(incidently, just then I typed in MKinnon into google by mistake and bizarrely this was the first hit:http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/xmas98/mkinnon/mkinnon.htmlMake of that what you will!)
― Vera R., Friday, 21 April 2006 13:18 (twenty years ago)
and i think we need to reevaulate the whole PORN IS FREEDOM, WOMEN WHO FUCK ON CAMERA=HERO schtick people are pulling, esp when the mechanichs of a patriachal state are involved...
(insert tempering ppgh about sex being good, and porn being liberating sometimes, and all that)
― anthony easton (anthony), Friday, 21 April 2006 13:21 (twenty years ago)
― Vera R., Friday, 21 April 2006 13:29 (twenty years ago)
― timmy tannin (pompous), Friday, 21 April 2006 15:07 (twenty years ago)
― anthony easton (anthony), Friday, 21 April 2006 15:10 (twenty years ago)
― suzy (suzy), Friday, 21 April 2006 15:53 (twenty years ago)
― Fat Bitch, Friday, 21 April 2006 16:12 (twenty years ago)
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 21 April 2006 16:20 (twenty years ago)
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 21 April 2006 16:26 (twenty years ago)
― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 21 April 2006 16:29 (twenty years ago)
― She Knows Not, Friday, 21 April 2006 17:56 (twenty years ago)
― Bill the Accountant, Friday, 21 April 2006 23:09 (twenty years ago)
I'm not sure that completely ignoring First Amendment ramifications of an argument that is completely laden with with such ramifications qualfies as "not fuck[ing] around with the First Amendment." Just saying.
― J (Jay), Friday, 21 April 2006 23:30 (twenty years ago)
― No Love In Chelsea, Saturday, 22 April 2006 00:41 (twenty years ago)
Classic, BTW. And only really "radical" in the context of the conservatism of legal theory. I mean, get one Sheila Jeffries, people!
― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Saturday, 22 April 2006 00:45 (twenty years ago)
Nothing is as enormous or wide as the ass on Andrea Dworkin, God rest her soul.
― Porky Pig is My Hero, Saturday, 22 April 2006 00:55 (twenty years ago)
― timmy tannin (pompous), Saturday, 22 April 2006 00:58 (twenty years ago)
heh heh heh
I was not a fan of hers in college, but I had friends go see her speak on a bill with ... Lynne Cheney!!!
― tokyo nursery school: afternoon session (rosemary), Saturday, 22 April 2006 01:01 (twenty years ago)
― Train In Vain, Saturday, 22 April 2006 01:03 (twenty years ago)
― Kill the King, Saturday, 22 April 2006 01:08 (twenty years ago)
Fair enough, but the general drift of this thread gives the impression that the right to watch porn is a more important button-issue for y'all than, oh I don't know, the general legal and social subordination of women...
― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Saturday, 22 April 2006 01:15 (twenty years ago)
― timmy tannin (pompous), Saturday, 22 April 2006 01:31 (twenty years ago)
Why is a feminist's position on porn the only thing that guys on ILX care about when judging their C or D status, is my question.
― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Saturday, 22 April 2006 01:39 (twenty years ago)
To be fair, they also care about whether she was fat.
And I vote CLASSIC.
― Safety First (pullapartgirl), Saturday, 22 April 2006 01:42 (twenty years ago)
― timmy tannin (pompous), Saturday, 22 April 2006 01:48 (twenty years ago)
― anthony easton (anthony), Saturday, 22 April 2006 02:07 (twenty years ago)
― Judge Judy Rules, Saturday, 22 April 2006 02:22 (twenty years ago)
Having said that I don't think her "legal theory" is particularly daunting for people not into legal scholarship generally... anymore than Kate Millet's "literary theory" would be for non-literary-theory types. Both writers use a particular field as a jumping off point for talking about the construction of society generally.
― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Saturday, 22 April 2006 03:24 (twenty years ago)
― suzy (suzy), Saturday, 22 April 2006 03:50 (twenty years ago)
― testiclez, Saturday, 22 April 2006 10:27 (twenty years ago)
― suzy (suzy), Saturday, 22 April 2006 11:10 (twenty years ago)
― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Saturday, 22 April 2006 11:17 (twenty years ago)
I also hear that people who actually have read Dworkin's work understand her ideas to be more subtle than the media summarises them.
But yeah, I reckon there is something wrong with any society which thinks that pornography is an intrinsically *good* thing.
― DV (dirtyvicar), Saturday, 22 April 2006 11:26 (twenty years ago)
The debate I'm usually involved in is 'is this porn or isn't it?' in terms of art and commercial photography.
― suzy (suzy), Saturday, 22 April 2006 11:39 (twenty years ago)
Urban myth. Check out the entry on McKinnon in wikipedia, for example.
Oh, and as much as I disagree with aspects of McKinnon's thought, the trolls on this thread are disgusting.
― J (Jay), Saturday, 22 April 2006 11:53 (twenty years ago)
The ordinance was in effect for ONE DAY because the mayor vetoed on First Amendment grounds. Often all the vice squad in a city can do with pornographers is make sure they get busted for tax evasion, so it's a pretty fucking thankless job.
― suzy (suzy), Saturday, 22 April 2006 11:54 (twenty years ago)
― J (Jay), Saturday, 22 April 2006 13:28 (twenty years ago)
― J (Jay), Saturday, 22 April 2006 13:31 (twenty years ago)
I don't know much about MacKinnon, and I'm in too much of a hurrry now to read all the links, so I'm sorry if I'm being redundant.
― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Saturday, 22 April 2006 13:57 (twenty years ago)
― timmy tannin (pompous), Saturday, 22 April 2006 15:47 (twenty years ago)
― suzy (suzy), Saturday, 22 April 2006 17:19 (twenty years ago)
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 22 April 2006 19:44 (twenty years ago)
― timmy tannin (pompous), Saturday, 22 April 2006 19:59 (twenty years ago)
Dykes are generally not the brightest bitches on the block.
― Pig Bladder, Saturday, 22 April 2006 20:53 (twenty years ago)
― suzy (suzy), Saturday, 22 April 2006 21:05 (twenty years ago)
suzy says
― Pig Bladder, Saturday, 22 April 2006 21:20 (twenty years ago)
― Boob, Saturday, 22 April 2006 23:08 (twenty years ago)
― Jock Itch, Sunday, 23 April 2006 21:33 (twenty years ago)
― Esteban is my Hero, Monday, 24 April 2006 22:52 (twenty years ago)
― Raw Patrick (Raw Patrick), Tuesday, 25 April 2006 08:11 (twenty years ago)
― Raw Patrick (Raw Patrick), Tuesday, 25 April 2006 08:20 (twenty years ago)
― George the Butcher, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 09:18 (twenty years ago)
I heard Catharine MacKinnon on the BBC too the other day - super articulate, in no way obnoxious but a little prickly and overly defensive of her attitudes to porn and men.
I find the porn/abortion analogy upthread way over the top. A lot of porn is indeed sordid and sad, and I really don't have a lot of time for the hardcore triple assfucking end of it. I don't find it sexy precisely because I find it so sad and soulless.
Softcore porn (ie basically pictures of naked women) is rather different. I'm not suggesting that the women involved are all doing it for the love of it. They're doing it for the money, sure. They're exchanging their titillation value for hard cash. Is this so reprehensible, though, if what is demanded of them is not hardcore humiliation, but just sexy shots of their nakedness? In our culture, a culture where in many countries it's fine to go topless on the beach, where couples are taking sexy photos of each other on their digital cameras as part of their sex play (and where there are plenty of websites where women or their boyfriends post such photos), I'm not so sure that soft porn is any more exploitative than having a student summer job as a waitress or working in a factory or whatever.
As for the charge that it's objectifying women as sexual objects, I part agree, and part disagree when it comes to soft porn. One difference between hardcore and softcore, is often that there is some attempt to humanise the woman, however cackhanded. Even on Page 3, they generally have some lame line about how Sally, 23, from Shrophire loves farming and walking her dog or whatever. Sure, it's horribly cheesy, but it means that what the text is trying to do is to transform the woman on display into some sort of fantasy girlfriend, not just a lump of meat. But of course there is also a sexual objectification element. But isn't there in real life sexual relations as well? As long as sexual objectification is subsumed into a more inclusive sexual response, is it particularly wrong? In fact, to be able to see one's partner (of whatever gender) as both a sexual object and subject seems to me pretty crucual to the whole enterprise.
― emile_, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 10:02 (twenty years ago)
― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Tuesday, 25 April 2006 11:59 (twenty years ago)
it may be too pervasive in the west (ie, "genie back in the bottle" type of problem) but in other places where its never taken hold I don't think that's the case. I couldn't find ANY porn in India - maybe I could have if I spent more time there, but internet stuff was all blocked by the gov't, and print stuff would have to be sold in some kind of black market that maybe I just wasn't privvy to. Prostitution, otoh, was rather obviously available. I know this is all a tangent, just interesting to me to explore the different ways societies deal with this stuff... and also illustrates the obvious that banning porn/sex work /= the liberation of women (see any hardcore Islamic country)
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 April 2006 21:49 (twenty years ago)
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 April 2006 21:55 (twenty years ago)
A lot of porn is indeed sordid and sad, and I really don't have a lot of time for the hardcore triple assfucking end of it. I don't find it sexy precisely because I find it so sad and soulless.
does anyone actually find images of triple ass fucking arousing?
I sometimes wonder if porn is going through the same kind of trajectory that other "art" forms went through in the 20th century - moving from representation or whatever to something so extreme that it runs agains the original purpose of the form.
― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 26 April 2006 22:02 (twenty years ago)
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 26 April 2006 22:11 (twenty years ago)
I disagree. She is an idiot of the first order.
― Blarney, Wednesday, 26 April 2006 22:23 (twenty years ago)
but no I don't think she's an idiot.
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 26 April 2006 22:33 (twenty years ago)
I don't think she is the dumbest person to walk this earth but to say she is not an idiot is quite a stretch of the imagination.
― Zeno the Lion, Thursday, 27 April 2006 09:31 (twenty years ago)
― J (Jay), Thursday, 27 April 2006 12:02 (twenty years ago)
― Dworkin Is Dead (Was Fat), Friday, 28 April 2006 07:35 (twenty years ago)
Selfishly, I wish the government would protect porn, but crack down on porn as a business. Prevent them from incorporating or something.
― josh in sf (stfu kthx), Friday, 28 April 2006 19:28 (twenty years ago)
― Dworkin Is Dead (Was Fat), Friday, 28 April 2006 20:41 (twenty years ago)