Posted by figleaf
| Tags:
Tue, 2009-02-03 16:51
Is there a difference between pornography and photos of self-determined, non-coerced adults, alone or in combination with other self-determined and non-coerced adults, in sexual situations who are knowingly photographed and aware the photos will be published for others to see?
Sounds dumb I know, but I get the impression sometimes that when opponents, particularly on the left side of the aisle, say “pornography” they mean only depictions of coerced, exploited people.
If that’s what they mean then cool, I’m with ‘em and so is every other right-minded person. And it would be nice if the distinction was made more clearly and more often.
If it means more than that? Eh, you probably shouldn’t click “Continue Reading…” below.
Submitted by 2691 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-02-03 18:05.
I'm thinking that maybe it's something like this: If you do something for money, then you're being "exploited" in the Marxian sense. Perhaps for some people exploitation is always wrong under certain circumstances - for the purpose of arousing viewers being one of them - regardless of whether the person doing them is willing or not. Much like how it's wrong for children to be employed doing something dangerous even if the child is perfectly fine with it.
Not saying I necessarily agree with that, if it's true.
[If it was just about exploitation in the Marxian sense then porn wouldn't be specified so narrowly -- neomarxists would be criticizing *all* employment. But definitely a good call -- back in the 1960s when a lot of the classic critiques of porn were being developed (and back when the consequences of appearing in porn were so dire it *really was* often unmistakably coerced, or at least heavily conscripted) people thought in Marxist language anyway. But I don't think very many people mean exploitation in that particular sense. Thanks, Nightfall. --fl]
Submitted by 2691 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-02-03 20:22.
My understanding of pornography is that it's any media that are made for the purpose of sexually arousing the viewer. I find distinctions like "oh no, that's not porn, that's erotica" to be disingenuous and too often just come down to people calling porn they happen to approve of by fancier names.
["...any media that are made for the purpose of sexually arousing the viewer" That's not a bad definition, and it's one that's popular on both sides. Although, I've noticed, more popular on the anti- side. The irony, of course, is that it makes a photo I tak of me unbuttoning my jeans pornographic... but a photo of some of the rope guys you write about tying somebody up an... exercise in engineering. :-) Thanks, Holly. --fl]
Submitted by 2691 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-02-03 20:34.
<opinion> As it's used in the vernacular, "pornography" has a crassness to the images that is absent in other forms of sexual imagery. It's as if on a continuum pornography is at one end, merely nekkid people are in the middle, and sexual art is at the other end.
That being said, there have been several images I've come across at Sex & Submission that struck me with the transcendence of art despite the site's being considered pornography by all.
</opinion>
[Hi IS. I'm much more strongly of the opinion that it's not a single spectrum with porn on one end and art on the other. Instead I think there are at least two intersecting ones. This is my personal opinion only but I put porn on a continuum not with erotica but advertising. The porn/advertising continuum obviously intersects the continuum containing erotica but is not on it. Whether something is or isn't "hard core" isn't particularly relevant -- being on different spectrums there can be hard core erotica and insipid, non-graphic porn. And yeah, it's possible to portray BDSM, or any other kind of sexuality, erotically without being particularly pornographic at all. Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 2691 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-02-03 20:54.
I think of pornography as stuff made to sexually arouse people and then sold. So, by my definition, your photos aren't porn, but would be if you set the site so people had to pay with a credit card to see them.
This means that some stuff that's "not porn" by my definition is actually ethically worse than some stuff that's "porn." For instance, the Paris Hilton tape became porn when it was sold as "One Night in Paris," but it became wrong when it was released without her consent (taking her at her word that she didn't consent to it being circulated in the first place, even if she reached a settlement later - I think one should take people, even celebrities, at their word if they say such things are done without their consent).
[Sure, or a site that features "upskirt" or "drunk girlfriend" images that's supported not by subscription but by incidental advertising. As for celebrity tapes, working pornographers say the penalties for *commercially* distributing sexual content without a signed release form are too severe to be worth the risk. "Underground" copies, maybe, but not commercial ones. About your distinction, though, I'm a little troubled by the metaphysics of what happens to a non "porn" but also non-consensually-taken image when, say, Hilton signs a release form. Thanks, Lynn. --fl]
Submitted by 2691 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-03-02 16:51.
Here's the thing- a lot of "feminists" think that (a)all women are coerced/ exploited by their mere position in society, and (b) anyone who would pose for pornography must be coerced, overtly or subtly, because why else would they do it? i disagree with both notions.