Porn cocktail

Remember the last post where together we hypothesised about possible reasons why some gentlemen cannot resist launching into impromptu monologues about strangers’ bums? It would seem that our speculation about the cause of this behaviour omitted the real culprits, who are those naughty boys THE MEDIA.

According to this article, “the sexualisation of girls and the normalisation of the sex and porn industries have made it increasingly acceptable and “fun” for women to be viewed as sex objects, and for men to view women as sexual commodities.”

And this has a negative effect on boys as well as girls apparently because “boys who are not enthusiastic about it, or speak out against it, run the risk of being ignored or ridiculed, of being labelled “gay”, “unmanly”, or not liking sex. Boys and young men are under pressure to act out masculinity in which power and control over women, and men, is normal. In which violence is normal.”

I’m sorry to bombard you yet again with possibly naive questions about trouser matters, but I had several issues with this article about which I would like to canvas opinion.

- The writer’s main premiss seems to be that exposure to violence in porn not only fetishises this violence, but leads to the objectification of women and an increase in sex crimes against women. Can such a simplistic code really be used to decrypt something as complex as sexuality, and the impulses/illness which lead to rape and other sex crimes?

- Before the advent of porn was there no sexual violence against women, or were incidents of it significantly lower?

- The article is presumably describing vice-ridden Western society, and the picture it paints of it is one of prone naked ladies everywhere you look being set upon by hoardes of young men whose brains have been addled by porn. Is this the unique guise in which women appear in the public domain? Are men offered no alternative images of women?

- And where are women in all this? Do women not contribute to, act in and consume porn, voluntarily? Do women also not choose to exploit their sexuality in order to e.g. make loads of money? When Madonna makes porn, it is a positive expression of the emancipation of female sexuality. When men consume it, they are negatively objectifying women. How does this work?

- Surely porn is not regarded as inculcating an impulse that wasn’t already there? Hasn’t sex since time began always been the expression of a control dynamic? Even if it doesn’t get to the whip and handcuffs stage, isn’t there always someone taking (not necessarily the bloke) and someone taken? Why else would the seduction process and its culmination be called the chase and sexual conquest respectively? The point I am clumsily attempting to make in a series of questions is that while porn is referred to as fantasy, its titillation value does necessarily rest on an element of realism. Since women do actually like to be taken sometimes, and because men often like to take, women in porn (and in mainstream films for that matter) are portrayed as ‘weaker’ than their hairy chested male counterparts while the two are in bed, even without the addition of violence. But are the people who reject what they term the objectification of women opposed to the power dynamics involved in sex generally, or is it that they just don’t want it to be presented on screen?

I thought the fruitless rumination would end with unemployment, but it is apparently intensified whilst eating President cheese triangles at a desk and downloading stuff from 6rb.com.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>