The sexual sadism of our culture, in peace and in war

by Angie Freeman Tue Jul 13, 2004 02:46

Get's me hard!!! [link to porn removed]

by Ms Lux - Personal Capacity Tue Jul 13, 2004 04:18

Writing in response to the previous posters hardcore link I feel I must say that I generally deal with offensive sexually aggressive behaviour by ignoring it , or discounting it as being beneath comment, but the appearance of such material on the indymedia forum has forced me to a point where I feel to collude would be unwise and unhealthy.

Its a double edged sword as unfortunatly even the most outspoken of women are uncomfortable with registering their opposition to pornography.

There are a few reasons for this, the primary one still being that the predominantly patriarchal culture we live in has many subtle modes of controlling how women think, behave and more importantly how they choose to express their anger.

Regardless of the liberation myths being fed to us through the gungy funnels of popular culture we are now more than ever extremely confused about issues relating to freedom of sexual expression and sexual identity.

The main argument that confuses even feminist theorists on the subject is the insistence that opposition to pornography equates with sexual frigidity or sexual repression of some sort, and that censorship of any sort is inherently undemocratic and therefore oppressive.

Speaking personally as a female whos comfortable and expressive in her own sexuality, sesuality and erotic identity I find the notion of my repression amusing.

I have always found it interesting to watch otherwise articulate boys squirm in sneering defense of their right to use porn, separating issues of female oppression, human rights, and philosophical ideals from their multiple penetration wank fodder usage.

Insisting its normal or healthy or necessary, or that Im being prudish and that regardless of what men say they all use porn ...they dont actually, but nonetheless...
Its even more interesting to watch female friends feebly defend their position, and I refuse to let it slide as buying your fair trade coffee and stopping by on your way home to pick up a well worn copy of animal farm to me seems like a fantastical and frightening case of self delusion.

Sex in its purest form as an expression of love or sex that connects people or simply expresses the exhiliration and wonder of living is a truly magical and life affirming experience.

Used against another human as a weapon of torture, humiliation, violence and control it takes on an altogether sinister role, Susan Sontag the feminist writer maintains that pornography has more to do with death than sex...and if you look closely at the blood chilling images from abu ghraib and compare the facial expressions of the victims and perpetrators to those in any random hardcore rental youll hopefully see with sickening realisation the full implications of what she means.

by marquis de troit Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:01

i would say that sex in "our" culture has more to do with the erotization of power than anything else--basically the ideological prelude to rape--death?

by skatitude Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:31

Not a phenomenon exclusive to one culture, but a phenomenon exlcusive to MEN.

ONLY MEN of whatever nationality use sadistic sexual degradation and abuse as control and power over both men,women and children.

by Angry Loaner with an Iraational Grudge Against Back Packers - The Working Worker Worker's Party (now incorporating the nipple clamp gazette) Tue Jul 13, 2004 16:51

I hate the idea of regulating other people's sexual viewing kinks with obscenity laws etc. (Although no one here has suggested such as of yet). If the people in pornographic images are being raped or are children then this falls into an area criminal activity that goes far beyond breeching obscenity laws.

When it comes to simulated rape and torture stuff I think each text should be examined individually. None, in my view, should be done under obscenity but it could be argued that some could be done under a form of incitement to hatred. However I do not trust anonymous legislators to decide such things so it's a difficult one.

As porn becomes more readily obtainable it really needs to be discussed in a non-hysterical (anti-porn) or dismissive (pro-porn) manner.

A final point on anti-porn being anti-sex: Germaine Greer once argued that porn (being almost entirely patriachial in the means of production) is in fact a 'flight from women'. When you consider that many of the female participants in porn have been surgically altered to better resemble cartoonish male fantasy ideals of women, and that all the set ups and direction comes from men, it seems that porn is the sexual coming together of male imaginations. Women are just fetishised objects used by men to stimulate each other. It's an act of intellectual homsexuality. A profitable form of mutual masturbation. Not that there's anything the matter with that.

The above statement is not meant as homophobic, some of my best friends... etc. Now, I'm off for a cold shower and a pray.

by cliche Tue Jul 13, 2004 17:34

"The Sisyphe web site delivers cutting-edge analysis of current aspects of women's condition, including big issues such as wars, biotechnologies, violence, globalization, power relationships..."
Why oh why do things have to compartmentalised into 'Womens' issues, i think you'd agree that War is a s much an issue for men as for women, and that the majority of discussion in relation to war (or biotechnology, globalistation etc,) in the public domain is sufficiently Non-genderised so as to make a sperate female gender specific discourse unnecessary at the least and quite possibly sectarian at worst.

Human issues, not 'Womens' Issues, or 'Mens issues',

re; Porn.

Pornography is the result of the ever ongoing race to the bottom. Its what happened when our age-old interest in the erotic became mutated into this horrible formulised strictly for-profit and sanitised of any integrity or humanity. its the same thing that has happened to Television, literature, journalism, Art, Music, food, you name it. Its like a Big Mac n' coke wrapped up in a copy of the Sun, watching Fox Network coverage of war.
Gratuitousness is the name of the day.

by m de t Tue Jul 13, 2004 21:57

I appreciate the outrage but your assertion is just not true for the first world. there women do indeed engage in porn and sadism of all kinds--S/M has its own "feminist" subculture.

i suppose they feel like they have some catching up to do.

by Ms Lux Wed Jul 14, 2004 01:37

Telling and rather amusing that angry loner would class the anti porn stance as hysterical, the word deriving from the latin word hyst, meaning womb.

And the marquis is correct, unfortunatly and predictably in the race to equality on all levels certain women have embraced pornography, as least in theory in a sort of going against the grain way lest they be accused of not fully understanding the rye postmodern subtext inherent in the ....Blah Blah ...Wanketty Wank..
Ive heard it all before boys n girls.

But what I feel is important to take note of in relation to Abu Ghraib is that it instantly dispells one of feminism's most primary assumptions, that women are inherently more humane, ethical and loving than the male sex.
It moves the bases to a more general analysis of the nature of depravity, and its use as a weapon of war.

Torture, and in this case sexual torture is always culture specific, its carefully designed to have the most traumatic effect possible.

The extreme sexual torture and degradation inflicted on muslim men by white western women is deliberate and premeditated to induce the highest levels of shame, fear and self loathing possible.

The social stigma due to culture and religion would be a virtually unmanageable burden on the psyche with disturbance and violation on the deepest emotional level.

Alas, I personally feel the disturbing truth of the matter is that women are often as capable of this grotesque behaviour as their male counterparts.

by Michael Hennigan Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:33 finfacts at finfacts dot ie

Some of the material here is over the top with a rich sprinkling of the jargon of academe, in particular in the articles by a Professor Sheila Jeffrey.

Jeffrey ends her article on the legalisation of prostitution with this: 'Legislation and education can be used to reduce men's demand and gradually bring their prostitution behaviour to an end. ' More legislation? Why not bring back hanging?

In Jeffrey's article 'Queer theory and violence against women,' she seeks to make a case that the advocacy of sadomasochism by the likes of the late French philosopher Michel Foucault can be linked with violence against women. The reference to 'the enthusiasm for 'transgenderism' ' is certainly over the top. Apart from Bangkok where it is sometimes part of a career choice, the impression that it is basically a lifestyle choice is ridiculous.

From Jeffrey's article:

'A set of ideas created by mainly gay and almost unintelligible French male intellectuals has been adopted by with apparent enthusiasm by many feminist academics and 'queer' theorists in the 80's and 90's. These ideas have been adopted I suggest because some women and gay men wanted academic careers which are very hard to sustain if you maintain a radical feminist perspective. Only the ideas of men respected by other men will get you very far in the academy. So feminists and gay men cloaked themselves in the ideas of the sadomasochist Michel Foucault, for instance. ....

Queer theory adapts the ideas of postmodernism to the interests of some gay men. They are used to rename various forms of violence such as sadomasochism and transsexualism as 'transgression'. queer theory is big on the importance of 'transgressing' the body's boundaries which turns out to mean carrying out forms of violence upon it.

The enthusiasm for 'transgenderism' often said to be different from transsexualism also requires major reshaping of the offending body with chemical substances if not actual surgery. In queer theory prostituted women are transformed into a sexual minority, or a 'movement of affirmation' along with other practitioners or victims of violence such as sadomasochists, pedophiles, transsexuals and seen as rebels creating a new sexual future. In fact, of course, prostituted women are having to dissociate to survive, not being sexually liberated. They are serving the sexual liberation of their colonisers, men. '

by iosaf Wed Jul 14, 2004 14:15

When I saw this article yesterday, I thought "great topic" then i thought "oh shit we're going to lose the great topic" in gender political jargon.

None of this has anything to do with Snuff.

None of teh above brings us closer to understanding the emergence of "snuff" in the Iraqi war, we have gone no further in our analysis than making it a XXI century equivalent of sending the mutilated body of an enemy back to their camp.

The systematic use of sexual techniques in torture is _not_ based on sadomasochism, but rather appeals to sadists. There is a difference.

No-one can say that the picture of four month pregnant U.S. soldier Lindie England pretending to shoot a naked Iraqi prisoner's balls off is a male display of power over the female body.

Can they?

by Angry Loaner with an Irrational Grudge Against Backpackers - The Working Worker Worker's Party (in association with the thought police.) Wed Jul 14, 2004 16:18

My apologies for using the word 'hysterical' in association with the anti-porn argument. I did not realise the ancient origin of the word linking 'hyst' to 'womb'.

Are you actually serious?

by Anthony Thu Jul 15, 2004 21:37

There's a good article on Melbourne Indymedia which deals with some of the complex issues of the sex industry in a thoughtful and non-moralistic way. The writer of the original article is concerned how power relationships distort human sexuality, the manner in which sex is commodified and how the more legitimate sections of the sex industry can provide cover for other more abusive sections. The more interesting comments come from a woman who gives an account of her experience working as as a prostitute. She also explains how difficult it is for sex-workers to organise to make conditions better for themselves due to the stigma attached to the job.

by man Fri Jul 16, 2004 22:54

wow that melbourne thread is clear indication of somebodies idealogies in this case feminism and socialism getting in the way of reality and listening

by Elstner Mon Jul 19, 2004 01:21

Why is it assumed that an anti-porn argument is somehow feminist or even "hysterical" as someone suggested earlier?

Could it be possible that someone might be opposed to porn because it is dehumanising and exploitative of all participants regardless of sex and of the viewers? I would never regard myself as a feminist but I am opposed to the porn industry.