Lenin posts a video of a short interview on Chomsky’s views of pornography:
I am particularly impressed with the way he just trashes the free market arguments of the pornographic industry (as in, ’she chose to do it’).
If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.
If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking software may have blocked your comment. Please contact the moderators immediately so we can rescue your comment. If this happens repeatedly, you might visit Akismet's comment form to tell them they're falsely identifying you as a spammer.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
What his comment does is disregard womens agency. From his point of view porn is exploitation but is it really that different than the exploitation of any other form of paid labor? There are plenty of women working in the sex trade industry that say that they enjoy their work. At what point do we validate their choices and their feelings. To insist that someone is oppressed when they themselves do not feel uniquely oppressed is problematic.
This comment was written by Renee.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Renee - I’ve Lenin’s blog enough to know that he does see all labour as exploitative under capitalism (the name is a bit of a dead giveaway).
I often find that that’s often what’s missing from debates about sex work - an analysis of work.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 6:53 am
I find his analogy between child abuse and porn greatly flawed. Child abuse involvs kids, people who have no control over what they’re doing and cannot give consent. Adults who engage in making porn do have other choices.
His counter to the question of “Didn’t people choose to act in porn” by comparing them to sweatshops and porn is also greatly flawed. People who work in sweatshops are very often NOT there by choice - they were deceived or coerced into working in them and very often are physically prevented from leaving or not working. Whereas people who act in porn (presuming no criminal activity on the part of the producers, which I expect to be rare) have other alternatives.
As far as porn being degrading - from my limited exposure to it, apparently some of it is. I don’t find that kind of thing particularly attractive and I don’t understand people who do. But remember that porn is acting. There are a lot of dramatic productions, plays, movies and TV shows, where people are degraded in various non-sexual ways for the entertainment of the viewers - some of which are classic works. Do we stop production of those as well?
Also, the definition of “degrading” seems to vary with the viewer. Some people would hold that any depiction of sexual activity is degrading. Others would say that depiction of heterosexual activity is O.K. but that homosexual activity is inherently degrading. I’m sure that I and others on this blog could agree on particular acts that we would all view as degrading. But there might be others that we would not agree on, or that we would agree on but other people wouldn’t. Where’s the line drawn, and who gets to draw it?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 8:39 am
@ Maia
That I believe is essentially the problem. I firmly believe that all form of wage labor is exploitative labor and therefore sex work is not more demeaning than any other form of labor. To try and separate it in this way is essentially disciplining the bodies of women.
This comment was written by Renee.Report this comment to the moderators