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.

5 Responses to Porn cocktail

  1. Basil Fawlty says:

    First up, thanks for the 6rb.com tip.

    Secondly, I completely agree with you. As an avid consumer of copious amounts of porn, I can assure you I’m no more of a pervert today than I was before I watched said porn.

    Also, as someone who was raised in Egypt and moved to the US, my prurient interests haven’t suddenly expanded as a result of finding myself in the midst of a more permissive society. If anything, they’ve shrunk disappointingly inverse proportion to the increase in sensory titillation. That, my friend, is real shrinkage.

    Fourthly, my perversions haven’t really taken off or anything; they haven’t increased in girth or frequency or evolved into more advanced perversions. The ones I was born with are the ones I have today. I always liked porn, hated strip clubs, like spanking, hate bondage, like oral sex, not a big fan of anal…that sort of thing.

    Fifth, people who object about objectification don’t have a sense of humour about themselves. I mean, sex is the funniest thing in the world. Imagine, taking your clothes off, inserting body parts into orifices and getting worked up about it..it’s ludicrous. Plus, if you think about it, what is sex but super-advanced tickling with the unfortunate side-effect of sometimes producing babies?

    Six, objectification is a two-way street and men like it when we get objectified…it’s just that no one’s interested.

    Finally, porn is fiction. If you’re stupid enough to believe that all women prostrate themselves to pizza delivery men or pipe fitters (surprising amount of those making house calls, in porn movies) then you’ll be stupid enough to act on your stupid impulses, whether or not the porn was there.

    Finally (part two), some of my best relationships are the ones where the girl enjoyed porn as much as I did. People bond on common interests and I know what mine are..

  2. Amnesiac says:

    Super-advanced tickling?? LOL

    Thank you Fawlty for this comprehensive glimpse into the male psyche.

  3. Will E. says:

    The world is full of catalysts, porn and objectification is a catalyst for those who already want to follow their impulse.

    For example, a clockwork orange. The rape scene has the rapist singing ‘Singing in the rain’ .. a few years later a girl was raped and she said that her rapists were also singing that same song.

    Certainly the impulse to rape was there all along, but the manner of it was dictated by the screen influences.

    People have to battle with both forces of being civil and being animals, and it’s certain that the influences around them have a role. When more and more people seem to think something is okay, then it helps one side win. (I suppose)

  4. fully_polynomial says:

    Ya A. you have become no fun since you started your job. where are all these stories roaming around cairo and going to parties and stuff?

    seriously now, i think i agree w/ your overall point that what the media portrays is a (perhaps magnified) reflection of what is just out there — its not like it teaches us anything that, left to our own devices, we wouldnt have come up with ourselves.

    however, will’s last paragraph i find very insightful. we might all have it in us, but it will be brought about much faster if we think that certain things are ok, whereas before the onset of media and porn etc. the only way to find out that something was ok was to try it. this would rule out those who are afraid to try, and those are the majority of the population.

  5. Amnesiac says:

    Fully P: I know, everything’s gone a dull shade of grey since I started work – I am going to do something about it and am currently considering my obtions.

    BTW it is the law in 23 US states that with a name like Fully P you must immediately become a cash money gangsta rappa and set about keepin it real.

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>