Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by zamryok | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

zamryok

Furthermore, it seems clear that the way she was attacked was specifically designed to exploit at least the following :

- the fact that she is a woman adressing a predominantly male audience (the fake porno)

- the ambient objectification of women in society

How can that not count as sexist?

View on HN

Excuse my ignorance, just wondering: is it established that porn is sexist? Are they demeaning to the male actors in porn, too? Or is the underlying value that it is demeaning for a woman to have sex? It seems to me a universal judgement isn't easy to come by?

"is it established that porn is sexist?"

It is, yes. The vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of porn panders to a specifically, typically male fantasy (and bravado) of sexual interaction.

That seems to imply that male fantasies would be predominantly about humiliating women?

No, it does not. The following makes no claims about male fantasy or porn; it is merely a means of explaining that you have made an incorrect inference.

Imagine if you will that, hypothetically, 10% of male fantasy is about humiliating women. Imagine also, hypothetically, that all porn is based on that 10%. In this way, you can see that it is possible for all porn to be about humiliating women, but that does not imply that the majority of male fantasy is about that.

Put another way, if all cows are black, it does not mean that everything black is a cow. If all porn is based on a male fantasy, it does not mean that all male fantasy is represented in porn.

That would seem like a way to escape the conclusion, but wouldn't it make most sense to talk about the porn that is consumed by most men? I'd assume at least 95% of men consume porn (random guess), so my conclusion would still be valid.

At least for a lot of the males who spend money on pornography.

Most porn so strongly caters to male fantasy that some women turn to gay (male on male) porn and yaoi (a form of male on male gay erotic writing) to meet some of their needs. Porn intended for women is a budding industry. It has to be written and filmed differently. I have seen an interview with a woman director who talked about some of those differences. Most porn is strongly rooted in objectifying women in a way which denies their humanity -- in other words, denies that they have any needs of their own or are anything other than a vehicle for male satisfaction. It is a pretty demeaning stance.

Regardless, I doubt the fake porno was in any way intended respectfully. Sexuality is extremely personal and private. Attacking someone that way is generally a very ugly thing to do. Sexual assault is often included as a part of torture because you can cause enormous physical pain and long term psychological damage without leaving a mark on them.

"Most porn so strongly caters to male fantasy"

That in itself doesn't seem to make it sexist?

"Most porn is strongly rooted in objectifying women in a way which denies their humanity"

Or maybe porn is simply about one, limited aspect of humanity? By chance (might have been YouTube's recommender algorithm) I watched this on Objectification recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkUhW41Qpjg

I guess I can settle for "sexist porn is sexist", though - obviously there is a huge range of porn out there... Is a picture of a naked woman sexist, for example?

Let me restate that: I think most porn today is sexist, much of it in a manner which is demeaning to women. I also think it is basically irrelevant. Male or female, attacking someone sexually is generally one of the ugliest forms of attack known by humankind.

I certainly don't want to diminish the attack that took place here. The question about porn was just a side subject.

Generally speaking, across the globe, female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men. A stronger rebuttal to remarks which objectify a woman sexually is not to be all in a huff but to turn it around and talk about men like they are sex objects. I am a woman. I have done that. It is such a powerful thing to do that if I am not extremely careful, rather than teaching men they should not talk that way about women, it teaches them I am some crazily dangerous, disrespectful person whose presence should not be tolerated. Women put up with that every single day. It is such a strong part of global culture that I believe it is the real reason that "Silence of the lambs" creeps people out. I wrote a blog post on that some time ago. This may not be the time or place to go into it. I usually try to tread very lightly on such topics on HN.

Which is a longish way of saying that, globally, it is so common for women to be treated in a demeaning manner that many women view porn per se as demeaning to women. I do not. But I do think a great deal of porn is done in a fashion which is demeaning.

Hopefully that satisfies your side question in some meaningful manner, hopefully without getting me publically lynched for daring to say it.

Oh, and have an upvote.

"female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men."

I must say I have never noticed this, so I am not sure what to say. I can't really make sense of it either. My impression was sex exists to create babies, not to pleasure men. I don't say that to try to be funny, just to express that it seems a very long way from that to "female sexuality exits to pleasure men".

Or do you mean the use of women in advertising, their sexiness associated with chocolate or cars or whatever? I guess it could be interpreted like that, only I wouldn't have referred to a woman's presentation in a (supposedly) sexy way as her sexuality. With "female sexuality" I thought about what arouses women. Maybe I misunderstood.

My interpretation of women is advertising is simply that men desire women, not that women's purpose is to pleasure men. Actually, isn't it rather the other way round? You want that car because supposedly it helps you get the woman, it seems to be more about pleasing women than men?

Edit: also, my apologies, I am getting tired and HN is probably not well suited to this kind of discussion. I am interested in it, though.

If you are truly interested in it... I'll just dump some things here. :)

"Female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men" is a true statement in general media.

So. [Most] Porn. Watch it. Who's orgasm is displayed? Who's orgasm is typically non-existent (to the point it is fetishized when it does occur?) Make a judgment. Why is this true? See my earlier post about "bisexual porn."

Ok. Advertising. "With 'female sexuality' I thought about what arouses women." Good. That's a part of what sexuality is but not what it is framed as in terms of its portrayal in media. "You want that car because supposedly it helps you get the woman, it seems to be more about pleasing women than men?" I kinda hope you don't mean that. :) How in the world does 'getting a woman' as a heterosexual man 'please women?' If you are thinking about answering that question... don't!

It would be pleasing to women if their needs (sexual needs in terms of porn, practical needs in terms of cars) were met in media. However, only the needs of men (getting women somehow in BOTH cases) are being portrayed. That's a problem to men because it reduces us to gullible sex drives, yet it is worse for women because it reduces them to objects of that drive... dismissing any quality that a woman can have as an individual.

This is an example of the objectification you see discussed here. Women are the object, men are the subject, we see this in porn, advertisement, and even employment posters (gee, we wonder why 52% of women drop out of the programming field after college.) It's kinda gross and defeating when you take the "red pill" and start to see it everywhere. Even more daunting when you go against the grain of prevailing thought and start talking about this being an actual problem. It just seems like everybody else took the "blue pill" and just don't want to see it. But it does have a negative effect that has been thoroughly studied.

If we accept these tenets as true, and I do and will strongly suggest that you do as well, then we have to see the attack here as sexist. The attack serves to objectify in the same manner as media: by removing individuality, quality, and self from the person. It uses the sexualized images of women just as media uses for this purpose. It is done against a woman, who as I've discussed are oppressed as opposed to men who are simply (at most) discriminated against. It was done so in an obviously malicious manner (that is, beyond parody) in order to hurt their reputation by targeting the fact that they are female (given the nature of their attack,) not by aspects of their character or refuting the merit of their knowledge. That serves to oppress via discrimination determined by their gender: sexist.

"How in the world does 'getting a woman' as a heterosexual man 'please women?'"

The thinking is "you get her because it pleases her to be with you." The idea behind a car is not "great, now I can chase down women and rape them" it is "hey, they will get so excited by the car that they'd like to hang out with me" And most importantly, status - whether being with a high status male pleases women I don't know, but it seems to be what they often desire (also media wants us to believe that).

"That's a problem to men because it reduces us to gullible sex drives, yet it is worse for women because it reduces them to objects of that drive... dismissing any quality that a woman can have as an individual."

I'm sorry but I don't understand you. So what is the quality men can have as an individual? That they can own cars and chocolate, whereas women can only own nice lipstick and high heels?

As I said before, I suspect it is much more likely that certain media (ads, porn,...) only focus on certain aspects of an individual. I honestly don't understand what is meant by "subject" and "object", unless you mean "active" and "passive"? I know what subject and object are in a sentence (grammar), but other than that, what does it even mean?

Also, another point: why do men obsess about penis length (or are supposed to). Even though allegedly size doesn't matter, it seems to me men thinks size matters and pleasing women is the ultimate status symbol.

Your most recent reply is also showing as dead. So I cannot reply directly to it. And I kind of see no point. I know you said you are short of time, but it sounds to me like you concluded I am some frigid manhating bitch who can't find a decent man cuz I have issues or something. Not a place I care to go and not a discussion that will enlighten anyone.

Best of luck with whatever you were hoping to better understand when this conversation began.

Peace. Out.

Yes. Mainstream porn is very sexist. Do you know what a woman is assumed to be? bisexual. Do you know what happens when you look up bisexual porn? You find a man. Think about that. Understand what that means and who the assumed audience is. This assumption permeates throughout the rest of the industry. (Hint: straight-male.)

A huge discussion within feminist movements has taken place and continues to take place on the subject, and I cannot do it all justice in a short comment (keywords to research: Sex-positive feminism), but my understanding is that it is best to stick with the idea that women (or any human being really) should be able to choose what they do with their bodies and with their bodies' representations -- the question is the extent of real control women are allowed to have compared to men. I'd say that since you have a general context in society where women are not equal to men and are objectified, it makes it all the more difficult to have a porn creation process that doesn't reinforce this, although exceptions exist in feminist porn.

So the assumptions seems to be that most female porn actors are forced to be porn models (and what about playboy models?)? Because otherwise it seems to me they choose their bodies representation already.

There was a study about porn actresses recently (I think for California) and it turned out that they were not less happy than other women.

That people should be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies seems a pretty basic, true demand. I don't see how women are not allowed to choose, unless they are being raped (which is a crime)?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com