What, really, is the difference between porn and prostitution? Why is prostitution generally illegal, in the U.S., and porn generally legal? Following up Saturday's post....
Now, there is another thing, a third thing, erotica, which is the genuinely artistic depiction of love acts, including sex, for the purpose of...what? Does art need a purpose? (Which reminds me of this NSFW "commercial" about HBO, blurring the distinction between porn and erotica...)
For the record, yes, I think ALL "porn" that does not involve children or violence should be classified as "erotica," and therefore unregulated, by the state. I don't want elected or appointed perverts pre-screening our HBO shows to make sure they have redeeming social value.
But I do always try to make students think about that porn/prostitution difference.
And the idea of "virtue" for women is one our feminist sisteren (rightly) object to, because it implies a double standard. (Of course, it is a standard where men simply lack virtue, so maybe it's accurate!).
What feminists say they want is for the woman to have choices. If it's (eu)voluntary, and for a reason the woman chooses, it should be okay.
I ask students to imagine a woman being paid for sex, and the transacted services are being carried out. Police burst in. Woman points out there is a camera, and they are filming a porn movie.
On one hand, it's evidence that the act took place. But the woman argues that this is a performance for the (later) onanistic pleasure of OTHER males, in the privacy of their own homes. Both the male and female actors are performing roles, not for their own pleasure. The male actor may need to exhibit the ejaculation of bodily fluid, but again that is part of the performance, not PRIMARILY for his own pleasure.
In most states, the police have to leave and allow the filming to continue. Of course, before leaving, the policeman asks, "So, you're filming porn? Do you need anyone else? Like maybe a policeman? I could go back out, and come in again, and...no? You sure? Okay, sorry to bother you."
Does that distinction make sense? The woman cannot perform a (paid) act for the pleasure of a man, but can perform exactly the same act, and many other, more acrobatic, acts, for the (later) pleasure of OTHER men, just because in a physical sense those other men are pleasuring themselves?
Again, thanks to Gabriel Rossman for his challenges to orthodoxy and his questioning of distinctions.
Now, there is another thing, a third thing, erotica, which is the genuinely artistic depiction of love acts, including sex, for the purpose of...what? Does art need a purpose? (Which reminds me of this NSFW "commercial" about HBO, blurring the distinction between porn and erotica...)
For the record, yes, I think ALL "porn" that does not involve children or violence should be classified as "erotica," and therefore unregulated, by the state. I don't want elected or appointed perverts pre-screening our HBO shows to make sure they have redeeming social value.
But I do always try to make students think about that porn/prostitution difference.
And the idea of "virtue" for women is one our feminist sisteren (rightly) object to, because it implies a double standard. (Of course, it is a standard where men simply lack virtue, so maybe it's accurate!).
What feminists say they want is for the woman to have choices. If it's (eu)voluntary, and for a reason the woman chooses, it should be okay.
I ask students to imagine a woman being paid for sex, and the transacted services are being carried out. Police burst in. Woman points out there is a camera, and they are filming a porn movie.
On one hand, it's evidence that the act took place. But the woman argues that this is a performance for the (later) onanistic pleasure of OTHER males, in the privacy of their own homes. Both the male and female actors are performing roles, not for their own pleasure. The male actor may need to exhibit the ejaculation of bodily fluid, but again that is part of the performance, not PRIMARILY for his own pleasure.
In most states, the police have to leave and allow the filming to continue. Of course, before leaving, the policeman asks, "So, you're filming porn? Do you need anyone else? Like maybe a policeman? I could go back out, and come in again, and...no? You sure? Okay, sorry to bother you."
Does that distinction make sense? The woman cannot perform a (paid) act for the pleasure of a man, but can perform exactly the same act, and many other, more acrobatic, acts, for the (later) pleasure of OTHER men, just because in a physical sense those other men are pleasuring themselves?
Again, thanks to Gabriel Rossman for his challenges to orthodoxy and his questioning of distinctions.
Hi guys,
ReplyDeleteYes I think that porn has been one of the more despicable trends on the Internet over the past years and my opinion is that this is not bad because there are so many people who are happy to see these photos and videos