The Age Of Consent For Acting In Porn Should Be Raised To 21
| May 4th, 2007Garance Franke-Ruta, in an op-ed published by OpinionJournal, argues that people below age 21 should not legally be able to consent to appear in porn.
But the “Girls Gone Wild” problem concerns adult porn: At what age is a girl ready to make that decision, one that she will live with–technologically speaking, at least–for the rest of her life? A woman of 18 may be physically indistinguishable from one who is 21, but they are developmentally worlds apart. [...]
A new legal age for participating in the making of erotic imagery–that is, for participating in pornography–would most likely [be] sometimes honored in the breach more than the observance. But a 21-year-old barrier would save a lot of young women from being manipulated into an indelible error, while burdening the world’s next ["Girls Gone Wild" owner] Joe Francis with an aptly limited supply of “talent.” And it would surely have a tonic cultural effect. We are so numb to the coarse imagery around us that we have come to accept not just pornography itself–long since routinized–but its “barely legal” category. “Girls Gone Wild”–like its counterparts on the Web–is treated as a kind of joke. It isn’t. There ought to be a law.
On her own blog, Garance explains further:
…Our laws recognize that maturity comes slowly. In addition to the minimum drinking age of 21, the minimum age for entering Congress is 25, and for the Senate, 30. Many jurisdictions make 21 the baseline minimum for holding state senatorial or other government positions, while others use 25 as their local baseline. Several states have a 30-year-old minimum for the governorships, and we’re all familiar with the 35 year minimum that exists for the presidency.
Under what I am suggesting — which is really, at this point, more a general principle for legislation than a fully worked out proposal (I’m no lawyer) — women and men under 21 would retain the right to flash anyone they wanted or take photos for personal use, under the theory that the people a law is intended to protect should not be punished under it. All that would be lost is young men and women’s ability to participate in commercial enterprises looking to sell their erotic images, and the risk of involuntary distribution of their non-commercial images. Women and men would gain a greater right to control their own erotic images until age 21. The anti-porn laws we have now are much, much stronger than the one initially passed in the late 1970s, and what I was thinking of is something a bit more like that initial legislation, which would provide women and men with a tool to control their own images and prevent exploitation, but not result in any kind of massive prosecutorial crackdown per se. The intent would be to expand the zone of privacy for young men and women. The key factors to be regulated would be commercial use of images and unwanted use of non-commercial images.
I think it’s slippery of Garance to say “Women and men would gain a greater right to control their own erotic images until age 21″; no doubt there are some people who would actively want to sell their own images for commercial exploitation, and this law would force them to wait until their twenty-first birthday. So only certain people — those who consent in (often drunken) haste and then repent at length — would gain more control under this law.
But I still agree with Garance’s proposal. Yes, some people would be prevented from doing what they want by this law; it’s also the case that some people want to work for less than the minimum wage. Some workers would prefer to have laxer worker safety standards because they believe they could get more work that way. For that matter, it’s no doubt the case that there are some 15-year-olds out there who would like to be able to be paid to appear in porn.
In all these cases, that some people’s interests are harmed in order to provide other people with greater protection is an acceptable trade-off. (This is even more true of an age restriction law, which harms some people’s interests only temporarily.)
May 4th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
great idea.
And there’s another side benefit: While it’s surely possible to find 21 year olds who “look like” 16 year olds, I’m guessing it’s probably more difficult to do. Perhaps this would cut down on the “barely legal” and “looks like high schoolers” brand of porn. That would only be a good thing.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
[...] The always thoughtful Ampersand at Alas, A Blog has more. [...]
This comment was written by theGarance.com » The Law is a Flexible Instrument.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Does it really matter? I think an 18 year old is and should be old enough to make her own decisions. It also squicks me out that the viewers/purveyers of porn have thier rights protected as free speech, but the state is proposing to go all paternalistic on young women. Great.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Q Grrl, what would a happy solution be for you in terms of pornography?
Total ban? Total permissiveness?
No hostility, just asking.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
“Perhaps this would cut down on the “barely legal” and “looks like high schoolers” brand of porn. That would only be a good thing.”
Good god yes. Those disgusting almost a pedophile porns just perpetuate the idea of young girls being sexualized objects.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I think this is a pretty reasonable restriction, overall.
My only concern is the growing number of laws that treat teenagers as adults when it comes to punishment but children when it comes to rights. As long as we’re consistent, I don’t mind one way or the other, really.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Well, Q Grrl and I are in agreement! And I think that the irony you note is spot on. Limiting individual rights because “we know better” is the epitome of what government in America is not supposed to do.
Of course there are good reasons for limiting the individual right to do something as a function of age. After all, you can’t drink until you’re 21. But that seems mostly to ensure that people first don’t do harm to other people and then don’t do harm to themselves - not to stop the production of something that the proposers of the law don’t like.
They already have a tool to control their own images and prevent exploitation. In order to appear in one of these videos you have to 1) take your clothes off in public, and 2) sign a model release. Don’t do either one or the other and you won’t have a problem. It’s a choice, it’s not something that someone else does to you.
This legislation isn’t giving people a tool to control their own images and prevent exploitation, it’s taking them away. Funny how people who would condemn others for trying to legislate morality are quick enough to do so themselves.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I think raising the age to 21 is a good idea, personally. Which may surprise people, but I do. There is a big difference, over all, between 18-21 in emotional arenas. And considering all that goes into porn, from the acts themselves to the contracts to the very real fact that what a porn performer does will be out there, immortalized for all and it may very well affect relationships and future employement…well, I think the average 21 year old is far more equiped to handle that than the average 18 year old.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Of course, the context surrounding those “choices” will be ignored completely. Like, how many of those 18 year olds venture into the porn industry because of previous molestation and rape. And the number that get hooked on drugs because they have to dope thmselves to the gills before excercising their “choices”. Doesnt sound so voluntary if you have to shoot up just to get the courage to do something.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I’m a bit torn on this one, but on the whole I think I have to agree with RonF and Q Grrl. (Plus, who knows, I may never get another chance to write that.) To prevent “OMG I was drunk and had no idea what I was signing” I wonder if it would be possible to require two releases signed a certain amount of time (3 days, say) apart — but I’m not sure even about that as it would treat the decision to appear in porn differently from any other decision.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
If the 21-year-old drinking law is her model, then “[it] would most likely [be] sometimes honored in the breach more than the observance. ” is the understatement of the year.
This comment was written by Stentor.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I have to say that I find the government’s and society at large’s ability to regulate “adulthood” as many different ages disturbing. There should be an age at which (barring tests for competency that we would not be allowed to introduce) that determines when you are an adult. The decision to star in porn or to vote is no different, both require adult choices and should be taken with a responsible view in mind.
To that end I think the age for drinking, sex, smoking, pornography etc should all be the age of adulthood whatever that may be.
This comment was written by Chris.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I wonder if it would be possible to require two releases signed a certain amount of time (3 days, say) apart
Well, now; there are plenty of consumer laws that enable you to cancel purchase contracts within 3 days of signing them. This might be worth considering. The 18-year old retains the right to make porn, but can reconsider their choice.
The decision to star in porn or to vote is no different,
Yeah, you’re liable to get f**ked either way.
Amp, I think you should host a contest on the most creative way to complete that sentence.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I don’t see why we can’t just require sober consent if we want a new law. Ideally we could just convict Francis of rape. (Assuming someone has evidence for the stories I’ve heard.)
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
My only concern is the growing number of laws that treat teenagers as adults when it comes to punishment but children when it comes to rights.
I think this is the result of our disagreement on where the line between child and adult is, and what difference the transition makes, if any. For me the difference is being able to make decisions that affect your welfare and the welfare of others, and being fully accountable for those decisions. Accountability for your decisions assumes you have accumulated sufficient experience to judge the outcome, and I’m not comfortable with the level of wisdom that 18 year olds possess about the effects of a porn industry on themselves or on society.
I doubt most 21 year olds know enough either, but I’m more comfortable accepting them as the masters of their own destiny at 21 than 18.
This comment was written by CJ.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
No, and I accept that . . . what I have a problem with is the idea that an 18 year old is too young to make decisions about her naked image, but OH SWEET JESUS, IF SHE”S CAUGHT WITH SOME POT, IT’S PRISON FOR SURE, BECAUSE SHE”S A GROWNUP, BY GOD!
I’m not saying that she’s not too young to make decisions about her naked image, just that if that’s the case, shouldn’t we cut her some damn slack when it comes to the pot?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
In other words, my issue is with the idea that there are some adults who can be arrested, tried, and punished as adults, but who we still give the rights of children. I don’t really care which one changes . . . either give them full adult rights or try them as children, but the situation as it stands is pretty unfair, IMO.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Uh, for a lot of women (and many men) who don’t have the benefit of college, doing sex work (including stripping, escorting, porn and phone sex) is a great way to pay the bills until they can land a good-enough day job. This proposal smacks of the perspective of people who never worried about making the rent.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Myca, right on. The way we treat minors as immature and incompetent, right up to the moment they do something bad, at which point we want them to take full adult responsibility for their actions, is shockingly hypocritical and it needs to stop.
In any democracy, the government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. The principle at the heart of “no taxation without representation” is that laws can only be legitimately enforced against people who are given a chance to vote, to decide what those laws will be. If minors aren’t allowed to vote, then it’s unjust and offensive to hold them responsible for breaking laws, at least to the same degree as we’d hold an adult - which is why we have a juvenile justice system anyway.
This idea of raising the age of consent for porn to 21 is just stupid. When you turn 18, you can lock yourself into a mortgage, start a pack-a-day habit, or ship off to die in Iraq. How can anyone possibly be mature enough to do that, but still too immature to get paid for a few nude photos?
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
It’s an interesting idea. But I find it kind of ironic … It’s meant to protect women between the ages of 18 and 21 from being exploited by Joe Francis types, but has anyone considered the fact that the reason 18-21-year-olds are able to be exploited is - in addition to the fact that there are people like Joe Francis in the world - because they are drunk? And the drinking age is 21? So, in theory, it shouldn’t be a problem. The law already protects this demographic, by saying that they are too young to be out drinking. When they go out drinking, stuff like Girls Gone Wild happens.
I’m not saying that every woman who has been exploited this way has been drunk - but isn’t that typically the case (speaking as someone who has never seen the tapes)?
Frankly, I don’t condone Girls Gone Wild, but I find it a little hard to sympathize with people who get so incredibly drunk that they’d pose nude and do other idiotic things in front of a camera. Girls Gone Wild does exploit them, but they put themselves in a position to be exploited.
This comment was written by Eva Key.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I agree that we should restrict people from the ability to commercialize their sexuality. But why stop at an age restriction? Let’s just make it illegal to sell yourself in this fashion, period. If you want to make pornography, fine - First Amendment and all that. But you can’t pay people to do it.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Eva Key, I think it might be true for the Girls Gone Wild series of videos, but we should keep in mind that there’s a lot more porn featuring 18-to-21 year olds than that. GGW just happens to be the only one with the business model of selling DVD subscriptions through late-night TV ads, and it seems that their “models” are mostly drunk girls at parties or frat houses or on spring break.
There are plenty of web sites, however, with sober women in studios or other settings. And then there are webcams, where women perform for a paying audience in their own homes (like “Nikki” on the show Heroes). It would be a mistake to restrict all of that just to address Girls Gone Wild-style exploitation.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
A few people here have implied that we should have a single bright-line borderline between “child” and “adult,” and it’s inherently ridiculous to have different borderline ages for different activities.
I don’t see why this is so. In general, I think 16 year olds are capable of driving, but I’m okay with restrictions on posing nude for Playboy at that age. There’s no self-evident reason that all age restrictions must be set for the same age.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
When I was in college, somebody I knew posed as the centerfold in On Our Backs. I don’t know what she got paid, but I do know the experience was empowering for her. I’m pretty sure she was under 21. Not all porn is icky and gross. Not all under-21 year olds are incapable of making choices.
This comment was written by Les.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I’m not comfortable with being told I’m an adult on one hand for one thing, and then not an adult on the other hand for another thing. Some consistency would be nice.
Also? Economics? I mean, not everyone has the luxury of being able to depend on family/parents/social support network once they reach the age that parents are no longer legally obliged to support them. I don’t think it’s fair to restrict this kind of work while booting them out the door, especially since a high school diploma doesn’t get you much.
If you can’t consent to sex while under the influence, how can you consent to sex work/sign a valid contract?
This comment was written by Carnadosa.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Not all porn is icky and gross.
More to the point, what you consider “icky and gross” is not usually a sensible basis for legislation.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Ampersand, there may be legitimate reasons to set different age restrictions at different ages, based on how much “maturity” is required for the act in question. Driving doesn’t require much wisdom or judgment; it mainly requires knowing the rules of the road, knowing how to operate a car, and being able to reach the pedals and see over the steering wheel.
But you’d be hard pressed to convince anyone that accepting money for posing nude is a decision that requires *more* maturity than signing up for a long-term financial obligation, joining the military, or even buying cigarettes. The consequences of those include injury, death, and bankruptcy. The consequences of posing nude are pretty much limited to having strangers know what your body looks like without clothes (answer: pretty much like everyone else’s).
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I think it’s inherently ridiculous to have an age that you are considered an adult under the law (ie, your parents are no longer obliged to support you and can boot you out) and then have other age milestones after that, especially ones that interfere with your ability to support yourself.
This comment was written by Carnadosa.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
It’s interesting how issues of personal liberty become so cloudy whenever sex enters the picture. Otherwise reasonable and practical folks seem to lose all sense of proportion as well as analytical clarity.
One cannot coherently argue that young women are competent to decide when and with whom they will engage in sex, or whether they will or will not bring a pregnancy to term and simultaneously argue that they need paternalistic protection from the choice to be photographed in the nude. Whether one approves or disapproves of the choice made doesn’t enter in to it.
All that’s left, once this issue is resolved, is a matter of contract law: Whether or not one is legally competent to enter into a contract and what laws are appropriate in regulating the contract.
I really don’t see how you can amend the law in the fashion that Garance suggests unless you raise the age at which anyone may enter into a contract. Arbitrarily limiting the right of contract for an entire class of voting citizens based on nothing other than age strikes me as unworkable for reasons legal, economic and Constitutional.
The fundamentals seemed to have gotten lost. You see it in the sloppy comparisons to age limits on drinking , as though we were talking about vice rather than fundamental issues of civil and economic equity. Yes, GGW is exploitative, as is modeling , as is the fashion industry , as is cosmetic surgery, as is …well, pretty much most ways people make money in our culture. Exploitation and commodification are the name of the game. GGW and the general coarsening of popular culture are simply symptomatic. Relapsing into moralistic puritanism imposed by State fiat at the expense of depriving 18-20 year olds of their liberties, however well intentioned, won’t cure the desease.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Mithras wrote:
Well, I can’t speak for Garance, but I’ve certainly had to worry about making the rent in my life. Renagade Evolution (comment #8) does sex work for a living, and I assume she pays rent, yet she isn’t opposed to this proposal. So it’s not evident that only people who have never had to pay the rent could favor this proposal.
In general, the sort of objection you’re making, could be made against any regulation intended to provide protection to workers; all worker safety regulations, after all, in some way restrict the ways people are able to earn a living. But I don’t think we should therefore be against all worker safety regulations. In most cases, if a “job of last resort” is eliminated or put off-bounds by a new law, the result will be that some other job will become the new “job of last resort.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
In general, the sort of objection you’re making, could be made against any regulation intended to provide protection to workers….
True. But this isn’t a worker-safety proposal. It’s an anti-porn proposal, with the justification offered that it protects workers by … stopping them from working.
Renagade Evolution (comment #8) does sex work for a living, and I assume she pays rent, yet she isn’t opposed to this proposal.
Did she do it when she under 21?
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
There’s a big difference between regulating worker safety, i.e. what kinds of activities can go on at a job site and what precautions must be taken, and banning an entire class of people from certain jobs based on a characteristic they have no control over. Regulating an industry is not the same as discriminating against people who wish to enter it.
Banning 18-21 year olds from working in porn because you think they might regret their decision later is like banning women from working in construction because you think they might hurt themselves lifting something heavy. I don’t think the mere fact that age is temporary and gender is (mostly) permanent makes one form of discrimination any less repugnant.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
And you think changing the age will help with that? That seems like it would want different regulations, not necessarily age restrictions. (I’m honestly curious, because these emotional/mental scars seem like mostly separate issues to me but it’s not a very informed opinion).
This comment was written by Carnadosa.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Starve or fuck for money. Yeah, thats a choice.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Granted, pheeno. But if someone’s in such a sorry state that those are really her only choices, how exactly does it improve her life if you put a lock on door #2?
This comment was written by Rex Little.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
How exactly does it improve her life to do something that for the majority leads to drug addiction and severe depression? Not to mention puts her in one of the largest group of rape vicitms? She has her rent paid…great. But now she’s an addict or alcoholic and has been raped. What a trade off.
And why do people insist on calling the starve or fuck for money a choice? Or empowerment for gods sake? How is giving men what they’ve always taken empowering? This industry hurts far far more women than it helps.
*not accusing you of making these claims, just asking questions in general
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I don’t have an issue with different ages for different activities.
What I have an issue with is the trend I’ve seen of more and more rights being pushed upwards in age (it’s harder to get a driver’s license now than when I was 16, the drinking age has gone to 21 nationwide, this proposal) and simultaneously more and more freedom being given to prosecutors to try children as adults.
To me, that double standard is disturbing. We’re locking up kids in adult prisons who aren’t even old enough to vote to change the damn system.
The bright line isn’t the issue for me. I would have a hell of a lot less problem with the same trend exactly in reverse, although it wouldn’t establish a bright line either.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Correct me (by citing evidence, please) if I’m wrong, but it’s always been my impression that drug addiction leads to prostitution (to support the habit) far more often than the other way around. As for rape, I should think it would be a lot less frequent where prostitution is legal (Nevada, Amsterdam), since the victim can call the police without being arrested herself. (I’m not stating this as a known fact, just an opinion; again, please cite contrary facts if you have them.)
Being allowed to choose something is more empowering than being forbidden, no matter how crappy or demeaning the choice is. And prostitutes don’t give men what they’ve always taken, they sell it. There’s a difference.
This comment was written by Rex Little.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 12:40 am
I thought this suggestion could be improved with just a small tweak that would make it even better:
This comment was written by Jon Swift.http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/05/raising-minimum-age-for-porn.html
Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 6:15 am
I’m slightly confused about the suggestion and aren’t sure it would do what you want it to do.
You could make people below age 21 not legally able to consent to appear in porn. But, on consideration, Garance does not want this to happen because she doesn’t want people jailed for personal use. So she modifies the position on her blog to putting consent to the commercial distribution of images at 21.
What is stopping people appearing in such images at 18 and consenting to their distribution when they hit 21? Could you not make these images, perhaps distribute them abroad, and then consent to their distibution in the US when you hit 21.
You could do this another way. The reason GGW and commercialization exists is because of copyright law. If these images were not copyrighted, or copyright could not be legally transfered, then there wouldn’t be any legal basis upon which they could make profit. It’s all founded in IP law, if you change this you could destroy the commercial aspect.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 7:21 am
I’ll be more than happy to provide it when I get home tonight. But I’d like to know why you’re not aware of it. It’s been published and disussed, especially on feminist blogs and sometimes even mainstream media.
look for my post tonight. Prepare to learn more than you want to know about sex slavery rings and human trafficking. When prositution is legal, the demand is higher than the “supply”. Guess how they supply that demand.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Enough of this. The truth is that the proposal is stupid and insulting. To begin with, it’s fatuous to argue that expressive conduct by people who - whatever you say - are adults can be simply stripped of First Amendment protection. (You might as well say, “You can write what you want, but you can’t sell it to TAP until you’re 21.”) If it had been a conservative who had made it, she would have been rightly mocked for her Justice Kennedy-esque parternalistic attitude towards women, as Jon Swift does. It is premised on the notion that young straight women are just fluffy-headed fools when it comes to sex and money. It completely, cluelessly ignores the fact that difficult, low-status jobs such as waiting tables, the military, construction and sex work (a) are the ones at which people with a high school education or less can make a living and (b) they can be pretty degrading and dangerous. (Not to equate them in those regards, just pointing out that being a senior editor at TAP is cushier.) An appalling percentage of women in the Army get sexually assaulted, sometimes after drinking alcohol. They might be more intellectually and emotionally prepared to protect themselves when they’re older. Would it be better if women were forbidden from joining up until they were 21? Or ever? No, because such a proposal is obviously anti-woman and blames the victim. As if Franke-Ruta’s.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Who Hates Women Doing Porn for Money?
Garance Franke-Ruta’s proposal to forbid women (and men, she adds as an afterthought) under 21 from doing softcore or hardcore porn for money has received a respectful hearing. The usual suspects chime in with support. I just can’t take it
This comment was written by Fables of the reconstruction.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 8:13 am
I don’t know about the age of consent thing, but I would like to know why in most straight porn that I’ve had the misfortune to gaze on, the overwhelming majority of women never look right. They look rushed, uncomfortable often on the edge of distress perversely always with their hair carefully arranged and perfect make-up. If you compare to gay(male) porn, even when men take what might be seen as a more ‘passive’ position, they have dignity, ‘cos they want it as much as the other guy, they get in position, themselves. They don’t seem to need to pretend that if the other guy so much as breathes on them, it’s just sooo hot! They don’t gurn and pull faces that you know that they’ve been told to pull by a man, to show the unbelievable honour of receiving, well I can hardly say it out loud-whisper( the Holy Member ).You get the feeling that even if the camera wasn’t there, they would be doing the same thing. How many times can you say that about women in straight porn? It is mostly an insult to the intelligence, regardless of the age of the participants.
This comment was written by B.Adu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Hi, Mithras. It’s obvious that you have strong feelings about this issue. That’s fine, but please try and keep your sneering tone in check, if you can.
Regarding the first amendment issue, I think that’s an excellent point. You may be right that Garance’s proposal would not be constitutional. We’d have to test it in the courts, however; it’s not clear that GGW — or porn in general — always meets the Miller standard for being eligible for first amendment protection. Furthermore, courts might still find that the government has a strong enough legitimate interest in preventing young people from being taken advantage, to justify allowing the first amendment to be somewhat infringed upon.
It’s odd that you assume that Garance’s proposal — which applies to all people under age 21, not just women — is only about women. It’s true that the majority of people under 21 who pose for porn or GGW (which also produces a line of products aimed at gay men, iirc) are women; but I don’t think you should assume that Garance thinks 18-year-old men are fully able to make this decision, and that it’s only young women who might be unprepared.
Wow, is there a lot to be unpacked there.
1) Since Garance isn’t proposing a law that only applies to women, your analogy of a law against women joining the military is a strawman. It’s a common (and anti-feminist) stereotype that feminists favor sexist laws that explicitly protect women while putting men at risk, but that’s virtually never the case in the real world.
2) I suspect that an appalling number of men in the military get sexually assaulted, too, under the guise of hazing. I once read about the tradition in the Navy of “greasing” new recruits, which refers to anal rape with a grease gun.
3) Since you ask, I think the minimum age to join the military, for both women and men, should be raised. Risk of rape aside, people in the military are taking the risk of being killed, and of having to kill other people. It’s reasonable to think 18 is, for a significant percent of people, too young to make a decision like that. By your logic, I guess that means I’m “anti-woman and blame the victim.” I don’t think your logic is very persuasive on this point, however.
[Edited for wording.]
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 8:57 am
It also depends on how prostitution is legalized. Sweden, where being a prostitute is legal but hiring a prostitute to have sex is illegal, has been more successful at reducing trafficking than any other country.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 9:22 am
James,
Although there was an apalling recent case in which a couple of 16-year-olds were prosecuted for emailing nude pictures of themselves to each other, in general courts decline to prosecute that sort of case; but they do prosecute if an adult possesses or sells pornography featuring models or actors under age 18. Nor is it legal for an 18-year-old to sell pornographic photos of themselves taken when they were 17.
I presume Garance wants the law to remain much as it is today, except for the age restriction to be changed from 18 to 21.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Ampersand, To be scrupulously fair, whatever the specifics of Garance’s proposal, I don’t think it can be credibly denied that her motivation was in large part protecting young women from the consequences of poor choices and/or impaired judgement. Expanding this parental concern to young men may answer one objection but it doesn’t speak to the main issue. That is, whether or not we will treat 18-20 year olds of whatever gender as full adults and citizens.
Raising the age for such rights and responsibilities to 21 across the board would resolve this but is impractical for a plethora of reasons. Removal of the right of contract from this demographic alone would have profound economic consequences. As would the extension of parental responsibility for them.
Now I understand that neither Garance nor yourself see this as a necessity in order to achieve the end you have in view. However, I believe you are both mistaken in this. What is being advocated amounts to the creation of a new class of partial citizenship. That is, legal adults whose rights are truncated on no other basis than the fact that they are age 18-20. The ramifications of this are immense for U.S. civil law and governance. If the rights of legal adults can be limited on the basis of age requirements, particularly when it comes to management of their bodies and sexual behavior, a precendent is set for the most profound and ominous impositions of state power.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 9:45 am
W.B.,
How is this different from the age of drinking laws that already exist? (And also, the age at which people can run for political office?) Those restrictions may annoy people, but they don’t seem to have created any dire consequences.
(I’m not stubbornly wedded to my position on this, by the way. I am being convinced by what you and others have said that Garance’s proposal is more problematic than I at first thought.)
Edited to add:
Certainly. But we’re discussing the policy she proposed, not her motivation. And the policy she proposed is gender-neutral.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Hi Amp-
[I]t’s not clear that GGW — or porn in general — always meets the Miller standard for being eligible for first amendment protection.
All expression is presumptively protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. What Miller and its progeny (however incoherent they are) does is establish when that expression crosses some threshold they call obscenity (not a term which appears in the Constitution, btw), which allows prosecutors to criminalize expression. In the past, in addition to going after child porn (about which I think we have common ground), the power to ban obscenity has often been used by local, state and federal governments to punish sexual minorities, such as gay men and people in the BDSM community. Obscenity law should be cabined, not expanded to treat adults as having the same legal and moral agency as children.
It’s a common (and anti-feminist) stereotype that feminists favor sexist laws that explicitly protect women while putting men at risk, but that’s virtually never the case in the real world.
I acknowledge that she says the words “women and men”; what I am arguing is that is a sham. Look at the original article in the WSJ: She singles out the creator of the execrable “Girls Gone Wild” series:
Young girls. Not boys. And later, she asks:
This argument is appealing to the conservatives at the WSJ editorial page because they think the same way about young sluts - oh, excuse me, that’s their term, not mine or Franke-Ruta’s - I mean young women who do not control their sexuality in the approved way. There is a “Boys Gone Wild” series, too, you know. Where’s Franke-Ruta’s discussion of how young men are unready to make decisions that they will have to live with the rest of their lives? Nowhere. Because it’s not germane to her argument. I haven’t erected a strawman; I’m pointing out the truth.
What I am arguing is that anti-porn regulations like the one Franke-Ruta proposes is founded in sexist paternalism, not feminism. It’s proposals like hers that keep alive conservative, anti-feminist arguments like the one you implicitly accuse me of making. There are liberals who are just viscerally offended by the sexual choices others make, and that’s when they join forces with conservatives who share that mindset.
Risk of rape aside, people in the military are taking the risk of being killed, and of having to kill other people. It’s reasonable to think 18 is, for a significant percent of people, too young to make a decision like that.
Interesting. What do you think of 18-year-olds voting?
Also, apart from the inability of young people to pay their bills I mentioned in a prior comment, it seems to me that people who support Franke-Ruta’s idea have not thought through the practical effects. So, young people can’t sell porn in which they appear, but they can give it away? The content will just appear on the web anyway. Also, let’s say two 19-year-old entrepeneurs set up their own porn company, videotape themselves and sell the videos to people who don’t live in the U.S., then what? If I understand the proposal correctly, nothing happens to the two young people, and U.S. jurisdiction wouldn’t usually reach non-U.S. citizens. Of course, the U.S. could join forces with other countries which criminalize such purchases, like Saudi Arabia. That would be lovely.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 10:10 am
I want to point out that the empowering example I gave was On Our Backs a lesbian, feminist porn magazine which was highly regarded among her peers. Hustler is an entirely different story (and, in fact, it caused a huge uproar when a male grad student published an anonymous article in the Penthouse Forum about the fetish ball at my undergraduate-women-only college. (If his identity had been discovered, he would have had to transfer, probably)). We’re all smart enough to distinguish between the Worker-owned-coop & unionized Lusty Lady and a more typical strip club, but this law does not. If we’re going to reform the sex industry, why not do it in a way that benefits everybody employed in it? I’d like to see the Lusty Lady become the norm, rather than the exception. I think the sobriety requirement is an excellent one, and I would definitely support it.
As for how different police departments handle rape claims: More than half of prostitutes working in Holland are doing so illegally, according to something I read recently in The Hague times. The authorities were floored when they did their census, which managed to count many illegal sex workers, since they knew they wouldn’t get in trouble for talking to the census takers. So there is a huge a mount of illegal prostitution in addition to legal prostitution.
I don’t have any numbers, but I think that issues about how the police treat prostitutes is probably more related to cultural attitudes, rather than laws. For instance, I suspect that in France, the police would seperate their role of stopping prostitution from their role of catching rapists. I don’t know how the Dutch police deal with this, but it’s worth noting that their cops are the least assholish of any I’ve ever encountered.
This comment was written by Les.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Believe it or not, there is no constitutional “right” to drink intoxicants in the US anymore than there is a “right” to drive. The Government could repeat it’s disasterous experiment in prohibition tomorrow (even as it does presently with the benighted war on drugs) without raising a single constitutional issue. The drinking age law is of a piece with the regulation of cigarettes and prescription drugs as an established part of the regulatory function of government. I don’t approve of all the policies that emanate from this principle but I can’t argue that they are an infringement of constitutional liberties under our jurisprudence. Neither can they be said to establish a second class of citizenship since they are limited to the regulatory function. BTW, the laws in question are the result of a Federal mandate rather than local initiatve.
Further, laws that regulate consumption are of a fundamentally different character than laws that limit freedom of action. Saying that someone may not consume alcohol until age 21 has far different ramifications than saying they aren’t competent to enter into a contract before that age. On what basis could that principle be limited to a single instance?
As for age restrictions for office holders, they are anachronisms that have come down to us as constitutional mandates. I wouldn’t object to seeing them abolished but it would require a constitutional amendment to accomplish this. Again, the ramifications of age requirements for holding office are quite different than those that issue from ruling that 18-20 year olds, as a class, lack the competence to enter into a contract. All the moreso if we specify that such incompetence is particular to matters of sexual expression.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 11:53 am
W.B. Reeves-
Saying that someone may not consume alcohol until age 21 has far different ramifications than saying they aren’t competent to enter into a contract before that age.
I think I agree with the gist of your argument, but just in case you’re trying to make a distinction between the constitutional implications of a law banning purchase of porn and one banning the sale of it: There is no distinction. The right to publish a newspaper and the right to purchase one are the same right - the right to free speech necessarily includes both the right to express yourself and the right to read/view/hear expression. Similarly, the right to make an erotic video of yourself and sell it necessarily implies others have the right to buy it. If this weren’t the case, it would be a simple matter for the government to ban speech on the publication/purchase end.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
A point worth making Mithras and that’s no bull. It never occured to to me draw the parallel since imbibing isn’t speech. Thanks for insuring that no false construction could be placed on my argument.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
W.B. Reeves-
… and that’s no bull.
LOL
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
She gives hints in this direction in the column. But changes her mind on the blog. I don’t think the quote above is correct, because of this:
Garance seems to me to be trying very hard to do something other than treat photos of 20 year olds the same way we currently treat photos of 17 year olds. That’s why she goes for distribution without consent, rather than possession or making images. She’s not trying to lock up people who currently possess images of 18 year olds. Or to make making these images illegal. She’s just going for commercial distribution, which is very different to raising the age limit on thecurrent situation and I think would leave a loophole.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Mithras:
“Renagade Evolution (comment #8) does sex work for a living, and I assume she pays rent, yet she isn’t opposed to this proposal.
Did she do it when she under 21?”
I started dancing at 19, college tutition and all. Anything else, after 21.
Yet I still think the age of 21 for porn, more specifically hardcore porn for both female and male performers, is not a bad idea. Same for joining the military, actually. And the idea of soberity checks is also a good one…you have them for plenty of other jobs, why not porn?
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I don’t know how many of the commenters here are parents of older teens.
My son is almost 20, and his girlfriend is 18. Neither of them are “adults” in the traditional sense of the word. They are smart, generally sensible young people whose day to day decisions contain considerably more “stupid” and “regrettable” decisions than will be the case when they are 25.
Maturity does not descend on your 18th birthday, or your 21st, and you’ll make a lot of mistakes along the way. That’s as it should be…judgement is a gradually developed thing. As a parent, I’d like to protect my young adult from making bad decisions which will have long term impact on his life.
We don’t let 18 year olds drink legally anymore because we found they made stupid decisions, and too many of them died as a result. While not a lot of 18 year old girls are going to die as a result of participating in pornography, what sounds like a lark at 18 can come back to haunt them at 30, when their earlier participation in porn makes a career in politics, or teaching, etc. nearly impossible.
I don’t know quite what I think about raising the age for porn participation to 21. The feminist in me balks at the paternalism….the parent in me thinks it’s probably an idea with a great deal of merit.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Neither of those restrictions are based in law; they’re policies set by hotels and rental agencies, and they’re not even universal policies. I had no problem getting a hotel room before I turned 21, and some agencies will rent a car to drivers under 25 for an additional fee.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Broce, what do you think about raising the age for signing contracts (loans, credit cards, etc.) to 21? Or the age to sign up for the military? Surely the consequences of those might haunt an 18 year old for just as long as appearing in porn.
BTW, the drinking age was raised to 21 largely as a result of pressure from activists who failed to realize how much worse it would make college binge drinking. The goal was to reduce drunk driving, but they may not even deserve credit for that, since drunk driving accidents fell at the same time in Canada, where the age stayed the same.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I would agree with changing the age of contracts including military enlistment.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
How will you explain that to all the parents whose children can’t move out for an extra 3 years because they can’t lease an apartment, buy a home or even a car, or sign up for any utility service?
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
OT’ish: If the idea is to keep young adults from making bad decisions that will come back and bite them in the butt later on in life, shouldn’t the age for being able to marry be raised to 21 as well?
More on topic: Who decides what is porn with the age limit thing? Does a young/underage actor in a main stream film with a sex scene count and would they be barred from making a movie that might make their career?
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
I’m not worried about their impact on the housing market. I’m worried about their rights and agency over their own lives, and a little scared that so many here don’t even hesitate to suggest stripping them away.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Some general comments:
1) I don’t think it’s legally or ethically impossible to say that a 20 year old has a right to sign contracts and have a job, but not a right to join the army. Or to pose or act in commercial porn. I don’t think the extremist, all-or-nothing view some folks here are arguing for is actually necessary.
2) Mousehounde, our current child porn laws have not led to The Little Drummer Boy being eliminated from our culture, nor have they prevented Romeo and Juliet. Works of art that can pass the Miller Standard would, under any proposal I’d be willing to support, be protected. As far as I can tell, despite all the criticisms from First Amendment absolutists, the Miller Standard has for the last couple of decades had the kinks worked out of it pretty well, and is capable of successfully distinguishing between art and porn.
3) A lot of folks here are ignoring one part of Garance’s argument. This is not just about individual rights; it’s about our entire culture. Do we prefer to live in a culture in which Girls Gone Wild and “barely legal” porn is an accepted norm? I don’t. I think eroticism is great, and commercial porn can be fine too. But it’s not ridiculous to want a culture in which teenagers are expected to have erotic lives, but not to be used for commercialized faux-sex.
4) Jesse, I think a lot of people actually lose some agency over their own lives when they go into sex work, and that this is more likely to be a problem for young workers. I certainly think people lose tons of agency when they join the armed forces. I agree that you’re raising a legitimate concern, but I wish you could see that there’s more than one way to lose agency; and that some people will end up getting burned by the policy you favor, too.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 4:30 am
It’s not ridiculous, but I don’t see enough appeal in that culture to justify either the loss of freedom, or the symbolic insult of yet another law telling young adults that the state knows their own interests better than they do.
I think GGW is crass and probably unethically exploitative, but I’m not really bothered by the genre as a whole. “Barely legal” doesn’t seem any more distasteful than “MILF” or any other category of porn.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 6:31 am
bean-
So, you want to speak your misogynistic liberal views, great, fine, go ahead. But don’t pretend that they have anything to do with feminism, or that you would even know what feminism is if you saw it.
Let me break it down the way I see it. Franke-Ruta sees women making choices that she says cause them distress later. Her proposed solution is to forbid those women from making those choices. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Carhart v. Gonzales decisions, sees women making choices that he says cause them distress later. His solution is to forbid those women from making those choices. In both cases, the rationale is based on the idea that women can’t inform themselves of the risks and benefits of the decision, that others (pornographers or doctors) will mislead them about those risks and benefits, so the women’s consent is not truly informed, so legislatures are right to step in and substitute their judgment for that of the women.
In the abortion context, assuming for the moment that the informed consent criticism were actually valid (when in fact it’s a sham), the correct answer would have been legislation requiring proper disclosure. In the porn context, assuming for the moment that the age-impaired-judgment criticism were actually valid (when in fact it’s a sham), the correct answer would have been legislation requiring proper disclosure.
To claim that taking legal rights away from women in the name of protecting them is feminist, and that anyone who wants them to keep their full legal rights is misogynist, turns reality on its head.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 6:37 am
bean-
Just to complete my thesis, what I think is going on here is that Franke-Ruta and others are actually trying to address the heteronormative aspects of porn, and restrict the consent of women to make money from porn as an instrument to address the larger societal problem. I think this is clear from Amp’s comment:
In other words, common good before individual good. It’s not about some spurious negative effect on the women, it’s about the environment for all women that women who appear in porn contribute to.
In my view, it is simply unacceptable - morally and legally - to sacrifice the fundamental speech rights of a few in order to achieve some larger societal goal. If you don’t like the expression you see in the porn that those women choose to make and sell, then the answer is more and better speech, not to restrict the expression of those you disagree with.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 6:55 am
RenegadeEvolution-
I started dancing at 19, college tutition and all.
I assume you got paid for it. If you had danced on video, should you have been legally disabled from getting paid for that? What’s the distinction between dancing for a live audience for money and dancing on video for money that gives one a legal entitlement over the other?
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 8:20 am
A practical question: how much does a young woman add to her indirect risks by appearing in porn?
Maybe it’s just my deficient people-recognizing skills, but porn seems to mostly consist of a lot of vaguely similar-looking people. What are the odds that a woman will actually get recognized later?
This comment was written by Nancy Lebovitz.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Mithras:
If people work, no matter where and what it is, I think they should get paid. The 21 thing? I think that is not a bad idea specifically for hardcore porn. Hardcore porn is, no matter what anyone says, different than nude modeling or stripping.
GGW is a whole different thing in my opinion, my main objection to it as a whole is that laws (underage drinking) are specifically violated in it’s production, the performers are often too drunk to give informed consent, and really, are not “paid” at all.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 8:34 am
prostitution and human trafficking link
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/38790.htm
drug use link to come
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Unlike Jesse, I think this is an important goal.
I know quite a few 18-20 year olds. And they really aren’t black & white adults, or not adults. They’re in a gray area. Some of them are adults all the time. Some of them are adults some of the time. Some of them are so far from being adults that it’s laughable.
I think one of the problems is that college can be a liminal phase. I suspect that many 18-20 year olds who support themselves out of high school are much more mature than the ones who continue to be supported, in whole or significant part, by their parents (not because of any inherent moral weakness or anything; I think it can just create a situation where there’s a prolonged adolescence). I don’t know what overall percentage of the 18-20 population the latter category is.
However, I think I agree with the people who call this more of a bandaid than a viable solution. I think I agree with some of the people at Pandagon who suggest more rigorous enforcement of consent laws, an enforced ban against holding sex workers to contracts they signed while intoxicated or otherwise impaired, and some kind of enforced minimum payment — although I would think the latter would have to be carefully worded.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 9:23 am
By the by, Mitrhas, I’m fairly certain that Garance is female.
I’m not sure what it is about that particular misgendering that bugged me so, but it did.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 9:39 am
RenegadeEvolution-
Hardcore porn is, no matter what anyone says, different than nude modeling or stripping.
Franke-Ruta’s proposal would apply to all of it. But if we accept limiting the 21 year old restriction to hardcore porn, then you get into defintional problems of what makes porn hardcore. And, needless to say, porn is protected speech under the First Amendment, and all of these ideas are illegal.
… the performers are often too drunk to give informed consent, and really, are not “paid” at all.
I see what you’re saying here. I would be in favor of regulations designed to make the consent actual, by ensuring the person was not intoxicated when they signed.
Mandolin-
By the by, Mitrhas, I’m fairly certain that Garance is female.
Me, too. Where did I refer to her as male?
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 9:49 am
*flips back up*
Nowhere, you were talking about Justice Kennedy.
I need to read more slowly and get glasses. Sigh.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
I suppose this is why it’s much better to actually read about and/or listen to the women who do claim to have been effected by this (particularly when it comes to things like GGW). Or, maybe you have heard their stories, you just don’t believe them.
This is exactly parallel to anti-choice rhetoric about women being harmed by abortion.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
The entire pro-choice analogy is so beyond ridiculous that I didn’t even bother to address. Nor will I.
You simply have no answer. It’s telling that you refused to engage with Jesse’s arguments, but just flung names at him, as you did me.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
You’re every bit as contemptuous of women who make sexual choices you disapprove of as any rightwinger.
This discussion is going nowhere. You get the last word.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
To paraphrase a comment at Pandagon:
Allowing teenage women to abort unwanted pregnancies is to stand against the exploitation of women by the patriarchy as unwilling incubators, colonised by parasites which pro-lifers would give more rights than the teenage women themselves.
The goal of disallowing teenage women from acting in porn would be to stand against the exploitation of teen sexuality by pornography producers who make a great deal of money by using the bodies of teenage women, often without appropriate renumeration or consent.
Whether the latter position actually stands against the exploitation of women or not can be examined (I don’t think this proposal does so in a way that I support, although I appreciate the idea). However, it is not an inherent contradiction to stand against the exploitation of women, even if it means more permissiveness in one case, and less in another. Nor are the two kinds of permissiveness — as Bean has pointed out — equivalent.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Look, the question was, do we want to live in a culture where porn featuring young women doesn’t exist. The rest of the comment I was responding to was based on the premise that such a culture was inherently better than the one we live in today. I’m not convinced that it is, nor am I convinced that porn featuring consenting young adults necessarily harms anyone–setting aside cases like GGW where the consent may not be real, since we can separate the actions of an unscrupulous producer from the genre as a whole.
Your unsupported assertion that it does, and your preference for a culture without it, do not automatically override mine just because of your chromosomal makeup.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
But Jesse, if we took a straw poll among (pro-feminist — assuming you identify as such) people who frequent feminist blogs, do you think there would be more women or more men who agree with Bean?
And if it’s more women, then why do you think that is? What is it about their experiences that might lead them to different conclusions than you have come to?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
The problem is, they won’t mature if we don’t give them an opportunity to. If we raise all the ages from 18 to 21, I think we’ll find that 21 year olds become as “immature” as 18 year olds are today. You can’t lock someone in a box for three years, away from any important decisions, and expect them to come out 3 years more mature at the end of it. Adult judgment doesn’t spring forth from the developing brain in a vacuum; actually practicing judgment and exposing oneself to situations that call for it play an important role.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Jesse,
I notice you’re avoiding the suggestions I gave for why some 18-20 year olds may be less mature, i.e. what it is about college that cretes that liminal state. A 22 year old is generally out of college. There’s a cultural shift there which may affect maturity.
But anyway, you don’t have to throw people in the deep-end either. You can drizzle rights their way. Here, now you can drive, now you can vote, now you can go to war, now you can drink, now you can fellate older men in front of a camera crew (not that I’m arguing that the progression should go this way, just an example). When teaching, you don’t tend to throw the text book at the students and tell them the final will be tomorrow. You present the material chapter by chapter.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I suspect it would be more women, not because they’ve experienced anything that turns them off to it, but because a lot of women just don’t like porn in general, don’t understand the motives for viewing it, and seem to have an ingrained opposition to any sort of promiscuity, which would include appearing nude or having sex on film.
I hope I don’t get flamed for this, but it seems to me they’re motivated more by making porn unappealing to men (there would be no “barely legal” category if it didn’t appeal to a significant group of porn viewers) than by “protecting” the women who choose to appear in it.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Mandolin,
I agree with your explanation, and in fact it lines up with some of what I wrote. Going off to college is, more or less, locking yourself in a box away from most important decisions for a few years, and you come out little more mature than you were when you went in.
But when you went in, you were still an adult. I know some young adults too, and while they make a few stupid decisions, I wouldn’t want to deny them the agency to make those decisions on their own behalf. I don’t think the fact that they sometimes choose differently than I would means they’re not “fully” adults, or that I should be making those decisions for them.
Someone twice my age would probably take issue with many of the decisions I make. No matter who you are, there’s someone older who thinks they’re wiser than you. I would hate to think that those people could suddenly decide that we’re too immature to make certain decisions until we’ve reached their age.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Jessie, the idea that women have “ingrained” attitudes towards “promiscuity” seems like sexism to me; in particular, it’s a form of essentialism. It’s also inaccurate, especially when it comes to feminists, who if anything are more in favor of casual sex than non-feminists (in general). For example, I don’t think any intelligent person can read, say, Amanda, and reasonably conclude that she’s against people having and enjoying sex.
Of course, your comment #91is a common anti-feminist stereotype; feminists are anti-sex, feminists don’t really care about women, they just want to restrict men, blah blah blah.. The problem with people who believe in these sorts of stereotypes is that they tend to see the stereotype everywhere they look, regardless of what the actual people they’re looking at say or do. This makes it hard to have a good discussion, in my opinion.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
bean:
Well, I guess there’s some truth to your stereotype. Please, then, enlighten me. Why do you think women might tend to disagree with men on the question of whether it’s better to live in a culture free from young-adult porn? And why is their opinion automatically the “right” one by virtue of their having two X chromosomes?
Well, not necessarily… “Jessie’s Girl” was about a guy named Jessie, unless Rick Springfield misspelled it on his own. But you get kudos for knowing the difference anyway; I’ve never met a male Jessie, and I can’t believe how often people ask me how my name is spelled.
Ampersand:
I don’t think so, unless you’re contending that any discussion of psychological differences between men and women is sexist–which I know some people do believe. Despite the obvious physical differences in the body and even structural differences in the brain, some people believe there’s no way thoughts, desires, emotions, or behaviors could be influenced by gender… is that where I’ve found myself?
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I’ve heard and read, the “studs vs. sluts” double standard is propagated mostly by women, and apes have been observed showing similar behavior - promiscuous females are shunned by other females but not by males. Kind of hard to blame that on the misogynistic ape media, don’t you think?
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
BTW, please forgive me for my ignorance of feminist blogs and notions. I support gender equality, but my interest in this issue is not related to feminism, but to my strong support for youth rights, which I realize is a much less popular movement.
Oh, and Wikipedia says the title “Jessie’s Girl” actually comes from a girl named Jessie, so I guess Rick Springfield is to blame after all.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
That FAQ does not address my question.
I repeat: Why do you think women might tend to disagree with men on the question of whether it’s better to live in a culture free from young-adult porn? (And why is their opinion automatically the “right” one by virtue of their having two X chromosomes?)
I was asked this question and apparently I got it wrong. Is there a right answer, or are we just supposed to take it on faith that a culture free of 18-21 year old porn would obviously be better than our culture today?
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
What a ridiculous and baseless insult.
As a youth rights advocate, my primary concern is ensuring that young people do not have their agency taken away. Taking away 20-year-old Mary’s right to make decisions about her own life, in order to confer a potential benefit on 40-year-old future Mary who might regret those decisions, might be “feminist” but it’s in direct opposition to youth rights.
Top-notch discourse we’re having here. I hope no one reading this decides to base their opinion of feminists on you.
ETA:
Hmm, what was that you said about stereotypes earlier?
Holding a different attitude toward 21-year-old porn than 20-year-old porn is “basic feminism 101″? Really? I don’t believe it.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Gender essentialist!
:-P
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Jesse,
Now you are just being a snippy jerk.
For the record, I am not convinced that the proposed measure represents a good direction to head. I agree with you that measures that reduce the rights of young people should be taken with very great caution. I can think of half a dozen better ways of restricting the ability of pornographers to exploit young people (for instance, a requirement that for-profit sexually explicit photography or video require a 2 stage release agreement, separated by a waiting period of several days, rather than a single stage release agreement which can be signed immediately - certainly, this would inconvenience pornographers, but not in a manner that restricts the rights of young people to participate if they actively choose to; another option would be a permanent right to retract one’s release for participation in explicit pornography, although this would be difficult to implement and probably crippling to pornographers [I weep!]).
Anyway, it is not necessary to be a gender essentialist, to conflate feminist opposition to porn with “prudish” opposition to porn, or to be a snippy jerk to oppose this measure and support the rights of young people. In fact, if you could have dropped the first three you would probably have been more effective here.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Jesse,
You’re asking some basic questions. If we could sit down and talk about it, I might be able to give you some basic information in half an hour. It would take a lot more typing time.
Most feminists believe that the lion’s share of gendered behavior is socialized, not biological. I took quite a few classes on psychology, and I hold a degree in anthropology, and at least as of a couple years ago the ONLY proven difference, cross-culturally, between women and men’s brains was that men were better at spacial visualization.
As someone with anthropology training, I can often point to cultures where whatever most presented differences between men and women are supposed to be, are in fact not the case. I apologize for not being able to do so terribly accurately now — I’m separated from my library.
Analogies to apes are great — to an extent. We act like chimps in some ways. We act like bonobos in some ways. Yet, just because chimps do X, does not mean that we also do it. Just because bonobos have a matriarchy does not mean that we have a matriarchy. Ape comparisons cannot prove anything about human society; they are only useful indirectly. (By the way, I haven’t heard the research you’re talking about in regard to shaming. If you have a link, that’d be great. There could well be stuff I don’t know about, but I vaguely suspect that I know what you’re referring to and you’ve misinterpreted it.)
Further, making “porn less appealing to men” by taking away something like the “barely legal” category DOES help women (not the “making it less appealing” part — which, ew — the “taking away” part). Why? Because of the pornification of young women. For instance, every girl I’ve known who went to a Catholic high school received stares, comments, and harrassment when she walked home from school, because of the way we view Catholic school girls — a stereotype reinforced by the media.
Young women are frequent targets of sexual assault. When we condemn people like pedophiles, we need to take into account that we highly sexualize young children. We, as a culture, are creating the conditions that create pedophiliac response, whether the people who engage in that sexual fantasy are paraphiliacs (can only be aroused by their fetish) or men who have both normal and abnormal sexual response.
This affects women’s health.
Women’s health is affected in a great many ways by pornography.
I’m going to give you a piece of advice now that Bean already gave you. It’s okay that you’re coming into the situation of reading a feminist blog without a lot of understanding of the issues, but you need to understand that you are ignorant. You don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s not that you come to this conversation as an equal participant. You are ignorant.
Ignorance is great because it’s correctable, but it’s going to be hard to correct if you come in and make a big display of it. First, because it tends to derail other conversation — I shouldn’t really have to stop the conversation to explain gender socialization, even in the cursory terms I did above — and because it’s just going to generate hostile reactions.
If you’re sincere in your aim to learn about what feminists think — and you’ll find we’re quite divided on the topic of pornography! — then I can’t advocate enough that you sit back and learn. If you read the posts for six months, a year, then you’ll find that you understand the arguments.
And maybe you’ll disagree with them! But you’ll be able to come back to us and spell out why, and then we can have a more fruitful discussion.
For the moment, though, please don’t assume that I’m anti-sex because I’m a feminist. It’s silly. What I don’t like is exploitation.
With respect, Jesse, that’s the last feminism 101 question I’m going to answer from you in this thread. I do urge you to check out the feminism 101 blog. And also pandagon, feministe, the punk ass blog, and Hugo Schwyzer’s blog if you’re a Christian. Listen & learn.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
“Taking away 20-year-old Mary’s right to make decisions about her own life, in order to confer a potential benefit on 40-year-old future Mary who might regret those decisions, might be “feminist” but it’s in direct opposition to youth rights.”
As a youths rights advocate, Im sure you’re aware that a statistically significant number of young women who enter into porn have done so because they were molested/raped at a young age and feel their worth is in their bodies, right?
Im also sure you’re aware of the numbers of sex industry workers who are raped, how often they are raped and how at risk they are of being raped, more than once during their time as sex workers, arent you?
And the rather high numbers of young women who end up with severe depression and/or drug addiction as a direct result of entering into the sex business surely hasnt escaped you, has it? Especially the fact that it does not occur 20 years down the road.
All these things (plus numerous others) are why basic feminism 101 holds a different view than you do on porn.
But you knew that, right? And would *never* dismiss all this with anything as insulting and ignorant as ” they just want to stop men from getting porn” would you?
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Charles:
I’ll give you the first, to an extent, but the second is untrue, and I’ve only been snippy in response to insults.
bean:
No, I don’t think it’s possible to read what I’ve written here and honestly come away with the perception that I can’t be bothered thinking about women or how my actions affect them. I think you’re reading something into my comments that simply isn’t there.
The only thing I’ve written here that can be described that way at all is my response to one particular question from Mandolin. Maybe my response was naive and ignorant — fine. But I can only conclude it was a loaded question all along, because despite all the outrage over my ignorant answer, no one has suggested a better one.
So how about pointing me to an answer for why porn of young adults, specifically, is offensive? If this is really “101″ then surely it’s covered in a FAQ somewhere. So far I have not seen any attempt to explain why a culture free from young-adult porn is preferable that would not apply equally to a culture free from all porn, which conflicts with the belief that “commercial porn can be fine too”.
“Objectification” and “male gaze” do not suffice here. I’m not talking about all porn in general, nor arguing against any opposition to all porn in general. I’m talking about one particular category of porn being singled out based solely on the age of the (adult) participants.
Mandolin:
You may be right. In fact, I tried to dig up a link recently and couldn’t find it, so it’s quite possible that I’m misremembering. Do you have a link to what you think I’m referring to?
I must point out that there’s a vast difference between the young children who are targeted by pedophiles, and the adult women who folks here want to ban from appearing in porn. Pedophiles are attracted to children specifically because they’re sexually immature, lacking the characteristics that catch a “normal” porn viewer’s eye. The young women in question here, however, are attractive to viewers for exactly the opposite reason, so I don’t see a reason to fear that porn featuring 20-year-olds will promote pedophilia.
pheeno:
Indeed. But unless you can show that these problems only affect workers age 18-21, or those who appear in “barely legal” videos, and that they won’t simply shift to a slightly older crowd if the age is raised, they’re irrelevant here. Those are arguments for shutting down the whole industry, not for raising the age. If you want to argue for that, I won’t stand in your way; my concern is the age discrimination.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
No, Jesse, sorry - it was in a book.
And in what way do you think the perpetuation and popularity of the fantasy of fucking “barely legal” women doesn’t facilitate the sexualization of teens? Pornography affects ALL WOMEN, not just the ones in the videos.
Seriously, you don’t know the 101 stuff. Go read it.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Being an adult is about being able to make your own choices. And more importantly, having to live with the consequences of those choices, be they good or bad. So are 18-20 year-olds adults? Or are they foolish children who must be “protected ” by puritanical nanny laws?
I believe that they are indisputably adults (though young and inexperienced) and am disturbed by our culture’s continued infantilization of people well into their 20s as “children.”
As Jesse remarked, you cannot reasonably expect young people to act like adults if you refuse to treat them as such. That means giving them the freedom to make their own decisions (especially sexual decisions), even while acknowledging that some of those decisions will have negative consequences.
This comment was written by CTD.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Raising the age simply changes the definition of “barely legal” from 18 to 21. How is that an improvement?
ETA: Furthermore, as a youth rights advocate, I don’t find the sexualization of (capable, consenting) teens any more alarming than the sexualization of adults. Whether we agree or disagree on how alarming the latter is, my concern is the discrimination between them based solely on age.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
As opposed to say, how younger women are often the targets (because of their age and appeal to the almost a pedophile crowd) of those in the porn business who are in fact aware of why the majority get into porn and how to manipulate that, especially how to manipulte them *because* of their age?
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
“Raising the age simply changes the definition of “barely legal” from 18 to 21. How is that an improvement?”
The idea raised in other threads was actually to raise it to 25, like the tobacco ads that require cigarette models be old enough that they don’t appear too young to buy cigarettes.
Which I don’t necessarily support. But you said that the goal of eliminating “barely legal” porn was to hurt men. I said it isn’t, and listed some benefits to women. Don’t retort now trying to critique the method, rather than the goal, which is what you originally brought up and what I defended.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Because it raises the age of the girls targetted for sexualization. Its no longer 18 but looks 16.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Its alot harder to imagine an older women as a 14 year old, and while sexualization of any aged person is disgusting and alarming, only 1 age is used to sexualize those outside the industry that look closer to 14 than 30.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
pheeno:
“Almost a pedophile”? That’s rich! So, let’s see, someone who’s attracted to 25 year olds is almost-almost-almost-almost a pedophile?
Comparing attraction to young adults to pedophilia shows a remarkable ignorance of both sexual attraction and pedophilia.
I could be a jerk and tell you to read up on “youth rights 101″, but instead I’ll just calmly explain that suggesting these adult women can be manipulated “because of their age” is no less offensive than suggesting they can be manipulated because of their gender.
No, now it’s 21 but looks 18. Or looks 16, depending on the individual. In any case, you’re just pushing off the question: how is sexualizing [those who look like] 18 year olds an improvement over sexualizing [those who look like] 16 year olds? Consider that in most states, 16 year olds are equally capable of consenting to sex.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
If someone wants to fantasize about 14 year olds, he’ll do it, whether that means finding a picture of a young-looking 18 year old, squinting at a picture of a young-looking 25 year old wearing a cheerleader uniform, reading a story, or something else. Fighting the human imagination is an uphill battle.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Almost a child molester then, doesnt actually matter to me. Sexualizing those under age doesnt earn much by way of distinction for me.
Your defense of people attracted to those who look younger than the legal age is getting disturbing.
looks 18 is better than looks 16.
And no one has claimed its better to sexualize anyone. In fact, the bulk of the arguement is that it sexualizes women/girls period. Though an older person is better capable of handling such a thing emotionally, since their brains are more developed and are actually equipped to deal with the emotional and mental crap they get handed.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
thats not a reason to make it even easier. If you wanted to break into my house you’ll probably find a way. But Im not going to leave you a key.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
pheeno:
“Child molester” and “pedophile” are the same thing: someone attracted to children who are sexually immature. Not just attracted to teenagers or young adults whose age is below some arbitrary number.
I really don’t find anything disturbing about someone who’s attracted to adults who possess the characteristics that have evolved to show sexual maturity, and frankly, I think you’re in the minority if you do.
Youth rights 101. There is no evidence that an 18 year old is less equipped to deal with that “crap” than a 21 year old, let alone medical evidence based on brain development. You’d trash these arguments if someone were making them about women, but apparently you have no problem making them yourself as long as they’re directed at young people.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Jesse-
You’d trash these arguments if someone were making them about women, but apparently you have no problem making them yourself as long as they’re directed at young people.
Give up, man. You’re not talking to people who are thinking rationally.
[Mithras, if you think the participants here are not rational, there is no reason for you to continue participating. You are banned. -Charles]
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Jesse, please watch the way you address Pheeno.
(To be fair, I did call you ignorant. I did so in the context of you coming to a feminist blog and admitting ignorance of feminism. I apologize, however, for not making it clearer that my comment regarded the points of feminism under discussion. I could have phrased it another way.)
In every state and federal jurisdiction of the United States, the law states that a minor below the age of consent in that state or jurisdiction cannot consent to sexual activity of any sort involving a partner (with certain exceptions). Such sexual activity is legally considered child abuse.
A brief google search turns up at least one article claiming that brain development in the areas which concern decision-making isn’t complete until 21. It looks like there are others, but my connection has decided to be slow. Perhaps others can turn them up.
This is not a youth rights blog.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Mithras, this comment contains no content except an attack on another poster. Please don’t do that again.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-03-02-teens-cars-main-usat_x.htm
New findings from brain researchers at the National Institutes of Health explain for the first time why efforts to protect the youngest drivers usually fail. The weak link: what’s called “the executive branch” of the teen brain — the part that weighs risks, makes judgments and controls impulsive behavior.
Scientists at the NIH campus in Bethesda, Md., have found that this vital area develops through the teenage years and isn’t fully mature until age 25.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I knew I’d seen that study, but I couldn’t turn it up!
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Mandolin:
I’m not going to split hairs over whether “child molester” means an actual pedophile or simply someone who violates an age of consent law. But if you want to use a legal definition, I’ll point out again that the age of consent is 16 in the majority of states (and around the world), so even the hypothetical porn viewer who’s attracted to 18 year olds because they look like 16 year olds is probably not fantasizing about anything illegal.
Another 101-level issue, but as you point out, this isn’t a youth rights blog so I don’t mind addressing it. The idea that decisions can’t be made correctly by a brain which will continue to develop is based on the assumption that there’s an ideal, “finished” brain that makes decisions in one particular way, and any other brain’s decisions are necessarily flawed.
But any two individuals will approach the same problem from different angles, applying different logic and priorities, and perhaps come up with different answers. People of any age are capable of reasoning and making informed decisions, even if they come up with different answers at different points in their life. If I choose A and my neighbor chooses B, that doesn’t mean my neighbor is incapable of decision-making; just like if I choose A today and would’ve chosen B ten years ago, that doesn’t mean I was incapable back then… or does it? Those who say young people can’t make decisions seem to think it does.
And I think that’s really what it boils down to. If you ask an 18 year old whether they want to appear in porn, you’ll get an answer, and if you ask why they gave that answer, you’ll get an explanation. No one claims 18 year olds can’t answer the question — they just claim 18 year olds will answer incorrectly. Why? Not because there’s anything wrong with the explanation, but because they might answer or explain differently when they’re older; the answer and explanation given by an older person is presumed to be the right one, which makes any other thought process wrong by default.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
This is a perfect example, actually:
So, teenagers are more impulsive and more willing to take risks than older people. But we already know some people are more impulsive and willing to take risks than others, right? Some people like bungee jumping and snowboarding; others prefer a cup of tea and a game of chess. Some people are day traders; others invest for the long term.
You’d have a hard time convincing anyone that one group is incapable of making decisions because they have a larger appetite for risk. Larger appetite for risk essentially just means a different set of priorities: day traders value potential profit over stability, but you can’t say objectively that stability is better than the potential for short-term profit; it’s a matter of opinion. Why, then, should we believe that teenagers are incapable of making decisions just because they take more risks?
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Why, then, should we believe that teenagers are incapable of making decisions just because they take more risks?
Because we all remember being teenagers, Jesse, and for the most part we remember making a lot of really, really, really stupid decisions. Which is cool - that’s part of learning. Error is the kitchen where we bake the pies of maturity, or something.
Does that mean that teenagers should have no rights? No. But it does mean that as a society, it’s reasonable for us to “stage” the responsibilities and privileges of young people in a way that gives them time and space to make their stupid mistakes in a non-lethal way. That generally entails foreclosing certain decision spaces until a certain point in time is reached. We use a point in time rather than “maturity” because age is a halfway decent proxy for maturity, and age can be handled objectively by the law where maturity cannot.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Well, a lot of people have opinions about a lot of decisions. I’m sure a lot of teenagers think the decisions adults make are stupid too. But to suggest that we should elevate one set of opinions over the other, just because they’re held by older people, is pure ageism.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Then call me an unabashed ageist. We elevate one set of opinion over the other because experience teaches us that experience has value, and the opinion of the person with experience is worth more, as a general rule, than the opinion of the person without it.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
At least you’re honest. Any other prejudices you’d like to put on the record? A little racism or sexism, maybe? I mean, experience teaches us that white men have been pretty successful, so perhaps it’s also justified to give their opinions a little extra weight.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
So, are you with the people who suggest that children should be given full rights and responsibilities immediately at birth, or are you in favor of some other kind of gradation?
If not experience and biology, what makes it acceptable for a parent to override a toddler’s agency by - say - keeping hir finger out of the socket?
What’s your opinion on consent laws, btw?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
I think we can distinguish between a mind so immature that it really can’t make decisions that are rational, explainable through some logic and set of priorities, and one that can. That is, between a mind which is objectively lacking knowledge or reason, and one which has the necessary knowledge and reason but applies them in a way that another might find distasteful.
A toddler who’s about to stick his finger in the socket doesn’t know what he’s doing. He may not know that electricity lives in there, or that live wires are dangerous to touch, or he may not be able to make the logical connection to conclude “it would be dangerous for me to touch these wires”. He’s not making a value judgment or weighing risk against reward.
A sober 20 year old woman who’s about to appear in porn, however, is not missing the knowledge or reasoning capacity needed to make her decision. She knows what porn is, what she’ll be doing, and what she’ll receive for it. She knows that she may regret it later, and she’s weighing that risk against the immediate reward, using her own tolerance for risk. You can argue with her priorities, but that’s a matter of opinion; her decision is still informed and rational.
As for consent laws, it’s hard to take a firm position because of the woeful state of sex education in this country. Fundamentally, I think the key things a person needs to know in order to give informed consent are what sex is, what it can lead to (pregnancy, disease, emotional impact, etc. as well as secondary effects of those), and how to prevent or deal with those consequences. Those are fairly open-ended topics, and many pages have been written about them.
I think the age of consent should at the very least be made an even 16 across the country, but it doesn’t make sense to go much further than that until addressing the fact that a lot of teenagers, who may be quite capable of grasping those elements that put the “informed” in informed consent, still have not learned them. That makes it difficult to set a lower age without causing a lot of false positives. (Ideally, we could test on a case-by-case basis whether informed consent was given, but that isn’t practical.)
However, short of lowering the age, I do think the laws can be improved in other ways. They should include an exception for couples who are close in age, where one is just above the line and the other is just under, and when both parties are below the line, neither should be found guilty. Also, the law should not presume that a younger person’s consent is entirely worthless; a case of actual rape should be treated far more harshly than a de-facto consensual sexual relationship, without having to rely on a judge being sympathetic to the 19-year-old with the 15-year-old girlfriend.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 1:14 am
At least you’re honest. Any other prejudices you’d like to put on the record? A little racism or sexism, maybe?
Racism and sexism differ from “ageism” in that neither race nor sex is a measure of a linear trait which everyone possesses. Age, in many circumstances, is an entirely appropriate basis on which to discriminate.
Not to worry, though. Soon you’ll gain more experience and maturity, and will realize the error of your philosophy. ;)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 1:25 am
Everyone has a race and a sex. Are you suggesting discrimination is OK because people don’t stay at the same age forever? It seems to me that only makes the discrimination more insidious, by constantly adding newly-oppressed people at one end while depriving the group of motivated activists at the other. Would sexism be OK if every year, a number of women were permanently granted “honorary man” status?
Hey, so are race and sex, “in many circumstances”, like keeping men out of the ladies’ room or keeping Strom Thurmond out of the Congressional Black Caucus. But neither race, nor sex, nor age are appropriate criteria for disqualifying an otherwise-competent person from exercising any right.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 2:15 am
Are you suggesting discrimination is OK because people don’t stay at the same age forever?
Yes. And also because people of lower ages are, on the left-hand side of the distribution, generally less informed and less competent in the areas where they are generally discriminated against. Most of those areas are greatly controlled by questions of judgment and prudence - two areas where there is a known, empirically observed deficit in younger people. This deficit heals only slowly.
We try to adjust our legal benchmark years to hit the point where most if not all of the young people have reached a maturity level sufficient for the responsibility to be endowed. Sometimes we miss in one direction, as now, when it does begin to look like 16 is a little young to be driving. Other times we miss in the other; probably most 19 year olds wouldn’t be killed by knocking down a beer. But we do our best. No doubt we can do better, and activists like yourself will be useful social spurs to action.
But your basic critique is, no offense, crazy.
Would sexism be OK if every year, a number of women were permanently granted “honorary man” status?
No. But that isn’t what happens as people age, so the analogy isn’t material.
Hey, so are race and sex, “in many circumstances”, like keeping men out of the ladies’ room or keeping Strom Thurmond out of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Indeed. The number of such instances where discrimination by age is appropriate is vastly higher.
But neither race, nor sex, nor age are appropriate criteria for disqualifying an otherwise-competent person from exercising any right.
Certainly. But in many fields and for many areas, having reached a certain chronological age and the life experience that accompanies that age is part of the definition of competence.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 2:47 am
The drinking age should be lower than the driving age so that people will become conversant with the results of drinking before they find themselves having to make serious decisions about it. The drinking age should also be lower than the porn age.
The drinking age being set at 21 — ignored by many, but still enforced — leads to several badly fucked-up standards which injure positive intergenerational relations. Basically, in a nutshell, it means that popular young people become conversant with the effects of alcohol on a normal human schedule, and unpopular young people don’t. I’m oversimplifying, but this is the gist of my observation.
I think that raising the porn age to 21 — while all the other American majority standards stand where they do — would mean that only those under-21-year-olds who are desperate and unable to make a living in other fields would enter porn. Only those, in short, bereft of a support network. Because if you’re underage and drink, you can talk about it, but if you’re underage and in porn, talking about it would rob you of your livelihood — therefore basically making it IMPOSSIBLE for these people to live openly.
I know many folks in the adult industry, and those who live openly tend to be far happier, use hard drugs less, have much more healthy lives.
In short, I think that changing it at present would hurt the very people it’s supposed to protect.
Oddly, if the drinking age were 16 and the driving age 18, as in various European countries, I would be more OK with setting the porn age higher. Partly because of what I have to say below…
…contributing to the brain discussion: y’all are aware that experience affects neurology, right? People get better at making decisions as they get older in part because they’ve made a bunch of decisions by the time they’re older. Forgetting this hurts anyone who’s trying to learn how to learn.
This comment was written by A.J. Luxton.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Re Mandolin’s comments upthread: bandaid is a good word, and a good metaphor. I guess what I mean to say is that if you don’t clean the wound before putting on the bandaid, it can actually contribute to the chance of infection — and the status of youth in American culture is already sort of a festering wound. I can speak to that last line from my own experience. I don’t feel like doing so at the moment, but maybe later.
This comment was written by A.J. Luxton.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 5:01 am
Jesse:
I have to ask…you ever done any porn? Know any 18 year olds in the business? Know any, oh, say 25 year olds in the business?
Porn is different from other jobs, and other decisions, really. Hell, any form of sex work is. I know people in the field who are 18, and I know people in the field who are in their 30’s…guess who, universally, tends to deal with it and fair better? It’s not the 18 year olds. Guess who is almost universally prepared for the consequences of their choice to be in such a field? It’s not the 18 year olds. Guess who is almost universally more responsible, authoritive, and less easily talked into do things they’d really rather not do? It’s not the 18 year olds.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Sigh. This was an interesting “costs of restricting individual autonomy v. benefits of protection for the group as a whole” debate, and now it’s a “what does Jesse think?” debate. Can’t we go back on track?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 6:02 am
Never having worked in the field myself, nor been close to anyone who has, I have to respect this opinion — and it jibes with what (nearly) everyone here has observed and remembers from being teenagers ourselves.
I’m still not sure I would favor an outright ban until age 21, on the “costs of restricting individual autonomy” arguments that have already been made. RenegadeEvolution, how do you feel about a waiting period (the actor has 72 hours to change her/his mind) and sobriety tests as methods of curtailing GGW-type blatant exploitation?
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Interesting. What do you think of 18-year-olds voting?
Having been one of the first beneficiaries of that law and having observed it since then, I can say I’m not impressed. The idea behind it was “If they’re old enough to die for their country, they’re old enough to vote.” Of course, that was when there was a draft, and there was no choice in the matter. It was also the idea behind lowering the drinking age to 18. That didn’t work out either, and the Federal government forced the states to change the age back to 21 by withholding Federal road money for states that left their drinking ages below 21. So, now there’s no more draft, and we have a lot more evidence showing that there’s a big improvement in judgement between age 18 and age 21. If they’re not old enough to make a mature decision about how to use alcohol, they’re not old enough to make a mature decision about how to run the country.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Bean, would you care to point me at some accounts of women who’ve been put at risk by having been in porn?
More generally, women are at risk of being stalked and attacked whether they’ve been in porn or not. There may be some way of figuring out whether the risk is increased much by having been in porn, but I’m not sure what that would be.
This comment was written by Nancy Lebovitz.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Ron, what do you think of 18-year-olds joining the military?
I’m not trying to be flip here. It’s arguable that the voting age should be raised back to 21, but in that case I would want the age for joining the service raised as well: if you’re not old enough to vote, you’re not old enough to die for your country.
Slight digression: as I recall, a major problem, probably the primary one, with lowering the drinking age was that high-school seniors could legally buy booze, which led to a lot more drinking among younger teenagers. Also, in those days drunk-driving laws were much less stringent than they are now, and drunk driving carried less social stigma. The combination of inexperienced driver/inexperienced drinker/more impulsive personality proved very bad. And, now that I come to think of it, substitute “sexuality” for “driver” in the above sentence and the argument still works, which is why I think sobriety tests for at least some sex workers are a really good idea.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Lu: I think that would be a good idea, but then you run into the issue of people then also having to wait for their payment, or part of it, I would imagine, and some people in porn need the money right away.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 9:13 am
I’m not trying to be flip here. It’s arguable that the voting age should be raised back to 21, but in that case I would want the age for joining the service raised as well: if you’re not old enough to vote, you’re not old enough to die for your country.
Let’s compromise: you can get the vote, and the right to drink, before age 21, by joining the military. The act of joining the military (generally) indicates a level of acceptance of responsibility. Anybody who serves can have their civil perks early.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 9:16 am
I don’t find that an unreasonable proposal. I think that joining the Military can fuck your life up as much or more than being in porn.
Also, pushing the age of enlistment up to 21 would neatly bypass the issue of military recruiters camping out on high school campuses and harassing future grads.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 9:35 am
I’ve indicated elsewhere in this discussion that I think the fundamental problem with the proposed “solution” to the GGW issue is that it establishes as a principle the power of the state to classify legal adults, 18-20 years old, as incompetent in matters of sexual expression.
The question of prior sexual abuse as an incapacitating factor has been raised. I wonder how people here would react to the suggestion that victims of such abuse be “protected” by law from their presumed incompetence in matters of sexual expression? I pose this point because I’ve known a number of lesbian women who suffered such abuse and can well imagine what some people would make of the suggestion that the abuse rendered them incompetent in sexual matters.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 10:32 am
I think that’s a good point, A.J.
This law seems appealing, but ultimately doesn’t seem to be a very good idea.
(FWIW, I did know someone who’d been in porn before age 18. And sie did have to hide it. And it did get hir into a lot of bad situations, including AIDS infection.)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Since I raised the issue, I’m going to point out that raising it isnt pointing out incompetance on the part of the women and girls, nor is it even suggesting they’re incompetant at all. Its pointing out culpability on the part of the porn industry in using molestation and rape to turn a profit. They make money off of rape victims and child rape victims. They make a great deal of money because some fuckstick couldnt keep his hands off a child. They’re making money off of him teaching her that her worth is in her pussy and they’re proving him right, as are those who buy the porn.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Pheeno: While a valid point, that can be a … grey…area to go. Yes, there are women in porn who are abuse victims. There are also women in every other job in the world who are abuse victims, and countless women in sexual relationships who have been abuse victims, and that can be exploited or those women can be put in pain by anyone, really. Anyone. However, those women still have a right to make choices, and have those choices be recognized as those of an adult. Would we call into question and constantly mention the choices of an abused woman in any other field of work, outside of the sex industry? Would we question each and all of her sexual relationships? Would we, say, in so many charming words that ANYONE is “teaching her that her worth is in her pussy”? (even that phrase makes my skin crawl).
Once you start negating or constantly questioning the choices of abuse victims to work on one field (even the sex industry), you open the door for questioning them in all sorts of other areas…are they too damaged to hold high stress jobs? Are they too damaged to have relationships? Too damaged to have children? In fact, while worrying about damage done to abuse victims is generally nobel and well-inentioned, the term “damaged” and other associated words are labels that can be hard to shake and harmful in their own right. I will also state, for the record, sex workers who have not been sexually abused do get a wee bit tired of the assumption that all people in the business have been abused.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I know people in the field who are 18, and I know people in the field who are in their 30’s…guess who, universally, tends to deal with it and fair better?
Renegade, do these individuals, the older ones, generally support a person’s right to appear in pornography at 18, or do they tend to oppose it?
This comment was written by CJ.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Myca: my issue is with the idea that there are some adults who can be arrested, tried, and punished as adults, but who we still give the rights of children.
I agree with the thought behind that statement, but I don’t see this issue the same way, Myca. When we speak of a minor tried as an adult, it can sound as though we are selectively choosing to bump them up in status in this single, very negative way while denying them all of the positive aspects of adulthood, but I see it as a decision that while their status as a minor remains unchanged, punishments which were once thought unsuitable for minors actually are suitable in some cases.
Not that the ‘adult punishments’ are always suitable either, but that’s another thread.
This comment was written by CJ.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I get what you’re saying, and I’m in favor of the destigmatization of sex work too, but I actually think that we ask this sort of thing too little about other fields of work. What makes a person in the military think violence is cool? Was it a violent or abusive childhood? Are we doing further damage to these folks by putting them in violent situations?
I think examining why these choices are made and how these situations are constructed is a good thing, whatever profession we’re talking about.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
pheeno, so there’s a sort of statute of limitations on that? It’s OK to exploit rape victims but only after they’re old enough to drink?
It’s always struck me that there’s more than a little prejudice against sex workers in the they-all-must-have-been-abused line. No NORMAL woman would lower herself, the poor things must be broken somehow. (Normal women trade sex for cash on an informal basis.)
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
But any other industry doesnt make their money of sexually exploiting women who have been sexually abused. Nurses arent being sexually exploited. Secretaries arent being sexually exploited. Stats and research so far show a disturbing majority of women who go into sex work have been sexually abused. The industry makes money directly off that abuse.
And you cannot continue to ignore the context around womens choices by just calling them choices. A choice between shit and shittier isnt some wondermous choice that is just a travesty of justice to impede. If you’re going to recognize those choices, recognize everything about them. If you’re part of an oppressed sex class its pretty hard to *volunteer* for oppression and exploitation. It gets masked as choice when it’s not so much of a choice it is being forced into a position, whether by finance or other means. It enforces the status quo, which isnt exactly condusive to women having the ability to make real choices based on more than what the system allows.
I call into question any choice made by women in a patriarchial male dominated society, not because women are incapable of making choices, but because they have no agency in the patriarchy and therefore have no say whatsoever in the context surrounding their choices.
And yes, abusers teach women their worth is their bodies. Society teaches us that. The media teaches us that. Commercials teach us that. When prostitutes or women who’ve had sex aren’t really believed as rape victims, not only is our worth measured by our bodies, its measured by our hymens and how much “use” our bodies have had. When purity balls become a popular fad, when modesty for women is hailed as good and written about and discussed, when abortion bans dont include rape or incest, when everything we read about sexuality classifies women as virgins or whores, we *are* being taught our worth lies in our bodies.
And some industries are cashing in on that. The majority are run by men.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
What makes a person in the military think violence is cool?
What makes anyone think violence is cool?
Are you presuming that everyone in the military thinks violence is cool?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Sure, but if we’re denying these minors the much greater rights of adulthood in all cases and inflicting adult punishments on them in some cases, I think that’s out of line.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Ron, what do you think of 18-year-olds joining the military? I’m not trying to be flip here. It’s arguable that the voting age should be raised back to 21, but in that case I would want the age for joining the service raised as well: if you’re not old enough to vote, you’re not old enough to die for your country.
I’m with Robert; I’m fine with 18-year-olds joining the military, and letting them vote as well in the bargain.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
No more than anyone is presuming that everyone in porn was sexually abused . . . but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a disproportionate number of people matching that criteria in both cases.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Im not holding the women responsible or judging them. Im judging the culture they live in and the industry that makes money off of them. When the majority of women in the sex industry are interviewed, they flat out say if they had another choice they would have chosen differently. Im not judging them, Im actually listening.
People who claim this or imply this dont tend to be promoting feminist theory. Feminists point out that normal women are forced into making decisions without having any say in the context surrounding those decisions and womens sexuality isnt the madonna/whore BS commonly trotted out. These women do what they have to to survive in a sexist society, just like every other woman does.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/04/28/reader-actually-asks-spinster-aunts-opinion/
this is a much better explaination than I could ever give
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Ick. In other words, if a sex worker appears to disagree with Twisty’s analysis of the sex worker’s life, that sex worker must be experiencing false consciousness. No, thank you.
First of all, Twisty’s language is all about contempt for feminists and/or sex workers who disagree with her (”fun feminists” and “empowerful”). It’s easy to say “I respect sex workers”; but saying that doesn’t mean anything when the language is full of sneering.
Second of all, I don’t buy claims of “no agency… no say whatsoever.” That’s simplistic, and the only way you can believe that is by ignoring the words of sex workers who have said, explicitly, that “no agency” and “no say whatsoever” is not an accurate description of their lives.
I’m not saying that sex workers (or anyone else) has total agency, nor am I saying that patriarchy doesn’t limit people’s agency. Of course it does. But there’s an important area between “total unfettered free agency” and “no say whatsoever” which is where most people, including many sex workers, live their lives.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
bean:
The fact that the older people criticizing the young people’s actions are, in fact, the same individuals at a later date, doesn’t really change the equation. You, at age 40, might look back and think some decisions you made at age 20 are stupid. But at the same time, you at age 20 might look ahead, consider a decision you might make at age 40, and think that would be stupid, even if you know your opinion might change over time.
Everyone’s opinions change over time, in every aspect of life, but they’re still opinions. As long as 20-year-old-you wasn’t missing the knowledge or reasoning capacity needed to make the decision, the difference can only be due to a different set of priorities. And the only way you can conclude that 40-year-old-you’s priorities are objectively the “right” ones is if you’re simply biased toward older people.
So, unfair discrimination is OK as long as everyone has to go through it at some point: an oppressive, patronizing, humiliating rite of passage?
I’m amused that you can keep lowering the age these adults supposedly look like. Maybe judging someone’s age by their appearance isn’t such a hot idea if it’s so easy to make oneself look 25% younger.
You mean the sort of attraction that’s targeted toward sexually mature individuals (since all the makeup in the world can’t make an adult woman look like a prepubescent child)? I think that’s the message we want to be sending to pedophiles, frankly. Might make them stop being pedophiles, you know?
Once more, I’m amused that you think supporting female youth rights would mean taking agency away from young females. That’s as ridiculous as saying you’re protecting women by denying them the “burden” of voting or working. On the other hand, if I suggested you weren’t a feminist but merely an old-womanist, there’d be quite a bit more truth to it.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Whoever wrote that needs to explain how gay and bi male porn is a “representation of the oppression of the sex class” in the context of patriarchy as well as exactly what liberating them from male oppression would entail.
I rather doubt that the “majority of sex workers” has ever been interviewed for their opinions about anything.
The fact that current social relations may not allow for full freedom of choice is no argument for further restricting individual freedom of action.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
“Whoever wrote that needs to explain how gay and bi male porn is a “representation of the oppression of the sex class” in the context of patriarchy as well as exactly what liberating them from male oppression would entail.”
I believe the argument is that our understanding of sex is predicated on a dominance-submission model (built with the understanding of women as the sex class), and that we extend that relationship to all encounters, sexual or otherwise.
I encourage you to go check out the actual post, though. http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/04/28/reader-actually-asks-spinster-aunts-opinion/
She also wrote another post today: http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/05/07/the-secret-lives-of-prigs/ — which contains the line: “I might as well put the kibosh on the tired old “what about gay porn?!” For crissake, it’s 2007; do we not yet get that gay men are men?”
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I’m realizing why this makes me a bit uncomfortable. When pheeno says
I realized the problem. This proposal isn’t ADDING a choice. It’s not providing an alternate choice. It’s not giving another avenue of employment. It is merely removing an existing choice.
Now, i strongly dislike the thought of 18-21 year olds (or anyone else, but we’re focusing on them in this thread, so…) getting stuck in the porn business when they don’t want to be there. So: Is it more efficient to try to forbid them? Or to help them go elsewhere?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
People who claim this or imply this dont tend to be promoting feminist theory.
What Amp said. And please, have the guts to say “You’re not a feminist,” which is clearly what you meant, rather than mincing around about ‘people’.
I ran into the same thing with Mackinnon’s minions, back in the long-ago days before the Web; they pitied and cared about sex workers, as long as the whores kept their mouths shut and nodded along when Good Feminists spoke for them.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Unless they’ve somehow stepped out of the system they arent exempt from the affects of living as a sex class. Pointing out male priveledge does exactly the same thing. I’m abit more open to the idea it could be empowering, but so far I’ve never gotten an answer on how that doesnt boil down to the demand creating the supply. Which isnt exactly that grey area of free agency. Free agency would need to include the ability to express yourself sexually, and that doesnt happen when the money dictates exactly how you do so. And the money is held by men, who arent going to pay to see a woman sexually express herself in ways that do not appeal to men. And they dont seem to be capable of limiting it to the one woman willing to do it.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Clearly your crystal ball is broken, because I say what I mean and dont bother mincing words. It wastes my time. The idea that women who venture into the sex industry are abnormal is an idea (many) feminists are trying to fight. Its a matter of survival, not being mentally screwed up. Some feminists do however agree with that belief. That doesnt automatically make them not feminist.
What in the name of bob do you think the struggle for fair wages is? Or the struggle to view womens jobs as valuable? Or the fight to get stereotypes out of the classroom? Or the struggle to lift women out of poverty so they have more options?
etc etc…
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Right.
One question, I suppose, is whether or not these things are sufficiently advanced to make this particular law useful. (I’m going with “not yet.”)
To make an analog to female circumcision — often, the best action is indirect. It is more likely to make it possible for women to make the choice not to inflict FGS on their daughters if there are viable economic options. Attacking FGS directly, and legally, has had documented & disastrous consequences.
The commercial exploitation* of teenage girls is situated deeply within our cultural context, springing out of the construction of women as sex class, objectificiation, sexual assault, the links between women’s worth and their ability to attract men, the Madonna/whore complex, and so on. As with any culturally embedded phenomenon, it’s probably best to deal with the contextual problems that create it. So, if the goal here is to stop the commercial exploitation of young girl’s sexuality, then I think I agree with A.J. that other avenues of attack are more likely than this one to make it possible for young women to make constructive choices.
*Please note the words commercial and exploitation as important facets of the behavior that I’m condemning.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
pheeno, if you think those other options are so obvious, why in the name of george w. bush ;) did you imply they didn’t have a choice? I think it’s because you feel, as do I, that those options are not “real” yet. I wasn’t suggesting that other things designed to increase options didn’t exist. But seeing as they are so far per se ineffective (as the issue is still on the table and folks say they have no other options) is it a good idea to invoke a ban?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I think 21 is too old to drink and I think that there should be one legal age for everything, not some at 21 and some at 18. Nineteen or maybe 20 seems good to me. But not 21. This legal age also includes military service. It seems wrong that you can send a kid off to die but you can’t let them have a beer or pose nude.
Another thing I want to know, Garance, is why you are writing this? Have you interviewed nude models and found that they, more often than not, regret it or that the vast majority are living in shame? Where did you get your statistics? I want to see them. Are you speaking for yourself? Did you pose nude and now regret it? If so, are you in a position to speak for everyone else?
This comment was written by timotato.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I don’t think it will ever happen, but I think there’s a lot to be said for raising the age of adulthood to 21 (at my most pessimistic I’d even say 41) across the board: to vote, to drink, to marry, to enter into contracts, etc., etc. From a moral point of view, I would include joining the military (although from a *completely* amoral, utilitarian point of view, there is an advantage to having the ranks of the military filled by young people who are physically at or near their prime, even though their mental development is less than complete).
However, if as a society we are going to say that 18 to 20 years olds have the right to enter into contracts and other business transactions (and by implication the right to make bad decisions that they will regret in the future), I really don’t see a reason to make an exception for people in that age group who agree to make porn. On the other hand, there may be some merit in providing for a cooling off period between when the pictures are taken and when they are disseminated during which time the subject (or object) of the picture can withdraw her consent to having the pictures disseminated.
There are some practical problems: 1. It’s really hard to stop someone from posting a picture on the Internet, and once it’s done, getting it off the Internet is like ringing a bell. 2. It’s my understanding that an awful lot of porn originates from other countries, so laws adopted in one country (e.g. the US) may not be all that effective in preventing the spread of porn (and the inevitable exploitation of women–and to some extent men).
I’m not sure where the “what about gay porn” argument is coming from. Did anybody understand G F-R to advocate changing the age to 21 for women but keeping it at 18 for men?
This comment was written by Paul1552.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Because of the context surrounding the choice. Also, the fact that other options do exist, though they arent widely advertised and many women (and men) have no idea they even exist. The public school system (for example)likes to misinform people by telling them a HS diploma is necessary to attend college. Not true. Get a GED and go to community college for 2 years. Take your college transcripts and go to a University. They wont even look at HS if you have college credits. Single mothers get the full amounts of financial aid available and the college will help them find work, via work study or outside jobs that will allow you to make a living without having to exploit yourself and other women in the process. This information isnt widely available and it should be.
Options do exist, but they always seem to be hard vs harder. I’d like to see that change, but Im extremely wary of settling with the status quo until there are more options, because too many lives are being destroyed in the meantime. Too many women pay with their very lives because of the sex industry. And Im not too comfortable with someone elses idea of empowerment when it comes at my expense. Male or female.
Its not an easy issue. But so far, the negatives of 18 year olds in the porn industry are outweighing the positives. At least, in my POV they do.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
CJ:
“Renegade, do these individuals, the older ones, generally support a person’s right to appear in pornography at 18, or do they tend to oppose it?’
Then tend to tell people they REALLY need to think about the decision before making it.
Pheeno:
“But any other industry doesnt make their money of sexually exploiting women who have been sexually abused. Nurses arent being sexually exploited. Secretaries arent being sexually exploited. Stats and research so far show a disturbing majority of women who go into sex work have been sexually abused. The industry makes money directly off that abuse.”
Modelling with clothes on? The music industry? Acting? Looks and sexuality all matter in those fields. And the industry makes money directly off of sex. Now, I know of the studies you are probably considering when pondering this…Farley’s 90% is popular. Mind you, that was a study done on street prostitutes in a few areas, not porn performers, or even a cross section of sexworkers. So far as I know, no one has ever done a Documented Study on Porn performers…those in the LA porn, the women on the internet, the women working and filming out of Miami and the Czech Republic and Canada… I’ve never seen a study focused solidly, academically, unbaisedly on women in porn, specifically. Were some of them undoubtedly abused? Yes. Is it the high number implied by Farley’s 90% of San Francisco and other assoreted street prostitutes that is so often applied to all sex workers? Somehow, I am skeptical.
“And you cannot continue to ignore the context around womens choices by just calling them choices. A choice between shit and shittier isnt some wondermous choice that is just a travesty of justice to impede. If you’re going to recognize those choices, recognize everything about them. If you’re part of an oppressed sex class its pretty hard to *volunteer* for oppression and exploitation. It gets masked as choice when it’s not so much of a choice it is being forced into a position, whether by finance or other means. It enforces the status quo, which isnt exactly condusive to women having the ability to make real choices based on more than what the system allows.”
No one makes choices in a vaccum, I get this. All humans are influenced by outside events and factors. And for some sex workers, its not a choice of shit and shittier, it’s a valid, attractive choice, actually. No one seems to care if an abused person who might be traumatized involves themselves in violent sports, or joins the military, or become a cop…having a gun or a black belt is seemingly fine, but the second they decide to screw on film…it’s all over.
“I call into question any choice made by women in a patriarchial male dominated society, not because women are incapable of making choices, but because they have no agency in the patriarchy and therefore have no say whatsoever in the context surrounding their choices.”
No agency? None at all? No say whatsoever? Well, that’s a grim world view I choose not to accept. “Why did I get out of bed and eat breakfast this morning…oh damn, the patriarchy made me do it”….
“And yes, abusers teach women their worth is their bodies. Society teaches us that. The media teaches us that. Commercials teach us that. When prostitutes or women who’ve had sex aren’t really believed as rape victims, not only is our worth measured by our bodies, its measured by our hymens and how much “use” our bodies have had. When purity balls become a popular fad, when modesty for women is hailed as good and written about and discussed, when abortion bans dont include rape or incest, when everything we read about sexuality classifies women as virgins or whores, we *are* being taught our worth lies in our bodies.
And some industries are cashing in on that. The majority are run by men.”
And women have the choice to say “fuck that noise…”
Also, Pheeno, wrt to this “When the majority of women in the sex industry are interviewed, they flat out say if they had another choice they would have chosen differently. Im not judging them, Im actually listening.”
I’d like to see that documentation, and see what brand of sex workers comprise the “majority”…
And Twisty’s post, well, a lot of people, sex worker or not, disagree with that one. A good reply and discussion of that very post can be found here:
http://persephonesboxblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/possibility-of-consent.html
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I’m abit more open to the idea it could be empowering
So, which is it? Sex work is invariably a result of patriarchy making women the sex class, or it might kinda be empowering? I don’t see how you can argue both. (And please, if you say what you mean, realize that “people” include some of the people commenting here.)
Why is it terrible to exploit 18-year-olds but not as bad to exploit 21-year-olds?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Yeah. It means “Female Genital Surgeries.” It’s certainly not a perfect term, but the hope is to balance accuracy (”female circumcision” can be misleading and minimizing) with respect for some African women who feel female genital mutilation is a term that ends discussion.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Are they taking these jobs to perpetuate the idea a womans worth is found in her body? *note Im not claiming women purposely go out and try to prove all womens worth is in their bodies by the use of the word perpetuate. That is however the result of their actions.
I’ll see if I can dig up where I read this. It was either amnesty internation or another human rights org.
It is now, it could change with time if women can eventually be seen as not a sex class.
Its temporarily empowering
Its sometimes empowering to specidifc indivduals yet oppressive to the whole.
These are all ways to argue both. Its not that difficult.
Yes, Ive seen it. The response sorta falls apart for me when she asserts Twisty is claiming women are brainwashed. Im pretty sure her meaning isnt brainwashed, but more along the lines of trying to explain water to fish or white male priveldge to white men.
My questions for sex workers or women who believe it is empowering are:
If its so empowering, why havent women as a whole stopped being seen as sexulized objects by now and why hasnt the idea that sex is something women posses disappeared?
Also, does it make you feel empowered to know some of the men watching you think you’d accept being raped as long as they left money on the nightstand? Where does empowerment come to play in that?
If your idea of self empowerment is no longer bankable, and what appeals to men changes, is it empowerment to have to change to continue to make money?
And how long does this empowerment last anyway?
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Oh and also
What happens when your empowerment and career directly affect mine and my ability to feed myself and my child, as well as exposes me to some rather iffy situations?
For instance, Im a massage therapist. On a daily basis I have men expecting to be able to pay me and get a rub and tug. Or see my breasts. The massage parlors that charge for happy endings directly contribute to those men thinking its acceptable. Its just a commodity to be bought and sold after all, its not like it insults me or scares me when some strange man asks for more than a legit massage. And then Im placed in a situation where I have to be polite to the fucksticks, for fear they’ll just take it anyway. I cant even express my insult because it could get me raped by a resentful man. So another womans empowerment just came at my expense and Im degraded and at risk now. And if it genuinely IS her freely made choice, and not a case of shit vs shittier but an attractive career how can I express my gratitude the next time one of her “clients” TELLS me I should be grateful he asked nicely instead of just grabbing me? ( actual words of one asshole, after talking about how the massage ladies at another place would accomadate him so whats the big deal) What should my response be if I inform them of how their actions directly affect me and they tell me it empowers them?
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
your empowerment
You keep throwing this word “empowerment” around. Exactly one person has referred to porn in any way as “empowering”, and that was in reference to a woman appearing in On Our Backs, which is lesbian porn (not faux-lesbian-for-men porn). You go on to conflate “sex workers” and “women who believe it is empowering”, and base an entire strawman argument on that.
Good job blaming the victim, though. Do you really think your male customers would not see you as a member of the sex class, and assume “paid to touch me” means “paid to touch me however I want her to”, if only sex workers would STFU? Do you think these were all nice guys who had no thought that they were entitled to rape, harass or insist on sex until they found porn?
Also, does it make you feel empowered to know some of the men watching you think you’d accept being raped as long as they left money on the nightstand?
Are you kidding? Some of the men watching you walk down the street think this. Some of those men think you’d accept being raped as long as they bought you dinner first. Some of them wouldn’t think of it as rape at all. Why does sex work change any of this? Because it upsets you that some pimps and slavers call their houses of prostitution “massage parlors”?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Jesse, I’m interested in your ideas about youth rights. You’ve caused me to examine some of my ageist prejudices, so thank you for that. That said, the youth rights angle is something of a distraction from the thread.
I also think you’re wrong to be advocating for the right of 18-year-old girls to be porn models. For the vast majority (yes, there are exceptions), being a porn model is not a good thing. It’s not a matter of 18-year-olds having the right to do it, it’s a matter of giving some legal protection to people who are vulnerable to exploiters and abusers. 18-year-olds are more vulnerable not because they are more stupid than 21-year-olds, but because of the way society is constructed and because they have less freedeom and economic clout.
I personally would prefer the emphasis to be on criminalizing those who sell images of people under 21, rather than those who model for such images. Overall, I think this would make things better for the 18-21 age group (possibly also for the 12-18 age group who might be less targeted by predators), and help to redress the disadvantages they have compared to older people.
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 1:28 am
It seems as though we’re getting tied up in a lot of side conversations about things of various interest. And that’s perfectly OK with me, since I’m neither a moderator nor overly fussy about thread drift.
But in the spirit of the original post:
There are youthful people, many women among them, who are being harmed by exploitation and/or abuse in the sex industries. Some of these harms may be preventable. What can we do to help the young people who are being harmed, and remedy their situation(s)?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 2:08 am
The problem, I think, is that we can’t discuss this particular issue without getting into several different battles.
Are young people being exploited? How do we define exploitation? How do pornography, sex work, and agency function together? What is their role in society? What is adulthood, what is rationality, what is consent, what is false consciousness, and so on.
Personally, I think once Jesse has accepted that experience and biology are acceptable rationales for dealing with toddlers differently than adults, he’s conceded the ageist game. The question is just when and how it’s appropriate to bring those factors to bear, not whether or not they’re appropriate factors.
As far as sex work, agency, and the degree to which pornography is a social ill — I doubt we’re going to get any consensus about that on this thread. Which is to say that I’m not sure everyone agrees to the terms of your question, Robert. So, I’d take your question, and add some more to it…
Does anyone who is pro-feminist think that Girls Gone Wild is not exploitative? Why and how is it exploitative? Is it exploitative in ways that are different from other types of pornography? Is it possible or desirable to address those harms separately from addressing other kinds of harm?
Aside from the Girls Gone Wild case, do people feel that eighteen to twenty year olds are being harmed by sex work in ways in which older women are not? What are those abuses, specifically? Is it useful to address those abuses without addressing the rest of the system?
If we’re going to address the whole system, why and how should we do that? Is it more important to work on things like creating alternative economic routes for people who are being trapped in sex work, or are there ways to restrict the porn industry that people feel will be effective? We’ve floated waiting periods so that people are able to withdraw their consent for the use of pornographic images, and suggested greater enforcement of the rules that already exist in re: drunkenness and consent. Are those sufficient? Are they viable? Are there hidden costs to them? Are there other methods we should look into?
Does anyone pro-feminist feel that there actually is no problem here at all?
Note: If this is the general direction that Amp would like to see the conversation go in, then I respectfully suggest that he consider stepping in and requesting that the youth rights conversation be confined to the specific ways in which it addresses the intersection of consent and pornography. We’ve had requests for that at 141 (Sailorman) and 185 (Individ-ewe-al).
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 4:52 am
bean:
What an ironic sentiment from someone who has apparently lumped me into a group I don’t even belong to.
You’re right that I confused your statement with pheeno’s, though. Sorry. And if thinking that I did it because you’re both women or feminists helps you feel righteous, that’s disappointing, but who am I to burst your bubble?
Mandolin:
I don’t think I’ve said any such thing. In fact, I addressed this claim in comment #133 by pointing out elements that are lacking in a toddler’s decision making but are possessed by both an 18 and 21 year old. We can say objectively that the toddler’s decision is not informed or rational; the most we can say about the 18 year old’s decision is that some time in the future, she might wish she’d chosen differently.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 5:18 am
pheeno,
do you see people as carrying an obligation to limit their own personal empowerment if there’s a side effect on others?
Not that I’m not talking about empowerment that is done at the expense of other people (that’s really direct oppression, not empowerment). I’m talking about the effect on an unrelated third party, like you and the ‘massage parlor’ example.
If X finds it to be empowering to be a sex worker, and if X isn’t oppressing fellow actors directly by doing so, should X be required to take the trickledown effect on you into account?
And if so: if you find it empowering to lobby against porn, should you be required to take the trickledown effect on X into account?
Because both people are in the same class, I’m not sure that it’s reasonable to focus on the effects of only one person.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 5:19 am
Pheeno:
Re; sexwork, power & empowerment:
http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com/2006/11/empowering-stripping-sex-work-how-hell.html
http://octogalore.blogspot.com/2007/05/dc-madam-power-rape-or-none-of-above.html
http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com/2007/05/power-sex-work.html
Also, blaming women in sex work for the way men treat you (i.e. your massage clients) is sketchy at best. No porn performer ever made a man demand a happy ending from you, he did it himself. As for potential responses, oddly enough, I’ve been stripping and a man has assumed he would get more than that; my response was “that’s not what I am here to do, that is not what you paid me for”. Some men are pervs, yes, some are even rapists….but they are not the majority. Also, “the all you whores are making us look bad” line, which is exactly what this really boils down to, really, is old. Each and every person on the face of the earth is ultimately responsible for their own behavior. And honestly, I suspect more young women are idolizing and emulating everyone from Michelle Kwan to Pink to Condi Rice that are idolizing and emulating Jenna Jameson. Also, really, unless you are paying for Porn Gal X to live, have a roof over her head, eat, have clothing and basic human necessities, I’d avoid telling her what she can do for a living and shaming her for it by saying “but you make my life so hard!”
And if you can find that study, I am interested to see it. People forget that most of these studies are either A) funded by anti-sexwork sources or B) focuses on street prostitutes and trafficked women, yet use them a blanket truths for the WHOLE of the sex industry, from strippers to professional dominants. There are reasons “happy sex workers” rarely make it into these types of studies.
Robert:
“There are youthful people, many women among them, who are being harmed by exploitation and/or abuse in the sex industries. Some of these harms may be preventable. What can we do to help the young people who are being harmed, and remedy their situation(s)?”
Clearer contracts, safer working conditions, mandatory STD testing, more widespread condom use, unions, drug testing. It’s a start.
Mandolin:
“Does anyone who is pro-feminist think that Girls Gone Wild is not exploitative? Why and how is it exploitative? Is it exploitative in ways that are different from other types of pornography? Is it possible or desirable to address those harms separately from addressing other kinds of harm?
Aside from the Girls Gone Wild case, do people feel that eighteen to twenty year olds are being harmed by sex work in ways in which older women are not? What are those abuses, specifically? Is it useful to address those abuses without addressing the rest of the system?”
GGW is most certainly exploitive, primarily I think because it RELIES on the drunk nature of the women in it to be successful. There are not a lot of stone cold sober women in GGW videos, most of them are quite drunk, amid a pack of hollering people telling them to take it off, and many of them are not even old enough to be drinking. That disturbs me. Also, they are “paid” in t-shirts and hats. Now, most porn? Filmed in a quiet location with a few people around, with presigned contracts, and with payment.
I think the average 18 year old is not, generally, as emotionally equipped to deal with making porn and the consequences of doing so as say, the average 25 year old. That’s just been my observation.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 6:29 am
Actually, if it’s GGW that bothers you, pass a law that makes it illegal to pay people to take their clothes off in public and take pictures of them. Be sure “pay people” includes buying them drinks as well as handing out T-shirts, etc. That’ll put a crimp in their style.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Dont confuse contribution with blame. Sex workers contribute to a very widespead societal belief that sexuality is something women own and use as power over men. Their contribution is either willing or unwilling depending on what side of the fence one sits on in regards to porn and the sex industry.
I wonder where he got the idea it was acceptable to ask in the first place? Did he just pull the belief out of thin air? Or has an industry that treats sex and womens bodies as commodoties contributed to it? And if you are a willing part of that industry, do you have any role in it?
Unless the behavior is willingly choosing an attractive career that contributes to societal beliefs about women?
We live in a rape culture and you cant ignore the fact that certain behaviors and beliefs contribute to it.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Nope. Porn just confirms it.
Funny, we were discussing the women who are insulted by being considered victims. So if they arent the victims, I can hardly be blaming the victim. If they arent in fact victims, then why shouldnt their behavior be looked at as well? You cant have it both ways. If, as RE, suggests, she herself wasnt a victim in choosing her career and it was a freely made choice exempt from the patrarchial context then why cant her behavior and possible affects be questioned?
So why encourage it?
Because it contributes to the mentality as opposed to say, fighting it.
Yes, the real fear of rape even while Im at work does tend to be *upsetting*.
I have to worry about it at home, when Im out AND get the added bonus of my workplace as a possible Unsafe Zone.
Yay.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 7:57 am
“Why does sex work change any of this?”
Is it fun living in Denial Bizzaro world? What about sex work DOESN’T affect this attitude? What about sex work DOESN’T reinforce, exaserbate and justify this attitude?
Wake up.
Porn/purchasing sex is not a right. It is not harmless fun. People are harmed by it and those people are not just immature teenaged girls. Perhaps if the damage to men and boys is highlighted, perhaps then you will take the problem seriously?
This comment was written by Renali.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 8:51 am
pheeno:
I think almost all women, regardless of their careers, worry about being raped. However, when a man rapes a woman, it is HIS fault, not porn, not the people in porn, his…the bad act is his, the blame is his.
Now, I’ve heard the “porn makes men think this is okay” argument 10000000 times now. YES, porn can negatively affect some men…MOST of whom already had a host of issues with socialization and women anyway. I do NOT think porn makes “men”…all of them, the normal ones, what have you, rapists. Just like I don’t buy that Marilyn Manson caused the Columbine shootings, or that other things, from music, to movies, to books, to video games, MAKE people commit bad acts. People commit those acts- not the movie, show, song, or game. And the responsibility rests with the person who committed whatever act.
As for my job creating a bad image for women? Well, lets talk about that for a moment. It’s be my (and I repeat, my) experience that women treat me far worse than men do. I’ve also seen women who claim to be feminists or at least interested in feminism mock, attack, threaten and insult sex workers, at home mothers, models, women who claim to like make up and heels, female lawyers, willing at home and not in public BDSM enthusiasts and say some really nasty, violent things about MEN…not rapists, not Joe the GGW guy, but men in general. I don’t think the image I present while earning a living is any more unflattering that the image these women present, and the looks, reactions and comments one gets for saying “I support feminism” are no less odd than the ones a person gets when saying “I do porn”. But really, that is neither here nor there. The sex industry is a reality. It’s not going anywhere, and rather than worry about how my chosen profession affects your image with men, my concerns rest more with keeping the women in this industry as safe as possible, getting those who want out, out, and seeing that legally they are viewed as HUMAN BEINGS…and treated as such, which is not the case all too often. You get harassed at work? You can probably complain to your boss and black ball the customer. Not so for many of these women.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 9:46 am
So a woman who is paid to take her clothes off is “encouraging” men to believe she would be happy to be forced to have sex as long as they left a tip afterward? What is she doing, beaming rape fantasies by telepathy? Men never got the idea that women are the sex class until they picked up a copy of Playboy?
If, as RE, suggests, she herself wasnt a victim in choosing her career and it was a freely made choice exempt from the patrarchial context then why cant her behavior and possible affects be questioned?
By all means, question them. Just don’t pretend that you’re really just trying to help the poor dears get past their false consciousness.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Also, just because it needs to be pointed out and all…violence against women, violence against young women, girls, the expolitation and rape of those women and girls? Such things do happen in cultures where pornography is illegal. Such things happened long before porn was widely available via VHS, DVD, and the Internet….
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 10:05 am
bean;
“Do women own any of the responsibility? If not, how can they be viewed as or expect to be treated as responsible adults?”
No woman deserves to be raped no matter what she does. Pretty basic, isn’t it?
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Soo…what? None of it contributes anything at all to our culture? All porn exists in a vaccum and has zero affect on culture or society? Well thats convenient isnt it?
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Then its a good thing Im not arguing it MAKES them do anything isnt it? Im arguing that it CONTRIBUTES to a CULTURE that has sexist beliefs against women and it does NOTHING to combat those beliefs, but does in fact CONTRIBUTE to that overall belief.
And if you chose freely of your own will and I take your word for that and respect the way you define your life anc choices, then you freely chose to contribute to that culture and are RESPONSIBLE for that contribution. JUST the contribution, not rape.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Im not. Im going on their word that they indeed chose freely and without false conciousness. Which means they are a part of that industry and have a role in its affect on our society. Just like porn producers, porn companies, porn buyers ect.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Do they get that idea confirmed or rejected by picking up a Playboy?
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I guess my problem with analyzing gay porn through the window of heterosexual relationships (gay bottoms are just ‘women-in-disguise’ and all that crap) is that it’s the quintessential case of intellectually theorizing from outside a situation.
As in, “I have this big theory that explains everything, but it doesn’t explain you, so instead of realizing that my theory is lacking, I will change you to make you fit my theory.”
When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and I just find this particular nailing somewhat implausible.
Not to mention insulting.
And deeply homophobic.
—-Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Pheeno:
“Soo…what? None of it contributes anything at all to our culture? All porn exists in a vaccum and has zero affect on culture or society? Well thats convenient isnt it?”
I did not say that. I did not even really imply that, in fact, I said in a previous comment that porn can and probably does affect some men negatively, did I not? Yet, blaming the porn is also all too convenient, isn’t it. Why look at crappy sex education systems, crap mental health care, crap effort on the part of educators and parents to teach children about sex, respect, and relationships, and the messages put out in the media overall, from network primetime tv to popular music when we can blame it on the porn? As I explained once upon a time, my job is adult entertainer, not sex educator. It is not my job to teach the male youth of the world what their parents and actual educators should be teaching them.
As for contributing to the culture, easy to blame that on the porn too, isn’t it? And the people willingly doing it, of course. So, porn performers are either victims or a predator/enablers, then, is it? Convenient.
I don’t think so. Porn is not the root cause, no matter what anyone wants to say, and there are just as many, more in fact, violent and sexually violent messages on primetime network TV as there are in porn. Don’t believe me? Check out any of the Law & Order franchises, or any of the CSI franchises, Cold Case, Navy NCIS, The Profiler, Shark, or just about any other big network television show. Oh, and something you might notice on those? The women in normal fields who end up victims are treated as victims, the sex workers, well, they deserved it. Trust me, society does not view a legit massage therapist the same way they view a porn performer…
And playboy magazine has never depicted a rape scene. What one sees in playboy is not so different than what one sees on the beaches of the world on a hot day.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Evidently, you’ve forgotten my post where I list some of those exact things, like media.
It either contributes or it doesnt. And not all sexist men are some abnormal “other” removed from everyone else, incidentally.
Victims can be unwilling/unwitting enablers as well. But in no way is porn exempt from not making a contribution.
No one HAS said that.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Pheeno, Bean-
How we got from age 21 to this is interesting, yet it seems to be where all conversations about porn go eventually…
I look at it this way. Yes, I am willing in the business I am in. I do not think porn, or any other type of sex work is some bastion of empowerment for women as a whole. I do think it can contribute negatively to the way some people (not just men, but women as well) view some types of women (generally those in the business), or even, on rare occasions, women as a whole. I think over exposure to porn can be bad, once again, for some people, just like over exposure to anything, from booze to disel fumes, can be bad for some people.
However, I am not in the business of nor of the mind to tell adults where and how they can find their entertainment and “vice”, as it were, so long as it is found consentingly. I do not believe in telling people what they can and cannot do as general rule, and I believe in holding people, not things, responsible for their bad actions. Does porn contribute to…what…in essence boils down to the “slutification of the western world?” It may very well. In some cases, it certainly does, for some men and women alike, warp or color their ideas for that. I accept that, sure. I will not deny the fact that perhaps out there, somewhere, I myself, or the industry as a whole, have given the impression to some men that ALL women like asex they way they see it in porn or given some young women the misguided idea that in order to be attractive they have to get implants and do anal sex or something. Am I going to fall all over myself appologizing for it, or say I hate my job and nothing but evil comes from the industry itself? No, I’m not, because I do not believe, nor have my exeperiences, shown that to be true.
I think people, all people, face a lot of pressure in life, pressure to conform, not to conform, to look, act, feel, behave a certain way, and a lot of those pressures are conflicting, and they come from all sides. Ultimately, I think most people find their own ideas and headspace that fits them. Yes, porn, raunch culture, whatever the heck term you want to use can be among those pressures…just like the church, peer groups, political movements, and countless other things. So while yes, what I do can be a factor, it is one of thousands of other factors and contributing sources…and I am not going to take the blame for it, nor should the industry, nor should any other one influence. I’ve never forced anyone to get naked, have sex, or film it in my life, nor dress in certain manner, nor treat women in a certain manner, nor any other such thing. My industry as a whole might influence such things in some people, but it is one of countless influences, and I don’t really believe in demonizing those things for all, above all others.
I hope that makes sense, because it’ about as plain and flat out as it gets.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
“I guess my problem with analyzing gay porn through the window of heterosexual relationships (gay bottoms are just ‘women-in-disguise’ and all that crap) is that it’s the quintessential case of intellectually theorizing from outside a situation.”
Right. I see what you’re saying. FTR, I wasn’t endorsing Twisty (I actually just have no idea what I think about a lot of these issues), just linking to her in response to someone’s question about what she thought.
I don’t think you’re reducing the argument perfectly, though. I know people float the women-in-disguise thing, but my impression was that Twisty’s argument was more… heck, almost philosophical? We know that human brains seem to really enjoy the concept of binary opposition, which creates self/other. If you assume (as Twisty’s doing) that the primary self/other relationship is male/female, then you can argue that *all* other self/other relationships are derived from that, sexual or otherwise. Not just romance, gay or straight, but business, friendships, parenting, keeping pets, partnering for other activities, waving hello on the street.
I think this notion, like most attempts to peer into prehistory and guess how it affects modern psychology, is unsubstantiated. However, as a theoretical model, I think it can yield some interesting perspectives, in much the same way that the equivalent model for race (the original self/other relationship is my-group/out-group) can, or for that matter, the same way that Freudian analysis can.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Right, but that’s part of my issue . . . her ‘big theory of everything’ seems to have been constructed without spending a lot of time talking to the parts of ‘everything’ that lie outside her direct experience.
I mean, I’ve seen gay porn where the same person tops and bottoms in different scenarios . . . who’s the ‘other’ there? What if you’re a dominant bottom? What if you’re a submissive top? Things don’t always break down to male/female oppressor/oppressed, and it just seems like there are a lot of folks who try to force that paradigm where it doesn’t fit.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Bean, there’s nothing wrong with any individual TV creator producing a new TV series in which the protagonist is male. Yet when all these TV creators acting (seemingly) independently produce a collective TV season in which 70 or 80 percent of TV series protagonists are male, that’s a problem. It’s the pattern that’s problematic, not each individual decision.
Similarly, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with any individual feminist critiquing porn, or sex work. But there is an overall pattern in which, collectively, feminists are singling out porn and sex work for a much larger and harsher degree of criticism than other genres. That’s a legitimate thing for sex workers (or anyone else, I suppose) to object to.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Bean:
Hell, even I occasionally critique or criticize porn and sex work :)
As Amp alluded to above, it becomes…tedious…when someone in the business, now or previously, who does not fit the popularized role (hated it, victimized by it, so on) offers opinions on ANY aspect of it, and suddenly it becomes “don’t you SEE what YOU & YOUR business are doing to the rest of us”…which, while not a direct quote, is a vibe picked up easily enough in this thread, and countless ones similar to it throughout the blogosphere. There is no such thing, or at least it is terribly rare, as a civil conversation about porn. I’ve come to know this. I think most people have come to know this. Part of the reason you rarely hear from people in the business who, well, like or at least don’t hate it? Because they get singled out and well, yeah, abused, for not falling in line with feminist critique of porn. Why get involved in a discussion where sooner or later, directly or in a round about way, you-personally- are going to get blamed for rape, sexual abuse, and the majority of what is wrong with sex and sexuality in the western world? It’s like walking into a door, then doing it again, and again…
This thread started on a question about raising the age of consent in porn to 21. I think it is a good idea for hardcore porn (simplified, that which involves penetration) because of what I’ve seen and heard. Just my opinion, no one has to agree with it or like it. This thread became yet another in a long line of threads about “the evils of pornography”…
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I’m in the hate the game not the player mode of thinking. Women have the least say in the industry. If we’re going to blame anyone, it’s directors, producers and buyers of porn who are mostly male. Women are economically disadvantaged and often strip or pose to get through college or whatever. There was a young woman on Feministing recently who commented that she strips to pay for college. It’s a feminist stance because she has to do it to pay for college. I’ll bet it pays more than working at fastfood restaurant.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Some fascinating argument. I’m getting the impression that a lot of folks here have no experience of a non-porno society. You know, a society in which selling a copy of Lady Chatterly’s Lover or The Well of Loneliness or Maurice or Ullysses would have been courting a bust for trafficking in pornography.
I bring this up because it seems to me that if we are going to argue about the relative importance of pornography to the larger question of women’s status and treatment, the first logical step would to compare current conditions to those that existed prior to the legalization of pornography.
Is anyone willing to argue that the objective condition of women in say 1950 was less oppressive than the present? Can it be shown that the advent of legal pornography parallels a decline in the status of women? Are women today more, or less subject to violence, assault or rape than 50 years ago .?
I think that the answers to these questions would be far more pertinent to a serious discussion than apriori theoretical constructs. I recognize that there are difficulties in compiling accurate data but surely some work has been done in this area? Or are the arguments all based on deductive supposition?
Speaking of theory. Mandolin, Thanks for the links. Twisty is certainly a lively and gifted writer. Alas, not lively or gifted enough to overcome the reductionism of her first post. I think the most outstanding irony it contained follows:
our world order is predicated on binary sex roles, one of which is privileged and dominant, the other of which is oppressed and submissive.
Yet even as she appears to deplore this state of affairs it’s evident that she embraces it as a primary foundation of her theoretical construct as well as a fundamental principal of her own politics. Her’s is a manichean conception where biology is destiny as surely as it is in the preachments of reactionary patriarchs such as Robertson, Dobson or Perkins.
All the tropes she employs struck me as far more plausible when I first heard them more than 35 years ago. Of course, many things seemed plausible in those days. Yet, even then there was a hint of mechanistic mustiness about these formulations. No doubt due to the adoption of so many elements of an already obsolescent 19th century Marxism, combined with crude analogies to nationalist struggles.
The reification of social relations into absolute categories of victim and oppressor. The fact that large numbers of the oppressed either do not recognize their condition, actively embrace it or otherwise dissent from from the accepted theory explained away as false consciousness. The theory of false consciousness in turn used validate the role of an enlightened vanguard. All carrying a very radical flavor. It’s easy to see why the lone individual, struggling against the weight of patriarchical tradition and the constant of sexual exploitation would find such conceptions empowering, inspiring, even liberating.
There’s a difficulty though. After nearly 4 decades it’s necessary to ask what this variety of radicalism has accomplished . Now one can argue that the theoretical concepts championed by twisty contributed to the larger struggle for women’s rights and I certainly wouldn’t dispute that. When we inquire as to more tangible accomplishments though, the record is more than a little skimpy.
Judging from what I read , I suspect that twisty would consider most of what is described as advancement for women over the last 4 decades to be reformist accomodation to the Patriarchy. Take the right to reproductive freedom for example. This is widely considered to be a profound and necessary precondition for the liberation of women. Yet it can be and has been argued that its establishment actually constitutes another means by which the Patriarchy maintains women’s sexual accessibility to men. I wouldn’t be surprised if twisty was sympathetic to this argument. It would be of a piece with her overall view that not much has really changed. The Patriarchy rules and everything in our society and culture that does not directly challenge her conception of male domination objectively supports and cultivates the oppression of women.
This continues the parallel with obsolete Marxism, wherein every reformist gain is simply a snare of the oppressor class that deludes the oppressed and delays the day liberation.
The fundamental problem I have with Twisty’s brand of radical feminist analysis is two fold. First, I don’t think it’s an analysis so much as it is a rationale for social and political irrelevance. Secondly and connected with the first, I don’t see much radical about it other than its rejectionist posture. Accepting existing inequities as so pervasive as to divide the world between a few righteous non-participants and the many who are labeled as active collaborators, hardly constitutes a radical challenge to the status quo.
It does constitute an ideology well suited to small communities of true believers who are uninterested in the complexities, ambiguities and heartbreak of actual social-political struggles. That’s not to say that it excludes participation in such struggles. It does lend such action a very particular character though. When you look at the world through a telescope of theory, your vision may reach farther but all you will see is a magnified detail rather than the broad sweep. You’ll be blind to those beside you and overlook what is immediately before you.
Which brings me to the second link you provided Mandolin. I’d thought that the post would elaborate on Twisty’s comment about Gay men being men. I was sadly disappointed. Her point actually seems to be that Gay Male porn isn’t germane to her argument because Gay men are, well, men. This isn’t terribly logical though, since she is the one who made the sweeping declaration that all porn was the graphic depiction of patriarchy and male oppression of the sex class. It looks very much as though she is simply dismissing that which contradicts her assumptions. Does she engage in the same cavalier dismissal regarding lesbian porn? If she is really only talking about hetero porn why not say so? Given her general theoretical frame, that porn reinforces the patriarchy, I’d say she is obligated to explain how and why this does or doesn’t apply to gay and lesbian porn.
Regarding your discription of the dominance and submission subtext of pornography, I’d say that Twisty goes much farther. She flatly denies the possibility of agency for women who participate in porn. In Twisty’s view, the Patriarchy is so pervasive and controlling that no one is really capable of making such a choice, even if they believe that they have done.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
MRA’s and anti feminists also say the same thing about rape, the wage gap, reproduction rights etc.. I hope you’re not making a variation of ” Im sick of hearing about it so people should just stop talking about it”
Perhaps thats because when those of us who do say ” Ok, I accept and respect you defining your experience in the industry” (meaning I accept your differering opinion that varies from the victim, hated it etc) we dont get the same response when we define how that industry you’re a part of affects US.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Pheeno:
I just don’t see why EVERY thread on porn has to become…the same thread? All the time? Every time? Without failure?
And I believe I did acknowledge that I am part of an industry that affects people, in a great variety of ways.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I’d say that has more to do with people’s opinions not changing and there not being an varied amount of opinions on it. It’s not that different from discussions on any subject, really. Most discussions on abortion are the same discussion, different players.
And I took you at your word and didnt insist you just must not realize how your choice was made. So see? This discussion on it *is* a bit different than the norm. Progress. ;)
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Reeves, I suspect most of what you said about Twisty contradicts the facts. And in fairness, I doubt any of those societies managed to get rid of porn entirely. See however here.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
[...] about Joe Francis, the auteur behind the Girls Gone Wild videos. Franke-Ruta has hit on excellent solution for driving him out of the business of preying on drunk college girls. She wants to raise the [...]
This comment was written by Feminist" ideas that do a disservice to everyone « Notes from Evil Bender.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I’ll briefly chime in just to say I largely agree with Jesse’s argument on this topic.
And I have to wonder what the real agenda is when it comes to raising the porn AOC to 21. Is it really for the health of 18–21 year-olds, or is it because some people happen to be uncomfortable with the idea of “barely legal” porn? The latter, IMO, is a piss-poor reason for such regulations, and thankfully wouldn’t even begin to pass First Amendment challenges in the US (and it is US porn regulations you’ve all been discussing here, before you throw down the glove at me for being US-centric). It also seems to be based on the bogus notion that attraction to post-pubescent teenagers is “pedophilia”. How much of the adult population are “pedophiles” by that definition? 95% or more, probably, at least in the case of men.
I also can’t help but notice the heavy use of the passive verb “sexualized”. As if teenagers were non-sexual and lived in a state of beautiful chastity before evol raunch culture fed them the apple. Unlike a lot of people here, it seems, I can still remember being a teenager and I remember how condescending I found the kind of discussions of teen sexuality that I’m seeing here. I still have that perspective, even now that I’m “older and wiser”.
Overall, I agree with the European approach to age of consent – somewhere between 14 to 16 years as a general AOC, but 18 for porn. Also, greater allowance of social freedom and public participation by teenagers like they do in Europe, rather than the kind of cloistering trend we’ve seen in the US over the last 15 years.
As for banning under-21 porn based on the actions of Joe Francis – I’m not buying that, either. The problem with Joe Francis was his MO – getting women drunk, separating them from their friends, ambushing them with demands to show off their bodies. He’s done this to women over 21 as well, and I don’t think age limits really address the core problem with the GGW method of operating. Strengthening laws under which model release forms can be considered valid, putting “cooling off” periods into the language of the contract, etc are clearly better solutions that get at the problem directly.
This comment was written by Iamcuriousblue.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
I’m not going to get into the porn debate, especially since the commenter I’m addressing hasn’t even grasped the basics of Feminism 101 and I am a declared Radical Feminist. I am a bit appalled that no one here (unless I missed it) seems to know that there is indeed a difference between a “child molester” and “pedophile”. Pedophiles do only target pre-pubescent children. They have no attraction to pubescent or adult women. There -are- men who molest children -and- have sexual relations with adult women. A very significant portion of child sexual abuse survivors were molested by their fathers or other sexual partners of their mother. There are men who target single mothers for the sole factor of gaining access to their children, but they are indeed attracted to both.
http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/pedophilia_and_child_sexual_mole.htm
“True Pedophiles are responsible for only a small percentage of child sexual molestations. Half of child sexual abusers are the parents of the victims; other relatives commit an additional 18% of the offenses.
All Pedophiles are child molesters, but very few child molesters are Pedophiles. Pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation that involves exclusive attraction to prepubescent children (male or female, generally not both). Child sexual molesters may be sexually attracted to males and/or females and are generally not particular about their age; convenience and easy access are their prime concerns.
Active Pedophiles are generally single men between the ages of 16 and 35. Child molesters are generally married men, of any age, who are primarily drawn to their own children and step-children.
Pedophiles primarily engage in fondling and oral-genital sex; they “court” and “groom” their victims as if engaged in a consensual relationship with an adult. Child molesters will fondle and engage in oral-genital sex, but also frequently sexually penetrate their victims, force children to watch while the molester abuses their mother or others and partake of pornography with children in the immediate vicinity.”
You might also wish to check out this link:
http://brokendreams.wordpress.com/tag/child-abuse/page/2/
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
But women who choose to work in the sex industry (especially those who feel empowerful by such a thing) do, I think, own a part of the responsibility of pornification of this society.
“Empowerful”? Is that even a fucking word? It seems to be one of those air-quote words used to sneer at sex workers who aren’t sufficiently very, very sorry for their anti-feminist betrayal. Kind of the way antifeminists talk about “career” women or “inconvenient” pregnancies.
Come to think of it, it’s also the antifeminists who use terms like “pornification”.
Do they get that idea confirmed or rejected by picking up a Playboy?
Do men get that idea confirmed or rejected when they see a woman go out in a revealing sundress? After all, she’s putting on a sexual display. If that’s all it takes to say “Boys, take it from me, we’re the sex class,” you’re casting a rather wide net of blame there.
On gay porn, the “gay bottoms are like women” crap sounds an awful lot like those homophobes who ask which person in a homosexual couple plays the man.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Ask the sex poz crowd. Its the word they came up with for women who choose to work in the sex industry, in order to deny it being degrading.
Are those women being PAID? No? Hmmm. Perhaps theres a difference you’re not grasping between walking out in public wearing clothes and being paid to promote your body as a commodity or tool to sell clothes. (walking hamgers is the phrase used by those in the fashion industry, to describe women) If you can sell your body as a product or sex as a service, then rape can be seen as little more than shoplifting or theft of service.
Ask the author. I doubt she’s homophobic though, unless she’s phobic of herself.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Indeed
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
What a shame this thread has turned into another rerun of the sex wars. I think even mentioning Twisty jinxed it.
Pheeno, Bean, I hear you. It’s frustrating to be quibbling over whether 18-21 year olds should get the same nominal and inadequate protection from abuse that is currently afforded to 14-18 year olds. And tacitly assuming that only a prude or a hater of “free speech” could object to the trafficking and rape of women over 21. I can see why you are upset.
Mythago, RenEv, thanks for flying the feminist pornographers’ flag. You’re being boxed in with a false dichotomy between poor little victims who were forced into the evil industry and must be saved from their own false consciousness, and exploiters who are perpetuating that evil industry. It would be a lot easier just to stay out of such an arena, and I for one am glad to hear something of your perspective rather than others’ assumptions about your lives and experiences.
As for GGW, I think it ought to be covered by existing laws. It’s illegal to ply underage people with alcohol and illegal to extract consent for either sex or a legal contract from someone who isn’t fully competent. The best solution IMO would be actually enforcing those laws, in spite of the fact that Francis is famous and the show makes lots of money for TV networks.
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
May 9th, 2007 at 10:10 am
hf Writes:
May 8th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
“Reeves, I suspect most of what you said about Twisty contradicts the facts. And in fairness, I doubt any of those societies managed to get rid of porn entirely. See however here.”
I certainly may have gotten it wrong. Anyone who cares to investigate may follow the links provided by Mandolin:
blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/04/28/… blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/05/07/…
and judge for themselves whether or not my impressions are “factual”.
They might then point out exactly where I “contradict” a fact, let alone “the facts”. In fact, you might have done so yourself. You might still, if you took a notion to try. At least then you could speak from knowlege rather than mere “suspicion”.
Let’s be clear about one thing though. I wrote nothing whatever about Twisty, who I do not know from Adam’s house cat. I gave my impressions of some of the ideas she expressed in exactly two posts. This necessarily involved expressing speculative opinions about those ideas. If you can point out where such opinions are “counter-factual” I would be very interested.
Since we’re all being so “fair” here, I think it only fair to point out that whether or not porn has been completely expunged from a particular society is irrelevant. The argument has been made that pornography plays a central role in the objectification and subordination of women in society. If this is so, one would expect to find a correlative relation between the availablility of porn in a particular society and the relative status and condition of women in that society.
The issues are straight forward. What has been the status of women in society’s typified by the suppression of pornography historically ? Has the emergence of pornography in our society been accompanied by a degradation of women’s status? How does the contemporary status of women compare to that of women during the period when pornography was suppressed by law? Do the answers to these questions support the theoretical constructs of Twisty and others, or do they not?
It is not all clear what pertinence your link to the piece on “My Secret Life” has. Perhaps you could explain its significance?
Finally, I’d say that despite its brevity, your comment is a perfect distillation of the short comings of a theory driven approach. Heavy on assertion and prejudice, barren of any sense of the need for evidence or proofs of any kind.
I’ll close with this thought. We all exist within social and cultural systems but each of us is more than simply the sum of systemic influences. Each of us deserves to be judge as an individual rather than the expression of a categorical imperative.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
May 9th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Ask the sex poz crowd. Its the word they came up with for women who choose to work in the sex industry, in order to deny it being degrading.
Just to say, “empowerful” was coined by Twisty in reference to the “sports corset” thing. Linky.
This comment was written by JackGoff.Report this comment to the moderators
May 9th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
ha! I just thought it was a misspelling of empowerment.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 9th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I doubt that Mythago actually meant that by her statement; I suspect that either she meant that she’s seen anti-feminists use the word “pornification,” or she used the wrong word.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2007 at 3:53 am
I daresay that no person you apparently are calling “anti-feminists” (I’m not sure who in this debate you refer to, possibly the “pro-porn” people) use the term “empowerful” as seriously applying to them. It’s nearly universally applied as a pejorative term.
This comment was written by JackGoff.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2007 at 4:03 am
Ah, I understand now, never mind.
This comment was written by JackGoff.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2007 at 5:32 am
I was mistaken, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
This comment was written by JackGoff.Report this comment to the moderators
May 11th, 2007 at 12:56 am
we ask this sort of thing too little about other fields of work.
Myca @ 156: Bingo.
The big open-ended question in here is, how does industry exploit the emotional expectations of those who have been emotionally abused?
If you’ve been brought up to think that you’re a poor (memberofgender) if you don’t work yourself into an early grave, are you equipped to set boundaries for yourself in a job that wants you to do just that?
An industry with a very innocuous reputation harmed me very badly, because I was never taught to be on my guard against it. Another with a less savory reputation left me with a positive experience, because I had learned to be on my guard and set my own boundaries. I found it interesting that in the sex industry the fact that I was only willing to work on my own terms, though the specific limits I set made it hard for my income to be high, was not a deal-breaker, whereas in the nine-to-five world when I explain — cautiously, and with an eye to compromise — that I don’t want my job to make me ill, and need a full eight hours of sleep nightly which I can’t get if waking too early in the morning, they look at me like I’m utterly useless and refuse to hire me.
(Bitter-who-meeee?)
I think my good experience with the sex industry was due to a number of causes (upbringing, area, pre-existing standards) and that the basic feminist criticism of the sex industry probably helped me out before I ever doffed me duds. I’m quite thankful for that.
At the same time, I really, really wish that those of us who have the drive to be politically active would turn, in numbers, to improving working conditions across the board, rather than occasionally remarking on it in amongst huge anti-porn foo-fa-rahs. I understand the white-collar enemy is more entrenched, and daunting, and he’s everyone’s boss. It’s far, far easier to pick on the sex industry — workers, exploiters, and allies alike. Smaller target, less friends. And yet — I could have a liveable job again, if only I were willing to keep my gender card in order. (I decided after a long time that I’m not.)
Hehe, did I get ranty? I think I got ranty. Anyone in Portland hiring part-time?
This comment was written by A.J. Luxton.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2007 at 7:13 am
The problem is not that 18 year old girls do porn, it’s that many people (including many commenters on this site) stigmatize them for it. The solution, then, is not to raise the age of consent for doing porn, but rather to lower the stigma.
Come on, prudes: get over your revulsion–for the sake of the girls, if not for yourselves. Because it’s people like you who validate the notion that having done porn is somehow a shameful, stupid thing. And that is what damages the girls.
This comment was written by Jack.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2007 at 4:52 am
“Come on, prudes: get over your revulsion–for the sake of the girls, if not for yourselves. Because it’s people like you who validate the notion that having done porn is somehow a shameful, stupid thing. And that is what damages the girls.”
Bonus points: feminists are prudes, and a plea to respect the choices of 18 year olds while calling them girls. I call troll, and boring.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2007 at 5:02 am
Seems a little ironic to object to calling 18 year old women “girls” when the original proposal is based on the idea that that’s exactly what they are.
There’s no hypocrisy in a plea to respect the choices of girls (or boys) anyway: even children are capable of making choices for themselves. The real hypocrisy is asking for 18-21 year old women to be treated like children without admitting that’s how you see them.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2007 at 5:19 am
I never actually supported the proposal, so your remark is fatuous. My first comment in the thread, 73, is saying that I don’t think it would work.
Also, whatever I think, when someone comes in to plug their rights as adults, and calls them girls, he’s being a hypocrite. My particular perspective is irrelevant; it’s inconsistent for dude to come in with the premise they’re adults and then minimize them by calling them girls — inconsistent with his position that is, but consistent with misogyny.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2007 at 5:37 am
I don’t see any evidence in #217 that he’s coming in with the premise that 18 year olds are adults. Perhaps he shares the opinion of others here that they aren’t, but still wants their choices to be respected. (Nor do I see any evidence that by “prudes” he was referring to all feminists, either.)
Again, you’re reading something into the comment that just isn’t there. He starts out by referring to 18 year old girls and remains consistent to that. There is no mention of “rights as adults”, only of “rights”.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2007 at 5:56 am
Comments here can be edited up to 30 minutes after posting. If you want to react to the change I made, go for it.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Done.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2007 at 6:27 am
Okay, so I see two possibilities:
1) What I interpreted. It’s not uncommon to refer to women as girls, even women in their thirties or older. It’s something that people have blogged about a lot, and while its effect is diminishing I think (both because people have started to knock it off, and also because there’s more of a tendency to refer to men as boys), it’s still present and goes well with the kind of patriarchal myth-making that’s tapped into by the slam about calling people who are anti-porn prudes, as if being anti-porn means being anti-sex.
2) What you interpreted. This guy is defending the rights of people who he thinks are actually children to act in porn. I expect this isn’t the case, though if he wants to come back into the thread and talk about how fourrteen-year-olds should totally doff it for cash, then I’ll stand corrected. But if it is the case - I think this condemns his position much more than my interpretation. I think many fourteen-year-olds are sexual and capable of meaningful consent — with other fourteen-year-olds. As Amanda at Pandagon says, young people should be able to explore their own sexuality without skeezy dudes leering at the boundaries to make sex objects of them.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
The young women in question are 18, not 14. You yourself said that people around that age are in some gray area between child and adult — which I disagree with, but it seems to be a popular enough view. I think you’re still ignoring the possibility that he thinks about 18-21 year olds exactly the same way you do, and uses the word “girls” to refer to women who are not “really” adults.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Given the context of the comment, and the other kinds of dog whistles in it, I stand by my critique.
If there’s more to be said on the original topic of the post, I’ll be happy to participate again, but this feels like a derail now, so I’m out.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Raising the age of consent would certainly help (in the UK that age is anyway 16 - don’t tell Joe Francis). I had another idea though - a cooling-off period. In the UK if someone comes to your door and sells you a new electricity contract and you sign something, you have 14 days to change your mind - no fees, no hassle. Is appearing in pornography a less important decision than changing your electricity provider? And is someone stood on their own front doorstep sober in any worse position to make decisions than someone drunk in a nightclub? I have posted a longer version of this proposal here.
This comment was written by Cruella.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I like your idea, Cruella, in that it solves the whole ‘Girls Gone Wild’ issue by granting more power to young women, not taking it away. Also, it seems less prone to abuse than the original proposition.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I would favor a law like that. It would make commercial porn production much more difficult.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
I agree, Cruella’s proposal is much better. It addresses the specific problem of people agreeing to do porn while they’re intoxicated or under pressure, without discriminating against anyone.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2008 at 11:52 am
If only all us smart people could create laws against other people doing stupid things. Yeah, that would be so awesome.
Also: Laws that let anyone change their mind about anything involving any risk, to avoid any negative consequences. Yeah, let’s do that, too.
This comment was written by Jeff.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Long time thread, but I’ll say a few things, I’m halfway through the thread, didn’t see it before I think.
@Jesse
I have a cousin of a cousin who is male and named Jessie. French-Canadian, but well, maybe names differ for that reason? I couldn’t say, but there you go: a male Jessie.
@Mandolin (comment #94, though apparently, some comments vanished since the thread’s original, so numbering changed as well, its the current number as of today)
“Young women are frequent targets of sexual assault. When we condemn people like pedophiles, we need to take into account that we highly sexualize young children. We, as a culture, are creating the conditions that create pedophiliac response, whether the people who engage in that sexual fantasy are paraphiliacs (can only be aroused by their fetish) or men who have both normal and abnormal sexual response.”
I’d point to wikipedia’s article on lolicon, which says:
“Some critics claim that the lolicon genre contributes to actual sexual abuse of children,[7][8] while others claim that there is no evidence for this,[9][8] or that there is evidence to the contrary.
…
An argument is that obscene fictional images portray children as sex objects, thereby contributing to child sexual abuse. This argument has been disputed by the claim that there is no scientific basis for that connection,[32] and that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a harmless outlet for desires that could motivate crime.[9] This is exemplified in a case involving a man, from Virginia who, while arrested after viewing lolicon at a public library, asserted that he had quit collecting real child pornography and switched to lolicon.
…
Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama observe a strong correlation between the dramatic rise of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards and a dramatic decrease in reported sexual violence, including crimes by juveniles and assaults on children under 13. They cite similar findings in Denmark and West Germany. In their summary, they state that the concern that countries with widespread availability of sexually explicit material would suffer increased rates of sexual crimes was not validated; and that the reduction of sexual crimes in Japan during that period may have been influenced by a variety of factors they had described in their study.[10]”
—————-
By this reasoning, there’s yet to be a scientifically proven reason for this to happen. If mangas featuring teenage girls who half look like children (but still with puberty-induced features) don’t increase pedophilia, I don’t think 18 years old who look like 16 would, either.
I think Britney Spears and others like her are more responsible for the self-sexualization (by advertising proxy) of children (and especially girls), who view them as idols. I may be mistaken, but I don’t think children typically idolize porn stars, however young they might look, because they’re not typically public.
I was surprised myself to read on this from Japan, a truly patriarchal society which makes the US and Canada look like nothing. Where a man saying “I love you” to his wife of 20 years, is seen as too hard to do and unmanly if done.
This comment was written by Schala.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
As for comment #1, saying its hard to find women who look significantly younger (21 looking like 18 or 16). I’m 26 and am often seen as underaged. My first day of work where I work now (I was a few weeks short of 26), I was asked if I was going to summer camp (and not as a monitor). The guy was surprised when I said I was going to work.
I’m often taken for between 16 and 19. No one can honestly give me above 20 years old based on appearance alone. Wether my genetic makeup is responsible wholly or partially for this, I have no idea. While I like looking younger, I don’t do much of anything towards highlighting it though.
Note: I don’t *typically* wear lolita fashion (pretty rarely actually), but it’s clear as day to people that I don’t look pre-pubescent, even in such clothing.
This comment was written by Schala.Report this comment to the moderators