The poor and disenfranchised are taken advantage of, and other poor and disenfranchised pay for it. These are the table scrap diversions our society leaves and our biology points us toward – whether its to stay fed, or sane. And it applies to most socially contentious issues. Abortion? Drug? Overcrowded prisons?

Eliminate economic disparity, the only problem left are cultural norms that are legacy, and the sociopaths. Which at that point, would be easy to identify.

Equity in living for everyone, men, women, latino, black, white, green.

I wonder if Ms. Tourek has ever watched any porn? I wonder if she has ever seen the “pre-sex” admiration of the woman. It’s not, “I just wanna fuck you.” It’s: “Wow, you are gorgeous.” Systematically complimenting the women in terms of looks.

To which you might say, “Well that’s exactly what I’m talking about. There is the objectification.” Well, not quite. Men have one function in about 65% of porn videos: they have a penis. Women, however, are put on a pedestal in certain terms. I’ll agree that it comes with a degree of objectification, but you can’t have it all one way. Most porn heavily ADMIRES women. Even if it is in a sexual capacity, it is still admiration. It’s not like most men who watch porn (I’d say a good 75%, but I’m pulling that out of my ass) go out asking chicks to bang in the back of their car. “[porn star A] gives a great blowjob/handjob”, “[porn star B] has an orgasm” – these are very common porn movie titles. There is so much focus placed on the women in pornography that you can’t claim that it is all so bad. If “You’re gorgeous” is wrong in porn, then “You’re gorgeous” is also wrong during foreplay and prior to consensual intercourse. And don’t tell me the sole focus is male pleasure – women are portrayed to derive pleasure from the sex depicted in pornography as well. The pleasure is portrayed as mutual.

But nevermind all this – let us just focus on that which achieves our end. Let’s ignore that men are taught from day 1 that they need to get lucky. Let’s ignore that genital mutilation is still prevalent for males in the United States, and focus our efforts on that obscure African country no one has ever heard of because they mutilate female genitals. We are the female liberation movement and we are completely ethnocentric!

After all, womyn are their own species. They should probably all move to Forks, Washington and secede from the Union.

Sorry to dwell on it, but the use of “womyn” really isn’t helping your case. You bring in some nice examples of how pornography is degrading yet you never offer any shred of a solution or look into the other side.

I think you could have spent a lot less time speaking about “privilege” and earning sympathy points via your latino-example and a lot more time examining WHY porn is bad.

Why is porn bad? It is not to demean women, it is because of the way men are genetically programmed. They want to pass on their genes, therefore, they want to have sex… and when that isn’t readily available, porn becomes an option. Take that several years into the future without any regulation or publicity (aside from ranters like you), and of course the market becomes sleezy.

What happened during prohibition? It didn’t work then, it sure as hell isn’t going to work now. Porn is here to stay, I think a better approach would be to encourage a more regulated and less demeaning trade. Or even better, to educate the public on human sexuality and what it means.

However, what does not help is a page-long repeat of the same point: womyn are mistreated by men. That not only defeats your point of trying to reach sexual equality (if you want to talk about this more, let me know and I’d be happy to tell you why using the word “womyn” is several steps backwards for feminism), but pushes away many of the non-radical feminists that would support you otherwise (like me).

Sincerely,
Elton

You have no more idea what other men think of when they look at porn than anyone else. One thing is certain – media effects are not entirely conscious, and self-report is not a reliable way of evaluating them.

Rachel, scientific links between certain forms of pornography and sexual aggression are NOT “uncertain at best.” The cite you provide is from 1987. There have been over twenty years of social psych research since then, and what I would term a methodological revolution in the realm of social cognition. Violent porn definitely enhances violent attitudes. Nonviolent porn is more ambiguous.

I agree that pornography is not the source of inequality, and that it is “one disturbing cultural product among many.” I STRONGLY agree that critique of media messages should not be used to marginalize or shame sex workers of any sort.

That may not be fair, but that’s the way it is. Its about knowing your audience and knowing how to address an audience that doesn’t share your ideology. And if you’re somebody like this author who clearly subscribes to a fringe ideology, you should pretty much presume most people don’t and write accordingly.

As it stands, I don’t think Ms. Tourek’s argument holds up terribly well even on further reading. Its based on a lot of assumptions and assertions about the social effects of pornography, all of which are quite arguable.

Porn HAS changed society, but the only real negative affect it’s had on men is through it’s constant supply of “perfect” looking women (and the misrepresentation of less than pleasant sexual activities), thereby causing people to lose satisfaction with natural beauty, which in turn causes women (see the author’s next article: Women can’t control themselves apparently) to strive to fit the male idea of what looks good.

You could probably write a far better article if you wrote a claim of how women have actually risen in status and equality as porn has grown and spread throughout society.