourself,' you've set up a contrast of the new UN binary self and the old BInary self. [the new clearthinking stella and the old kinda messed up, muddy-thinking stella]and that itself is a binary activity and concept.

all the zen teachers dealt with this paradox, and concluded that, in a sense, 'enlightenment' is not something that can be striven for or achieved.
--

*perhaps this is tongue in cheek, of course.

Ah, I never said I was always binary previously-- did I?
You're jumping to binary conclusions, my friend!

 

[Verdad]

Doc and Lesbia and all of you guys, your posts do my heart a lot of good.

Foucault's quote strikes a note not only with the thread's topic but also with its dynamic. It was pointed out by Stella on another thread that a weird either/or mentality permeates the discussion. It's been true here as well. A question of "might there be something wrong with porn?" was almost automatically interpreted as an invitation for people to either repent and never see another dirty picture again, or pull out their guns and defend their porn stashes to the last breath. Not even personal preferences were exempt from this, as one can no longer confess a taste for chicken without supposedly curtailing the rights of beef-eaters, much less get 'both' groups to examine one issue at the time. In Doc's words, one becomes circumspect about saying anything of substance, as it's not worth the hassle of defending oneself.

The question of 'sanctification' has been partly a case in point, though it was also a straw man that's somehow found its way to the center stage. What was stated as a personal belief that might have involved some thought to the sense of sacredness found in some sexual acts, somehow morphed into a dichotomy, or rather, a non-dichotomy, about the evils of sanctification of sex as a means of social control. The wires have been crossed, purposefully or not, who's to tell, about the very meaning of the words. Doc, whose own writing reaches its erotic and artistic best when he taps into the motif of sacredness, found himself threatened by the idea of sanctification, even though it was the main thrust of the thread to oppose sanctification of any kind. Views have been misattributed, poetry and politics have exchanged places, and though it doesn't take a genius to see that the two do share a relationship, it's a violation of the principles of rational discourse to portray them as interchangeable.

I'm getting off topic myself, though, so for now, I'd just like to thank you for your contributions. It makes me happy that we're finally talking about the same things.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]Female reaction against the "kind of things men like" has been amply demonstrated in the thread about Porn in the Service of Women, and I know I, for one, am quite a bit more circumspect about revealing my true tastes in public forums because I don't want to go through the hassle of defending myself. It's just not worth it to me.[...]

Yeah. Live and learn, huh? :caning:

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]The question of 'sanctification' has been partly a case in point, though it was also a straw man that's somehow found its way to the center stage. What was stated as a personal belief that might have involved some thought to the sense of sacredness found in some sexual acts, somehow morphed into a dichotomy, or rather, a non-dichotomy, about the evils of sanctification of sex as a means of social control. The wires have been crossed, purposefully or not, who's to tell, about the very meaning of the words. Doc, whose own writing reaches its erotic and artistic best when he taps into the motif of sacredness, found himself threatened by the idea of sanctification, even though it was the main thrust of the thread to oppose sanctification of any kind. Views have been misattributed, poetry and politics have exchanged places, and though it doesn't take a genius to see that the two do share a relationship, it's a violation of the principles of rational discourse to portray them as interchangeable. [...]

The idea of sanctifying sex arose in the Naomi Wolf article:

Other cultures know this. I am not advocating a return to the days of hiding female sexuality, but I am noting that the power and charge of sex are maintained when there is some sacredness to it, when it is not on tap all the time. In many more traditional cultures, it is not prudery that leads them to discourage men from looking at pornography. It is, rather, because these cultures understand male sexuality and what it takes to keep men and women turned on to one another over time—to help men, in particular, to, as the Old Testament puts it, “rejoice with the wife of thy youth; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times.” These cultures urge men not to look at porn because they know that a powerful erotic bond between parents is a key element of a strong family.

And feminists have misunderstood many of these prohibitions.

I will never forget a visit I made to Ilana, an old friend who had become an Orthodox Jew in Jerusalem. When I saw her again, she had abandoned her jeans and T-shirts for long skirts and a head scarf. I could not get over it. Ilana has waist-length, wild and curly golden-blonde hair. “Can’t I even see your hair?” I asked, trying to find my old friend in there. “No,” she demurred quietly. “Only my husband,” she said with a calm sexual confidence, “ever gets to see my hair.”

When she showed me her little house in a settlement on a hill, and I saw the bedroom, draped in Middle Eastern embroideries, that she shares only with her husband—the kids are not allowed—the sexual intensity in the air was archaic, overwhelming. It was private. It was a feeling of erotic intensity deeper than any I have ever picked up between secular couples in the liberated West. And I thought: Our husbands see naked women all day—in Times Square if not on the Net. Her husband never even sees another woman’s hair.

She must feel, I thought, so hot.