![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 73 to 97 of 99. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 11:02:30
In reply to Very long rant!, posted by Tamar on March 29, 2006, at 10:51:20
I don't disagree with you.
Except to say that I've either been quite lucky or quite careful in choosing what I've seen. I've certainly never seen anything violent, and I don't think I've ever seen anything where the women and men weren't depicted as consenting adults who enjoyed what they were doing. I'm pretty sure I'd walk away from anything else.
And while I wouldn't raise a brow if I found Playgirls in my son's room when he's a bit older (he still thinks girls have cooties), I would have a serious talk with him if I found him viewing images or listening to music where women are treated with disrespect.
Posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 11:15:44
In reply to Re: the BIG *HUGE* deal with PORN.., posted by verne on March 29, 2006, at 1:22:53
> Ted Bundy - 29
>
> Crusaders - 1,000,000,000I understand that you're upset, but the civility rules of this site ask that you be sensitive to the feelings of others, even if yours are hurt.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Of course, Dr. Bob is the final arbiter of deputy actions, and can reverse them if he thinks they're incorrect.
Posted by verne on March 29, 2006, at 11:25:45
In reply to Please be sensitive » verne, posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 11:15:44
I'm sorry as usual. I wouldn't mind if I were blocked.
Verne
Posted by gabbi~1 on March 29, 2006, at 11:28:32
In reply to Very long rant!, posted by Tamar on March 29, 2006, at 10:51:20
As I mentioned before, I too have been 'victimized' in the true sense of the word.
What makes me angry as H*ll are people who try or tried to take my voice away again by saying "you couldn't really like what you are doing, you might *think* you do, but I don't believe it"
It's something that insults me and perpetuates the victim status under the guise of concern.
How many people ask, with the same intense pitying concern "I wonder if that married woman with three kids is really happy, does she know what she's doing?"
"What about that clerk at the gas station?"
All of us make our choices relative to our circumstance, and who knows if those circumstances were different what we would choose? Or what we would look back on and think, "I guess I didn't really like that as much as I thought"To say a woman is being objectified and denying her claim that she truly enjoys her sexuality is in itself objectifying and infantilizing.
Polarizing intelligence and substance and the enjoyment earthy sexuality and the celebration of taste and touch and all things sensual, under the guise of concern, and holding it hostage to intellectualized concepts and theories is sadly repressive, and prejudiced.
Women have been abused in various ways long before the advent of porn on glossy paper.
Abuse is something that will find it's way into any corner of the world, for any reason, and to connect it to one thing, or one area is naive and unrealistic.
The mindset of the abuser exists unto itself and will find it's way of acting on the desire to inflict pain. It existed when women were forced to wear dresses down to their ankles, and when they had to wear chastity belts.
Hugh Heffner was one of the first people to hire women, and hire black people to work in his corporation, (not pose in his magazine)
Stockholders threatened him, when he hired minorities. He didn't change his hiring practices.His attitude was truly about sexual liberation, it wasn't an acceptable way to disguise his desire to abuse and objectify.
And yet many institutions that preach love and acceptance and morality are responsible for abuses of power.I'm not glorifying the porn industry, or demonizing the latter. What I'm saying is, that a label or philosophy is, not and never has been indicative of the behaviour of all those who are part of it. Abusers and those who respect the integrity of others are found in all aspects of life.
Posted by gabbi~1 on March 29, 2006, at 12:02:02
In reply to Very long rant!, posted by Tamar on March 29, 2006, at 10:51:20
I know you don't P.B.S people thoughtlessly, so I'm asking because I'm curious.
Why is it insensitive to say that the Christian Crusades caused 100000 deaths, but not considered insensitive to say that porn was what caused Ted Bundy to kill 29 women?And thanks for thanking me ; )
I'm always flattered by that.
You too Verne
quack..
Posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 12:12:08
In reply to Dinah, a sincere question, posted by gabbi~1 on March 29, 2006, at 12:02:02
I guess it's a matter of my interpretation of what was written. I saw the one as an assumption of association, which I didn't see as a PBS.
I did however as a poster write that I didn't believe there was a true association, and why.
And Dr. Bob can always correct anything he wishes to correct. (I really like that he can do that.)
I was thinking of a way to write a bravo to your last post. I thought it was very empowering to women.
Posted by gabbi~1 on March 29, 2006, at 12:41:06
In reply to Re: Dinah, a sincere question » gabbi~1, posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 12:12:08
> I guess it's a matter of my interpretation of what was written. I saw the one as an assumption of association, which I didn't see as a PBS.
>
> I did however as a poster write that I didn't believe there was a true association, and why.
>
> And Dr. Bob can always correct anything he wishes to correct. (I really like that he can do that.)No , I *knew* you'd have a reasoned answer, and I just wanted to know what it was, that's all.
> I was thinking of a way to write a bravo to your last post. I thought it was very empowering to women.
You just did!
Thank you.
very much
Posted by Tamar on March 29, 2006, at 13:56:54
In reply to Another Very long rant! Poss Trigger, posted by gabbi~1 on March 29, 2006, at 11:28:32
Hi Gabbi,
> As I mentioned before, I too have been 'victimized' in the true sense of the word.
> What makes me angry as H*ll are people who try or tried to take my voice away again by saying "you couldn't really like what you are doing, you might *think* you do, but I don't believe it"Yes, I can imagine. Do you feel that it’s been happening in this discussion? Do you feel that your voice has been taken away?
> It's something that insults me and perpetuates the victim status under the guise of concern.
> How many people ask, with the same intense pitying concern "I wonder if that married woman with three kids is really happy, does she know what she's doing?"Maybe they should! Did you know I’m a married woman with three kids? If so, you probably also know that I have no idea what I’m doing!
> "What about that clerk at the gas station?"
> All of us make our choices relative to our circumstance, and who knows if those circumstances were different what we would choose? Or what we would look back on and think, "I guess I didn't really like that as much as I thought"That’s true. Women are exploited in all kinds of employment and not just in the sex industry. And indeed women are sexually exploited in other kinds of employment too. I think I worry particularly about women’s freedom of choice in the sex industry because of the culture. For one thing, a very high proportion of women working in the sex industry have been sexually abused as children. I am deeply concerned about the possibility that abused girls end up working in the sex industry because their academic choices have been restricted: if they’re experiencing incest they might not do so well at school for example, and don’t have the choice of the range of careers that their non-abused peers have.
And I do believe that women who say they enjoy the work are telling the truth. Perhaps many women with histories of abuse find it healing to be sexually involved in a very controlled environment such as porn, or to have the freedom to choose which sex acts to participate in and at what price. I imagine the self-determination involved is very important to someone with a childhood history of abuse.
However, I have serious concerns about women’s safety. Certainly the vast majority of women who work in prostitution have been subjected to violence at some point in the course of their work. The risk of violence at work is much higher for women working in prostitution than for women in, say, medicine or academia. And culturally it seems that violence against women in the sex industry is viewed as acceptable. For example, I think if a prostitute or porn actress complained to the police that she’d been raped, she wouldn’t stand much chance of getting the guy convicted. I think there’s a huge lack of respect for women who work in sex, and that lack of respect is bad for all women. I’d like to see women in the sex industry treated with much more respect.
> To say a woman is being objectified and denying her claim that she truly enjoys her sexuality is in itself objectifying and infantilizing.
I agree wholeheartedly with the second half of your sentence. Yes, denying a woman’s claim to enjoy her sexuality is infantilizing. The first part of your sentence is something I’d probably agree to with qualifications. If I tell a woman that she is being objectified, then it’s unhelpful at best. On the other hand, when I look at porn I do think women are depicted more often as objects of other people’s desire rather than as subjects of their own desire. But of course it’s not just in porn; I think that it’s simply particularly striking in porn images. I suspect that many women see themselves as objects of desire more readily than as desiring subjects. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with being an object of desire. However, woman-as-object seems to be over-represented in porn, in my view.
> Polarizing intelligence and substance and the enjoyment earthy sexuality and the celebration of taste and touch and all things sensual, under the guise of concern, and holding it hostage to intellectualized concepts and theories is sadly repressive, and prejudiced.
I’m not sure I’ve understood you correctly, but if you’re saying that expressions of concern for real women in the sex industry are being used disingenuously in attempts to support theoretical concerns about sexual politics, then I’d probably disagree a little. I think feminist theorists who debate issues about porn and prostitution are often women with some kind of inside experience of the issues involved, so it’s not particularly disingenuous. I also think they’re trying to find ways make things better for *all* women and not just those who work in sex. They often disagree on how to change things for the better, but that’s the nature of theoretical debate. Certainly I think there’s something of a feminist consensus that the sex industry is not a particularly safe place for women to work, based on sex workers’ own reports. So if feminists want things to be different, perhaps it’s not because they’re repressive or prejudiced but because their idea of liberation involves widespread cultural change.
> Women have been abused in various ways long before the advent of porn on glossy paper.
> Abuse is something that will find it's way into any corner of the world, for any reason, and to connect it to one thing, or one area is naive and unrealistic.If I thought porn and abuse were intrinsically connected, I’d be out campaigning for total censorship. Still, I do think that porn is very influential and I’d like to see it reflect healthier attitudes to sexuality than it currently does.
> The mindset of the abuser exists unto itself and will find it's way of acting on the desire to inflict pain. It existed when women were forced to wear dresses down to their ankles, and when they had to wear chastity belts.
For sure. And it exists when women are paid only 80% of their male colleague’s salary to do the same job. And it exists when women are forced to go back to work two weeks after having a baby because they can’t survive financially otherwise. And it exists when older women can’t get a job because the employers want to hire someone young and ‘attractive’. I think it’s about a culture of inequality rather than about individual abusers. In a culture of inequality abusers know they can get away with it.
> Hugh Heffner was one of the first people to hire women, and hire black people to work in his corporation, (not pose in his magazine)
> Stockholders threatened him, when he hired minorities. He didn't change his hiring practices.
> His attitude was truly about sexual liberation, it wasn't an acceptable way to disguise his desire to abuse and objectify.I’m not a huge fan of Hefner. His advocacy of civil rights for minorities may be a redeeming quality, and I might even agree with him on other issues. But I find it difficult to see him as a proponent of sexual equality. And I don’t believe that sexual liberation is worth much without sexual equality. I guess I’d share his goal of sexual liberation, but I’d say there are better ways to set about achieving it.
> And yet many institutions that preach love and acceptance and morality are responsible for abuses of power.
Well, yeah. I won’t disagree with that!
> I'm not glorifying the porn industry, or demonizing the latter. What I'm saying is, that a label or philosophy is, not and never has been indicative of the behaviour of all those who are part of it. Abusers and those who respect the integrity of others are found in all aspects of life.
That seems fair enough. I don’t think we’re coming from fundamentally different places. If you interpreted some of the comments in my earlier post as any kind of attempt to silence the voices of women in porn, then I apologise for being unclear and inarticulate. I strongly believe that the voices of women in porn should be heard. And at the same time I think it’s important to explore the influence of porn throughout society and try to determine if there are ways we can improve the things that are holding back women (and men) from being as fulfilled as they could hope to be.
Tamar
Posted by milly on March 29, 2006, at 14:23:15
In reply to (((((Milly))))) *****trigger***** » milly, posted by Tamar on March 29, 2006, at 10:36:50
Thanks Tamar your post really helped me. I've been so tearful about it all day and I don't really know why.
You are right, I don't know how to 'read' men since that time and it ends up with all as a potential threat and those who seem to dismiss my concerns over the link a double threat.
I plucked up the courage to read your rant and found your logical thinking helpful.
I still feel really traumatised by the ferocity of the emotions I inadvertantly stirred up and am really sorry.
milly
Posted by gabbi~1 on March 29, 2006, at 14:49:54
In reply to Re: Another Very long rant! Poss Trigger » gabbi~1, posted by Tamar on March 29, 2006, at 13:56:54
Hi Tamar
First I wanted to say I wasn't rebutting your post, I'm not sure if you thought I was.
It's just that mine was another long rant!
And no, I don't think we're coming from fundamentally different places either.I have to go to the Doctors, but I wanted to say that you brought up some interesting things,
many that I would have added as qualifications in my post, but didn't want to make it even longer than it was.Anyway, I'll be back to talk some more.
Posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 14:55:47
In reply to Re: Another Very long rant! Poss Trigger » gabbi~1, posted by Tamar on March 29, 2006, at 13:56:54
Tamar, with all due respect, don't some of your objections to the sex industry really result from a lack of respect in society for our fellow human beings who happen to work in the sex industry? And that a lack of respect for our fellow human beings is the real source of those problems?
And I'm not sure I feel any more comfortable about speculating on the problems and motivations of those who pose nude than I do about the problems and motivations of people who choose to find friendship on an internet bulletin board or those who are Fanilows, just as two rather commonly judged activities.
People have all sorts of reasons for doing the things they do.
Posted by gabbi~1 on March 29, 2006, at 14:56:57
In reply to Re: (((((Milly))))) *****trigger***** » Tamar, posted by milly on March 29, 2006, at 14:23:15
milly I'm sorry you've been so upset about this :(
Really sorry.
I think you moving the magazines out of the site of kids was great!
I'm not going to comment on any of the other stuff because it seems you've heard enough.
((((Milly))))
If you thought I was one of the people who was upset I assure you I'm not.
I do have strong opinions about it, but this isn't something I get uncomfortable discussing.
And I actually found this very interesting.I'm sorry it was at your expense.
Posted by gabbi~1 on March 29, 2006, at 15:03:56
In reply to Re: Another Very long rant! Poss Trigger » Tamar, posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 14:55:47
> Tamar, with all due respect, don't some of your objections to the sex industry really result from a lack of respect in society for our fellow human beings who happen to work in the sex industry? And that a lack of respect for our fellow human beings is the real source of those problems?
>That's my thinking as well. It's what I meant when I responded to Spriggy's post and said the means is not the cause.
I thinking focusing on the porn industry isn't particularly helpful, when that's only an easily targetted reflection of what exists everywhere.
Posted by Tamar on March 29, 2006, at 16:17:57
In reply to Re: Another Very long rant! Poss Trigger » Tamar, posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 14:55:47
> Tamar, with all due respect, don't some of your objections to the sex industry really result from a lack of respect in society for our fellow human beings who happen to work in the sex industry? And that a lack of respect for our fellow human beings is the real source of those problems?
I’ve thought about what you said, and I’m sure you’re right to some extent, but I think there’s more to it. Yes, I object to the lack of respect for people who work in the sex industry. But I think my objections to the sex industry are chiefly objections to the ways in which the sex industry reinforces and sexualises the inequality of women in society. My objections to porn, for example, are about the semiotics of the imagery. I think many pornographic images convey sexualised ideas of women’s vulnerability. I think that's more complex than lack of respect.
For example, I watched a porn film recently in which the men and women were depicted as consenting adults who enjoyed what they were doing, but nevertheless I found the imagery uncomfortable. One scenario was about a woman whose house had been robbed and she called the police and then had sex with the officers who arrived. Nothing in the scenario was explicitly violent, but I was uncomfortable with the premise; anyone who has been robbed knows how violating the experience can feel. I felt the scenario was setting up the female character as a victim of a violation that she responded with sexual intensity as if the robbery had been inconsequential. To minimise the emotional impact of the robbery in that way depicts her (in my view) as dissolute; her only interest is in her next orgasm. Furthermore, her role as a victim is significant only insofar as it provides her with sexual partners. The film wasn’t subtle enough to depict that as one aspect of her character: hey, it was porn. And of course the police officers took advantage of her vulnerability when they should have been there to protect her and help her. So again, she’s a victim but she’s depicted as enjoying it. To me it’s the imagery of sexual assault but presented as a rescue fantasy.
Now of course I know it’s just a fantasy. And I can also imagine it’s potentially a real life fantasy. Maybe if a woman has been robbed and she calls the police and two cute officers arrive at her house, it’s entirely possible that in her heightened emotional state she might experience feelings of sexual desire for them. I don’t think that’s outside the realm of possibility. But if they took advantage of her feelings, they’d be exploiting her, in my opinion. In fact, if it happened in real life they’d be retraumatizing her, because she’d already experienced one violation with the robbery.
And that’s why I’m uncomfortable with most of the porn imagery I’ve seen. I don’t like the underlying implication that women enjoy being victimized, or that people of colour are inherently exotic/dangerous/wild, or that sex is at its best when there’s an undercurrent of danger. It’s not just about the consent of the participants or the way others view them. It’s largely about the themes used over and over again in porn. I just don’t think they’re helpful. It's more than just lack of respect; it's about political complexities. I don’t want to ban porn; I just want to make it better.
> And I'm not sure I feel any more comfortable about speculating on the problems and motivations of those who pose nude than I do about the problems and motivations of people who choose to find friendship on an internet bulletin board or those who are Fanilows, just as two rather commonly judged activities.
Ah well, part of my professional work has involved researching the problems and motivations of people who work in the sex industry, and additionally I’ve had friends who have worked in the sex industry. So while I can’t claim to know the motivations of everyone who works in the sex industry, I think it’s fair to say that I’m aware of research that has suggested some common patterns. And I think it’s worthwhile speculation because without a hypothesis it’s hard to know where to begin to explore the issue. If my speculations are found to be utterly wrong, they can be discounted and new hypotheses suggested. Either way, I think it’s as useful to explore the problems and motivations of people who pose nude as it is to explore the problems and motivations of people who work in hospitals or in the voluntary sector (which is sociological research that other people do…).
By the way, what are Fanilows? I’m intrigued…
> People have all sorts of reasons for doing the things they do.
Agreed. And that’s why I find it very significant that research has found such a high proportion of survivors of child sexual abuse among sex workers. It’s much higher than you’d expect to find in a random sample of the population; it’s usually around 75%-95%. And I wonder why that should be so. Do they all have very different reasons, and is it simply coincidence that they have traumatic histories? Or is there something about sex work that is particularly appealing to survivors of child abuse? Or is it something else? I genuinely want to know.
I work in education. It’s not terribly uncommon for students to supplement their income by working in the sex industry. If I’m teaching incest survivors, I consider that I have a responsibility to them, just like I have a responsibility to students with disabilities or students who come from non-traditional backgrounds. The difference is that surviving incest is usually less visible than disability or background. Of course, I have a responsibility to all my students. But some have more troubles to overcome than others, and I’d like to be able to help if I can. If there’s a chance that people choose to work in the sex industry as a result of educational underperformance which limits their choice of career, then I consider it my responsibility to be aware of the problem and to seek ways to solve it. And I feel similarly strongly about other issues that could affect my students’ performance, but right now we’re talking about the sex industry...
So that’s a long way of saying that I have a deeply material interest in the sex industry and in exploring what it means to choose to work in it or to choose to be one of its customers. I know I don't have all the answers, but I still want to ask the questions.
I’ve probably just made it more complicated. Sorry.
Posted by Phil on March 29, 2006, at 16:53:29
In reply to human respect and motivations **trigger** » Dinah, posted by Tamar on March 29, 2006, at 16:17:57
Posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 17:08:25
In reply to human respect and motivations **trigger** » Dinah, posted by Tamar on March 29, 2006, at 16:17:57
My main concern was that I didn't think that men who liked to look at nude women should be made to feel guilty about that.
My secondary concern was what Gabbi put much better than I could. So I'll leave it to her.
I think I've spent enough of my time defending the porn industry today. :) I think I'll bow out now.
Posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 17:17:39
In reply to A small victory for womankind?, posted by milly on March 25, 2006, at 16:09:41
Milly, I'm sorry if my involvement in the tangent to your thread caused you distress. I think getting adult magazines away from where children are pretty much forced to see them is a good thing, not only for womankind, but for humankind.
I'm surprised laws on the issue aren't more widespread, and that establishments aren't more sensitive.
Posted by verne on March 29, 2006, at 18:12:13
In reply to the BIG *HUGE* deal with PORN.., posted by spriggy on March 29, 2006, at 0:17:37
Sorry I was so mean-spirited last night. I'm struggling with a lot of addictive behavior.
I agree that porn can cause problems in many areas.
verne
Posted by Tamar on March 29, 2006, at 18:20:56
In reply to Re: human respect and motivations **trigger** » Tamar, posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 17:08:25
> My main concern was that I didn't think that men who liked to look at nude women should be made to feel guilty about that.
I agree. Gosh, did my posts suggest that I was trying to make men feel guilty about looking at nude women? I certainly didn’t intend to imply that. For one thing, I enjoy looking at nude women too.
> My secondary concern was what Gabbi put much better than I could. So I'll leave it to her.
>
> I think I've spent enough of my time defending the porn industry today. :) I think I'll bow out now.Well, fair enough. I’m not really trying to attack the porn industry. My central point is that I would prefer to live in a world with better, nicer porn. I’d like porn to be more varied. I’d like the sex industry to be less dangerous to women. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with looking at nude women, but I also don’t believe that porn exists in a political vacuum. I don’t think guilt would be useful or appropriate or necessary, but I do think that our sexual culture is something we are collectively responsible for. And to be honest, that throws a lot of responsibility onto the shoulders of women, even if they don’t consume porn. But that’s a whole new rant…
(((((Dinah))))) I really value your thoughts and comments.
Posted by Tamar on March 29, 2006, at 18:25:58
In reply to Re: Manilow fans=Fanilows. (nm) » Tamar, posted by Phil on March 29, 2006, at 16:53:29
Posted by special_k on March 29, 2006, at 18:32:28
In reply to Re: human respect and motivations **trigger** » Dinah, posted by Tamar on March 29, 2006, at 18:20:56
I can tell you have thought about this much more than I have and I'm really impressed with what you have said. The themes... Yeah thats what I have trouble with more than anything.
Thanks for getting me thinking on it...
Posted by special_k on March 29, 2006, at 19:19:19
In reply to Re: Thank you Tamar, posted by special_k on March 29, 2006, at 18:32:28
yeah it is the themes. the abuse... the abuse fantasy thing. that is what i struggle with.
and the power dynamics. i struggle with those too.
and i end up feeling nauseous (triggered i guess)
and i feel sad that other people train their bodies to respond to those things...
Posted by Declan on March 29, 2006, at 21:33:10
In reply to Re: Porn...what's the big deal? posible trigger, posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 22:27:00
Look, I couldn't be bothered reading the complete thread. I just wanted to post a link to the worst book on the subject "On Refusing To Be Man" by someone Stoltenberg. He argues that at the moment of orgasm all men link up in fantasy together in a brotherhood of rapists. I think he might be Catherine McKinnon's partner. Someone around there, anyway.
What do people think of pornography that does not involve women? What do people think about those (really pornographic) temple carvings in India? Women and the porn industry are not neccessarily involved in pornography. So what is it? Solitary sex? Is that the problem?
Declan
Posted by special_k on March 30, 2006, at 1:33:33
In reply to Re: Porn...what's the big deal? posible trigger, posted by Declan on March 29, 2006, at 21:33:10
if you want to know what people think...
that is pretty much what people have been talking about in the thread so i guess...
how much do you want to know
Posted by milly on March 30, 2006, at 2:18:40
In reply to Re: (((((Milly))))) *****trigger***** » milly, posted by gabbi~1 on March 29, 2006, at 14:56:57
Thanks
I don't do conflict well and just end up beating myself up for causing a situation where conflict arose.
i end up feeling responsible for everyones hurt and anguish and then I turn it on myself.
Thanks for saying you are OK i guess it is healthy to work out issues like that but I just end up hiding under the quilt (coward arn't I)
milly
PS thanks for the hug i really needed that
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.