I think it is true that some abuse is inevitable in such a system and that those who use porn (myself included), are focusing on our own self-centered desires in spite of the reality of systematic oppression and the possibility of personal coercion/exploitation.

I also agree with those who point out that this is the case across the spectrum in a capitilistic society. Whenever any of us call upon any of countless “low-status” workers - janitors, maids, fast food workers, any sort of wage-slave, etc. We are putting our own pleasures above concern for their systematic oppression and likely abuse.

Well, I agree with you 100% FWIW. Makes me happy.

But this has no bearing on Amanda’s question: is porn possible in a feminist world. From the point of view of the status of the workers, if we can accept the possibility that people could do it willingly, then the objection to porn based on the actors’ suffering can be overcome.

So do you accept that in a feminist world this is possible, or do you retreat to the view that everyone has to think the same way as you, described here:

sex isn’t something you do because you are paid to. Sex is something you do because you want to. Anything else just isn’t sex.

And finally I should note, lots of research has been done on sex work. You have only read the women as victims “crack house” style of research (this has been described by Maher L in her anthropological studies of 80s “crack whores” in New York). You might like to check the other side of the research, for example starting with the work of Roberta Perkins. Again, I can only stress that the anti-sex work crusade in 80s America has really poisoned many peoples’ knowledge of this industry, including that of many researchers.

Patriarchy is a system of oppression. It assumes that the default status of a human being, is not only male, but white and heterosexual (among other things.) Anyone who does not fit that definition is “other” and thereby a lesser being.

As a man, you have male privilege. As a non-heterosexual, you DON’T have het privilege, and as such are oppressed by the patriarchy.

The “club” that you belong to is one that only accepts males, and you belong to that club by default.

Thanos6, it’s amazing to me that you think you, or anyone else, are exempt from patriarchal influence because of your sexual orientation. You, as a non-hetero, are one of the demographics that suffers the most under patriarchy. Maybe YOU don’t see it. But consider:

There are 33 states in which you can still be legally denied employment based on your sexual orientation. In a 2007 Gallup poll, 31% of Amerians surveyed said they thought that sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender should be illegal, 54% oppose gay marriage. Twenty-seven percent oppose including sexual orientation/identity in hate crime legislation.

Wake up!

Jesus, flasheart, that’s EXACTLY what I’ve been saying. I don’t know how you can read my posts and think otherwise. How to quantify “some” is the question, for you. The FACT that we live in a patriarchy, where women are valued primarily for their ability to serve men (sexually and otherwise), INEVITABLY leads to abuse of the sex class by the oppressor class - this is the question, for me. The difference between our emphasis, I take to be evidence that you accept womens’ sex-class status because it benefits YOU as a member of the oppressor class (in that you like getting off to sexualized images of women whose identity and circumstances you don’t (can’t) know.)

If you think you’re the only person who has studied this issue, think again. The fact is that there is not enough research in this area. Guess why? Not only does one gives enough of a shit about sex “workers’” experiences to actually do those studies, but MEN are threatened by the very idea. Good luck finding enough “evidence” to prove it to yourself one way or the other. I posted my own link - did you read that?

I would ask YOU to consider that since you ARE a member of the oppressor class, that you are HANDICAPPED when it comes to being able to understand the experiences of the sex class. How can you possibly think that, as a consumer of porn, who lives in a patriarchy, who is a member of the oppressor class, YOU have the special, correct view of the sex “industry”? Do you think that’s reasonable?

And who said anything about “casual sex”?

porn != sex

prostitution !=sex

accepting money != actual consent

I think secretly a lot of anti-porn and anti-sex work feminists want to believe 2, because it suits the puritanical view that womens’ innate understanding of sex must be corrupted by outside forces in order for them to consider such acts. But they can’t easily adopt this view, because it is so popular with the right wing religious model of sexuality and has such devastating implications for other aspects of women’s sexual freedom - after all, under this model women who have casual sex probably also have been corrupted by the patriarchy, and would need to be protected from themselves.

These contradictions in the radical feminist critique of sex work, particularly, are quite glaringly obvious. The only way to maintain the theory is therefore to ignore all porn which doesn’t fit it, and to ignore any evidence that women might freely choose sex work. To my mind, this is ideology rather than theory.

derrp at 177, I do remember that part of the movie but I think you are being disingenuous in invoking such a need on my part. You and buggle both seem to claim to know the feelings and experiences of all sex workers, and take great exception to my disputing the factual basis of your claims. So it seems that it might help you to “dreamfast” with them. But this is the problem with “dreamfasting” or its non-magical equivalent, anecdotal evidence, isn’t it? Because you can always choose your anecdote.

In fact at this post (177) you have continued to do just that, claiming that if I could feel the pain felt “by all sex workers” I would have a different view. But I have presented a view (ignored by you and buggle) that not all sex workers feel pain. I don’t see that anyone should engage with your conclusion (all porn and sex work is bad) when you have failed to defend your premise (all porn and sex work involves suffering). On a tactical or practical level a claim like “some porn and sex work involves suffering, so none can be trusted to be safe” might be more reasonable, but this doesn’t seem to be at the centre of your position.

So I ask you to engage properly with the claim that all sex work involves suffering by looking at the experience of sex workers outside the US - for example visit the website linked to at 165, or read the work of Roberta Perkins. You could, for example, post a comment here disputing aspects of the work of those people. You say at 175 that no-one can speak FOR sex workers, but then you and buggle seem to have assigned yourselves that right. If you wish to speak on behalf of sex workers, you should understand the experience and opinions of more than just a victimised subset in one country.

Also, at 180 you say the patriarchy is not “some trivial caveat”. But Amanda’s original post discussed the possibility of pornography “in a feminist world”. I take that to be a request that we explicitly consider the “trivial caveat” to be missing - we merely need to establish if it is possible “in a feminist world”. And obviously a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for the existence of porn or sex work “in a feminist world” would be that it is possible to engage in such work freely, without feeling coercion or pain.

I think we may be approaching this post from different interpretations of its purpose, but regardless of whether the purpose can be disputed, I don’t think that buggle or derrp (or, I suspect, B) are willing to properly consider information which contradicts their established view of sex work and pornography. Or they aren’t reading my comments properly. But either way, I think there is more to the story than they currently realise, and I would like them to read about that. I have posted a sex worker view - please, if you respect these women’s autonomy, read and think about it.

Concern for people - which, needless to say, includes WOMEN (also known as “members of the sex class” in a patriarchy) - is exactly what buggle and I have been trying to focus on in this thread. And it’s why we are both so upset to see it being pushed aside in the interest of mens’ sexual tittilation.