discipline posted:

she could have just noted, "dude, this is a lemonade stand. stand back." but now you have to draw a comic about it. merde.

discipline posted:

right ok, so first off, if I have feminist pornography it can only exist in diametric opposition to all other porn considered "not feminist" and because the niche is there then it is assumed it's okay that the rest exist. I have a strong feeling that feminist porn actually exists to cater to a male audience, not a female one. it gives males the reasoning that they are doing something ethical. that's the consumer activist part of it. if enough people pirate hardcore porn or watch feminist porn then male violence will disappear because the market! the market.

but the thing is that feminist pornography can really only exist in a place where all other pornography is anti-feminist. of course, there is a movement now to say that all pornography is feminist if the woman involved loves it or loves what she is doing. which is actually quite hard to discern, don't you think? and besides, if one woman enjoys making max hardcore does that somehow erase the very real damage done to women when men watch it? belle knox is a good example - she says she loves to get choked and slapped and says she is doing a feminist thing. when I am in bed with a man who tries to choke me, is he merely passing on this feminism? or is he uh actually trying to choke me because he's been told this is normal sexual behavior?

I'm not going to reinvent the wheel here, you should read this http://feministcurrent.com/7569/in-pornography-theres-literally-a-market-for-everything-why-feminist-porn-isnt-the-answer/

so it sounds like there are a couple main (possibly distinct?) lines of argument. first that having some kind of "feminist porn" doesn't do anything about the vast majority of antifeminist porn or sexualized violence in a patriarchal society. then that the diversified objectivization in e.g. fetish porn is still objectification, and contributes just as much to patriarchal norms etc. and then a version of the argument that ive seen before in pieces on sex work (another area where i am very much out of my depth and not willing to pass a strong opinion on) that paid "consent" should not be considered authentic consent. it sounds to me like this last one is really the operative issue wrt precluding some kind of "feminist porn". im i more or less on the right track here, or way out in left field?

dank_xiaopeng posted:

yeh.

i have lots of bropals who now spend a lotta time reading gonewild and they treat it with that same sort of leering detached porn connoisseurship. now average janes can degrade and debase themselves just like the professionals. its gross. funny you mention it but it was the massive piplines of porn that a lot of my peers consume that inspired that neurotic-psychotic post about Content as mycelium i made awhile back

i think you might just be depressed.

maybe you are all depressed. run a few laps.

roseweird posted:

palafox posted:

"could be," in this case, has nothing to do with "was." the era you're talking about was the most lucrative and culturally pervasive in western pornography's 400-year history, and the occasional vice raid or obscenity suit (to say nothing of extrajudicial feminist protests) did very little to stem the tide. It's true that the contemporary state of mainstream video porn is more extreme in terms of acts presented than in the 70s, but a) it also presents a more professional appearance to the eyes of the state, with mandatory registration and testing and a host of other measures that allow the avoidance of more troubling (and probably more significant) questions, and b) the pervasiveness of mainstreamed, glossy rough porn notwithstanding, significantly more graphic materials have been available within the pornographic industry since its french nascence in the 1500s. This doesn't even account for the historically singular likes of de Sade, etc. The pornographic mainstream at the time contained acts that would be considered prosecutable today in much of the US.

Materials that would make the most hardened punter retch- far more extreme than almost anything legally produced in America- are openly sold over the counter in France and most of Scandinavia. In Sweden this stuff is technically illegal, though rarely enforced, and they still allowed bestiality up until january first of this year. Some Neue Sachlichkeit materials (mostly texts) have thing that are even more graphic than that. Examples go on and on and on. The point I'm getting at is that while certain feminist critiques of pornography (halberstam, dworkin, butler, you all know the names already) can offer us a wide range of tools for dealing with the question of porn and a plethora of approaches to the problems it raises, much of the criticism of it has been the same for half a millenium and the stuff being criticized isn't novel in any way.

well gee thank you

that guy lit-splained me in another thread, 'weird

c_man posted:

postposting posted:
just make sure that the porn you consume is fair trade® and certified organic and we can beat this whole sexism thing thru the liberating power of the market

do you feel the same way about the BDS movement? obviously they're not the same thing (or maybe some prominent universities have investments in the porn industry, i dont know that shit, but sanctions on the porn industry would be pretty cool imo) but i think the fundamental idea of trying to coerce a large scale shift by doing financial damage doesn't seem like that bad of an idea in the abstract.

That is a bad comparison. if BDS promoted itself as a panacea, and people saw it not as a specific tool within a larger movement, but as a goal in and of itself it would be more apt.

'feminist porn' isn't about trying to do financial damage to the porn industry, but about creating an alternative market that hopes to entice consumers via 'ethical' fetishization, in which respect it's no different from crush porn.

a very, very sympathetic interpretation might say that they believe their alternative, 'non-exploitative' market could force changes to the porn industry as a whole by becoming large enough to eat into its profits. but that doesn't mean that a non-idiot has to believe it.

postposting posted:

That is a bad comparison. if BDS promoted itself as a panacea, and people saw it not as a specific tool within a larger movement, but as a goal in and of itself it would be more apt.

'feminist porn' isn't about trying to do financial damage to the porn industry, but about creating an alternative market that hopes to entice consumers via 'ethical' fetishization, in which respect it's no different from crush porn.

a very, very sympathetic interpretation might say that they believe their alternative, 'non-exploitative' market could force changes to the porn industry as a whole by becoming large enough to eat into its profits. but that doesn't mean that a non-idiot has to believe it.

i see. so maybe if some kind of putatively "non-exploitative" or otherwise "feminist" porn were situated within some larger (and i guess more vocal?) movement against exploitation, objectification and degradation of women in the media (or something), would that be more desirable? that doesn't really deal with the issue of consent raised in the first thing that discipline posted other than maybe alleviating the conditions of already degrading/alienating labor, so maybe that's part of your point? am i getting warmer?

deadken posted:

i believe that there is nothing necessarily misogynist or exploitative about images of people performing sex acts and that while misogyny and exploitation is the present norm this is only because these images are situated in a wider social discourse of misogyny and exploitation. am i a shitheel

there is nothing necessarily misanthropic or exploitative about people growing food or producing goods in factories either, and yet

c_man posted:

ive never read arguments in favor of "feminist porn", only heard that it was A Thing, so i'll take your word for it.

Ok well if you're interested, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Sprinkle

discipline posted:

right ok, so first off, if I have feminist pornography it can only exist in diametric opposition to all other porn considered "not feminist" and because the niche is there then it is assumed it's okay that the rest exist. I have a strong feeling that feminist porn actually exists to cater to a male audience, not a female one. it gives males the reasoning that they are doing something ethical.