[dyslexic_banana]

She's clearly blinded by bigotry and bias, no less.

[Jason Sparks]

(Original post by Psyk)
What I don't get is how people seem to think that just because men aren't normally the main attraction in porn, they are somehow exempt from all "victimisation". Sure they aren't the bit most watchers are interested in, but they are still exposing themselves and doing sexual acts so other people can get their jollies.

You have a very interesting point and i didn't realise you were talking about actual live porn. I thought we were talking about print advertisements. I believe i can answer your question though.

If we look at porn as a binary between that which is active, and that which is passive. Then if we contend the man is active, woman passive, in the sense the power relationship between the two supports his position i.e. the woman will either pleasure him or he will make use of her for his own advantage - she becomes a mere means to his own pleasure.

So we understand the man exists as far as he is active and asserting agency. He looks and she will appear. The woman becomes the victim because the audience identifies with the male position and thus he becomes neutral, merely exercising by proxy our own desires. Even if we try and identify with the woman, we understand her reason as being there and existence by virtue of the man and his desire - thus the woman becomes victim if you will.

i.e. look at traditional hero movies. can we not say the woman exists soley because there is a hero and his presence commands there be a sexual woman anda victim.. it's all on his terms.

This argument is in no way authoratitive and many will disagree. some prefer to use more context analysis instead and i think my view is more of traditional thought... i maintain because i think it is credible though.

Hope this provides some answers.

[Psyk]

There you are talking about the fantasy of the porn, not what's really happening. In reality there is no victim, neither is using the other for their pleasure, they are both just actors playing a role.

I still think it's clutching at straws a little to say they are presented as victims. Ok, sometimes they clearly are, but I really don't think that generalises to all porn. Just because they are seen to be pleasuring a man doesn't make them a victim. If a man goes down on a girl, is he suddenly a victim?

[Jason Sparks]

(Original post by Psyk)
There you are talking about the fantasy of the porn, not what's really happening.

Well what is physically happening must and will always be interpreted. The way we define things and understand them is always in a sort of 'conceptual scheme'. Otherwise we are unable to account for many things in the world.

(Original post by Psyk)
In reality there is no victim, neither is using the other for their pleasure, they are both just actors playing a role.

Well it the perception of what we see that inform our ideas about men and women in society. Advertisements are entirely ficticious in the extent that what is presented is simply a collection of ideas; however, this still informs our understanding and leads to us parting with cash.

What is the difference between playing a role and that role reflecting values i.e. of women's position and importance in society..

(Original post by Psyk)
I still think it's clutching at straws a little to say they are presented as victims. Ok, sometimes they clearly are, but I really don't think that generalises to all porn. Just because they are seen to be pleasuring a man doesn't make them a victim. If a man goes down on a girl, is he suddenly a victim?

The argument that pornography is uncontroversial to women's position in society is predicated on pornography as a woman's 'choice'. This is problematic because some women might argue that women can never actually 'choose' to, say, to be in porn (in that their position in porn is always dependent on the idea of a male audience who positions and subjects the women - thus she does not freely control her body). I understand your point - porn is a choice - but we must look to what porn 'reflects' and 'suggests' about society and how it perpetuates 'ideas' about women...

A man going down on a women does not make him a victim as he is utilising the woman for his own pleasure (in the theory that the man holds agency at least).

It's not so much clutching at straws as it is going beyond what is demonstrative and starting to interpret things.. some things are more legitimate than others, but to say it is merely clutching at straws perhaps overlooks the power of pornography as a channel to disseminate ideas.

excuse the poor grammar.

[Invocation]

(Original post by Jason Sparks)
Empowering to women?
Degrading to women- reaffirming negative cultural values of he other women?

It depends. High brow porn is usually empowering. It sees the female body as something to be celebrated, and mavels at it's beauty. On the other hand (geddit?) the more seedy porn usually degrades women usually as part of it's appeal. It objectifies them to such an extent their no longer a human and mere a sex toy.

Does not matter either way - the demand creates it- purely economical.
What about Gay men and pornography? Is this degrading?

Not entirely true. If everyone make a concious decision to get involved in the porn business then no problem. But a large chunk of the actors and actresses have to go into it through the lack of other opportunities as a last resort. The bills need to be paid somehow.

(Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
But us white British conservatives occasionally have the need to racially harass people whilst on horseback after a good game of polo. It's just not something we can help...

It it were class rather than race you would be correct!

(Original post by thrilla-in-manilla)
Which is why I argue for the decriminalisation of (and offering of help to) prostitutes and the criminalisation of the men who use them instead.

So the rape rate would increase dramatically?

[Psyk]

(Original post by Jason Sparks)
A man going down on a women does not make him a victim as he is utilising the woman for his own pleasure (in the theory that the man holds agency at least).

Huh? Surely going down on a woman is for her pleasure, not the man's pleasure

[Jason Sparks]

(Original post by Psyk)
Huh? Surely going down on a woman is for her pleasure, not the man's pleasure

In the theory that the man holds the agency, him going down on here is him utilising her body. It's just attempting to describe power relations. Her pleasure is controled by him et cetera.

[Psyk]

(Original post by Jason Sparks)
In the theory that the man holds the agency, him going down on here is him utilising her body. It's just attempting to describe power relations. Her pleasure is controled by him et cetera.

So that must mean that when a woman gives a man a blowjob, he is the "victim" since she is utilising his body and his pleasure is controller by her. The same applies to many other sexual positions too (mainly ones where the woman is on top).

[ForeverIsMyName]

(Original post by _ÆNIMA_)
It it were class rather than race you would be correct!

[Jason Sparks]

(Original post by Psyk)
So that must mean that when a woman gives a man a blowjob, he is the "victim" since she is utilising his body and his pleasure is controller by her. The same applies to many other sexual positions too (mainly ones where the woman is on top).

It's just a theory of power relations based upon the man as having agency and activity - the woman as objectified.

[Psyk]

(Original post by Jason Sparks)
It's just a theory of power relations based upon the man as having agency and activity - the woman as objectified.

Well I don't really understand what you are going on about, but from what I can figure out it, it's saying that women are always the "victim" whatever the situation.

[Jason Sparks]

(Original post by Psyk)
Well I don't really understand what you are going on about, but from what I can figure out it, it's saying that women are always the "victim" whatever the situation.

Well the theory holds - and it's quite a traditional theory - that men possess a gaze, which controls women and the presentation of their body. Berger says in his book that men look, and women appear.

For example, print advertisements of women, reflect women as men enjoy them looking (sexually provocative et cetera).

Pornography (broadly speaking) could be argued as institutionalised within masculine codes in that its existence (pornography as a trade) is predicated on that ideal 'man' looking and watching - spectating.

The woman is thus a victim, in that her profession, and the way she depicts and exploits her body, is for the purpose and pleasure of a man looking and watching. When a woman reveals her breats in pornography, one assumes she does so to excite and for the pleasure of a male spectator. When a man reveals his body, he does so, arguably, to simply exhibit himself. Thus the woman finds her body positioned (perfectly evidenced in porn magazines and soft porn like Zoo) whereas the man reveals himself simply to exhibit himself. He is not so much positioned by an 'ideal spectator', indeed he reveals and exhibits himself unconcerned as to who he is watching.

Does this make sense? What do you think of it as an idea?

[Psyk]

It all sounds very sexist. Your saying that if a man is exposing himself in porn, he's only doing it because he enjoys exposing himself. Yet if a woman does it, she can't be enjoying it, and she's just doing it to pleasure a man.

A man in porn is still doing it for the purpose and pleasure of a man looking and watching, just less directly.

The whole thing just seems to be assuming that only men enjoy sex.

[Jason Sparks]

(Original post by Psyk)
It all sounds very sexist. Your saying that if a man is exposing himself in porn, he's only doing it because he enjoys exposing himself. Yet if a woman does it, she can't be enjoying it, and she's just doing it to pleasure a man.

A man in porn is still doing it for the purpose and pleasure of a man looking and watching, just less directly.

The whole thing just seems to be assuming that only men enjoy sex.

Well your argument is more accurate under a sort of Liberal/ Postmodern comprehension. Remember that women for very long have not enjoyed the sort of benefits that men have, and so there is a history of understanding here.

Take print advertisements, for example. Many women are represented in sexually appealing and provocative displays, in a fashion that assumes an ideal male spectator. What however, or how does a man act, according to a female ideal spectator?

Is femininity not based upon 'what pleases that ideal male spectator' i.e. make up, short dresses and low cut tops emphasising breasts and legs.

What does a man look like who is 'positioned' by a female spectator gaze?? I cannot imagine because i don't think it happens.

[thrilla-in-manilla]

You are genuinely some of the most horrible people I have ever come across. I hope one day you have an epiphany and realise how stupid you are and how little you've listened and how much you've lied your way into your opinions, but to be honest, I don't really care, so long as you never hold a position of power.

I am not a moron, and I have argued my points. You have not. I don't need to listen to you calling me **** names because you can't be bothered considering that what I say might have some semblance of truth. Oh no, the feminist must be an evil, man hating liar. Couldn't possibly be a real human being with real feelings and a degree of empathy which you will never experience, locked in your room with the internet on.

Hardly any prostitutes are like the ones portrayed by Billie Piper. The vast majority are forced into a position they don't want to be in. They may take money for it, but having sex with a person you'd much rather not be having sex with is on the road to rape given the person knows fine well that the prostitute does not want to be having sex with them, yet does it anyway. I never said it was physical, holding you down, forcing your penis inside you rape. But it's just as bad and dangerous users of prostitutes deserved to be prosecuted. Whether you like it or not, prostitution isn't glamourous and most prostitutes don't want to do it.

I'm sick of having to justify my opinions on here when I'm hearing some of the most god awful misogynistic lies here and none of you feel the need to justify those.

Put away your woman hating hat and come up with some real ideas.

[Zoecb]

Gaze theory is ****. Women gaze just as much as men, get over it.

[_jackofdiamonds]

The vast majority are forced into a position they don't want to be in.

We'd better make forced prostitution illegal then.

[Jason Sparks]

(Original post by Zoecb)
Gaze theory is ****. Women gaze just as much as men, get over it.

God how i wish people wouldn't just make statements without actual advancing an idea behind it.

Women may look, yes. I think the point behind the male gaze is that it is a controlling one. A male gaze, or the assumption of one, can be seen to position women in advertisements and pornography (specifically in the posture and expression of their bodies).

Do you disagree that the camera in advertisements and pornography assumes a male position, in that it 'looks' at the woman from the position of a male spectator (so it becomes easier for us to identify with a male subject position).

[dyslexic_banana]

(Original post by thrilla-in-manilla)
The vast majority are forced into a position they don't want to be in.

Here we go again. How do you know this?

(Original post by thrilla-in-manilla)
They may take money for it, but having sex with a person you'd much rather not be having sex with is on the road to rape given the person knows fine well that the prostitute does not want to be having sex with them, yet does it anyway.

Jesus, this is getting tedious. Listen up: given that money is being received, they do want to have sex with them. The work analogy is perfect: most people wouldn't work, if money wasn't being exchanged, but do, because money is being exchanged. Exactly the same principle.

(Original post by thrilla-in-manilla)
I never said it was physical, holding you down, forcing your penis inside you rape. But it's just as bad and dangerous users of prostitutes deserved to be prosecuted.

You think blokes who get out prostitutes are as bad as rapists? This is why you've been slated so much; your views are too stupid to be believed. Whatever the case may be, prostitution is voluntary; rape is not. Prostitutes won't be traumatised for years, rape victims often will be; how insulting of you to compare the plight of a prostitute, to that of a rape victim. I get the strange feeling that rape victims would disagree with you. They may have been driven to it by bad circumstances, but clearly they've judged prostitution to be the best option for them, and hence the alternatives are even worse. This said, the punters are doing them a favour (because, for whatever reason, they need the money), just as the prostitutes are doing the punters a favour. If prostitution is so Godamned awful for them, why don't they go out and steal to fund their drug habits, instead, as male druggies have to? Just because they would rather not perhaps do it, in many cases, doesn't mean they're traumatised constantly about what they have to do.

(Original post by thrilla-in-manilla)
Whether you like it or not, prostitution isn't glamourous and most prostitutes don't want to do it.

Most people don't want to work. What's your point?

(Original post by thrilla-in-manilla)
I'm sick of having to justify my opinions on here when I'm hearing some of the most god awful misogynistic lies here and none of you feel the need to justify those.

Lies and opinions are not the same thing; as someone who lies about statistics on regular a basis, I'd have thought you'd have known that.

(Original post by thrilla-in-manilla)
Put away your woman hating hat and come up with some real ideas.

Ah, you complain about being picked up for manhating (even though you haven't been), and then accuse others of woman-hating; go figure. Take your paranoid, bitter self away from here. Where does woman-hating come into it? Where does gender come into it? Are you honestly suggesting that these people's arguments would be any different, were we discussing male prostitutes and female punters?

You fail, always, to defend your arguments, instead feeling sorry for yourself, and whining on about how bad we are, and how badly you've been treated here. Get some proper arguments, and come back then.

[dyslexic_banana]

(Original post by Jason Sparks)
God how i wish people wouldn't just make statements without actual advancing an idea behind it.

Women may look, yes. I think the point behind the male gaze is that it is a controlling one. A male gaze, or the assumption of one, can be seen to position women in advertisements and pornography (specifically in the posture and expression of their bodies).

Do you disagree that the camera in advertisements and pornography assumes a male position, in that it 'looks' at the woman from the position of a male spectator (so it becomes easier for us to identify with a male subject position).

Porn is more aimed at men than women, because men are more likely to look at it. What's your point?