featherynscale | Porn!

Skip to Main Content

Current Mood: curious

Entry tags:

Porn!

After reading some pretty intense stuff on the flist about people's pornography addictions and the other associated evils of porn today, I am left with a single stupid question that is completely out of place in the original thread:

Why doesn't anybody ever complain that porn objectifies/degrades/devalues men? (I mean, provided that there are men in the porn. Obviously, lesbian porn doesn't objectify men, but, you know.)

(Also, can you tell it's a slow day? I can.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Perhaps it is because in straight porn, at least, men are often not cast on the basis of their aesthetic appeal. E.g., Ron Jeremy.

No, they seem to be cast based on penis size. Which I would think that, if you were the sort of person who was concerned that porn devalued people, would be even more offensive than casting on basis of general "attractiveness".

(Also, I'm sure there's someone out there for whom Mr. Jeremy represents a physical ideal. Because, you know, there are 6 billion of us, and it's bound to happen that way sometimes.)

if you were the sort of person who was concerned that porn devalued people

There's the real answer right there, I think. Most men I've ever met don't care about being objectified.

Parenthetically, the existence of someone for whom Ron Jeremy represents a physical ideal is irrelevant, unless that person happens to be in a position to cast Mr. Jeremy in a role. Most casting in straight porn is done by straight men, I believe.

Another possible reason is the same reason why there's a Black History Month but there's no White History Month.

While I'm sure size is a factor, I expect a lot has to do with being able to do certain things on cue, often and the shortness of refractory periods.

Seriously. Girls can make a career of porn. Ron Jeremy aside, the guys are all just 'whoever is standing around.' People seem to pick out the Tracy Lords or Jenna Jamesons, but how often does 'Murray Everwood' get remembered?

I never thought of that. That's true though!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_porn_stars

So wait. You can get that through the filters at work??

Oh absolutely. Our filters seem to be mainly site-based, so anything on Google's searches or Wikipedia's servers is fair game.

Scary, no?

I think telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies, is a lot more degrading than porn or prostitution...mind you, I'm speaking of adults who aren't retarded or somehow mentally incapacitated. I find it amusing that so many who are pro-abortion are anti-porn or anti-prostitution, and don't even see the irony.

Well, porn is degrading to women and exploits women because women are the weaker sex and need to be sheltered and protected, and can't take any responsibility for their actions, because their choices are always made by the men around them. Porn doesn't do the same to men becuase men are naturally dominant and have stronger wills than women and have control over the women around them.

If the fucking Dworkinite twits would look at the assumptions that fuel their invective against porn, they'd see hoe circular their logic is and how all their theories created to 'free' women from male dominance are actually reinforcing feminine victim mentality.

::seethes::

Beautifully put. This is something that's been bugging me for a while.

Mostly because I dated someone who used to work for a very christian anti-porn group, and though she'd left it a long time ago, kept many of the same thoughts on it.

Hey now -- a woman without logic is like a fish without a bicycle!

Or, um, something like that. Keep in mind I slept through Modern Feminist Theory as well as Gentility and Grace class at college.

Wait. That's not right.
Also, now that Randy Naked is going co-ed, are they keeping Gentility and Grace? Because I think that's something everybody should get, regardless of body type.

Sorry, that's still too sore of a subject for me to answer reasonably. Fucking Board of ~~Trustees~~ Traitors.

Sorry to bring it up, then.

Eh. If you hadn't, someone else would have... oh, speak of the devil, in between your two comments someone else did. Another email from the interim president asking me for money. Fuck that. All of my money goes to Gaia and Exeter from now on. (Hey, it's a good thing for GC at least.)

Hmmm... I think I'll take my crankeh ass off to bed now. No further good shall be gotten out of tonight.

Excellently put!

Right up there with defining "sexism" in such a way that it only means "male on female gender-based bigotry."

Because they're watching the wrong porn?

That's a theory I can support.

Actually, I've heard that lesbian porn objectifies women, too. Not really sure how that works...

Internalized misogyny.

Funny, I thought lesbian porn internalized other things...nevermind.

n/t

Because, er... men look at it! That's why!

Because, at least to the Dworkinites, porn is the equivalent of rape, and You Can't Rape The Willing.

One wonders if any of the people who go about saying "such-and-such thing is rape!" have ever actually been raped. This is a huge piss-off for me -- rape is a thing, that is a particular thing, and is not the sort of thing one ought to trivialize by saying things like "looking at naked people is rape!". Grr.

are you still going to be aviable to help me move tonight?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only