We should subsidise pornography

Abstract
According to radical feminist theory, pornography serves to further the subordination of women by training its users, males and females alike, to view women as little more than sex objects over whom men should have complete control. Composite variables from the General Social Survey were used to test the hypothesis that pornography users would hold attitudes that were more supportive of gender nonegalitarianism than nonusers of pornography. Results did not support hypotheses derived from radical feminist theory. Pornography users held more egalitarian attitudes—toward women in positions of power, toward women working outside the home, and toward abortion—than nonusers of pornography. Further, pornography users and pornography nonusers did not differ significantly in their attitudes toward the traditional family and in their self-identification as feminist. The results of this study suggest that pornography use may not be associated with gender nonegalitarian attitudes in a manner that is consistent with radical feminist theory.

Further, given that the spread of it reduces the rate of rape and sexual assault we really should be subsidising it.

Baggsie me to be on the grant approval board.

38 thoughts on “We should subsidise pornography”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    The results of this study suggest that pornography use may not be associated with gender nonegalitarian attitudes in a manner that is consistent with radical feminist theory.

    I am not sure whether I should be surprised that yet another study proves feminists have no connection with reality or merely mildly appalled that I clearly have not watched enough.

    I must do better. And on the plus side, if I get caught at least I have an excuse – I am trying to learn to respect women.

  2. Presumably once the government gets involved, it will subsidise porn that no-one actually wants to watch.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Harriet Harperson-approved porn?

    The horror! The horror!

    (Well it would be fine if you liked girls under 12 I suppose)

  4. Further, given that the spread of it reduces the rate of rape and sexual assault we really should be subsidising it.

    Ah Tim, but you’re using the old version of rape where it means forced PIV, whereas radical feminists use the new version of rape where it is solely about abuse of power and can ONLY be applied by a CIS HET male on a female as these are eternally powerless victims of the patriarchy.

    In this altered state of reality rape has nothing to do with sex, but with power, because patriarchy says so.

    If any of this makes any sense then you should have yourself checked out at the nearest mental health facility.

  5. Porn encourages men to think of women as a source of pleasure; feminism encourages men to think of women as a source of misery.

    Therefore, porn encourages men to be nice to women, and feminism has the opposite effect.

  6. Intractable Potsherd

    I suspect you will also find that, since science is a masculine denial of intuition, the whole study is worthless. Only intuition has the right answers, and only women have intuition, so only women are right. QED.

    Feminism is a truly toxic creed.

  7. Intractable Potsherd

    Oh – and women that don’t agree with the approved intuition have been oppressed by masculine thought process and can be ignored out of hand before being “re-educated”.

  8. I put this study with all the other studies produced by our highly paid regarded scientists. Nice result, but it will be totally contradicted by the next bunch of grant suckers researchers.

    Anyway, all porn does is encourage wanking. Or so I’m told.

  9. Why do feminists not think porn is a good thing?

    Men waste their seed watching it and do not need to go through the process of the violent penetration of the sacred female entry points to achieve that.

  10. All obvious. Radfem theory on porn has always been antipodal to reality. It is for instance obvious that “patriarchal” societies suppress porn; indeed I think it’s reasonable to believe that the Radicals are in fact motivated by cultural (Protestant/Jewish) “patriarchal” attitudes in their hatred of porn, prostitution, etc.

    The truly feeble “explanation” for this wrong correlation (let alone causation) from the Dworkinite wing has been that patriarchies suppress porn because “they like to keep their abuse secret”. Which makes no sense, since in a patriarchy nobody would be ashamed of things feminists consider abusive.

    Porn portrays women as having sexual agency and sexual enthusiasm. The matrons hate it for that simple reason.

  11. There’s so much free porn on the internet that subsidy is hardly necessary, even if all the porn studios closed tomorrow. Isn’t technology wonderful?

    Of course porn stars might protest at the disruptive effect of youporn etc, perhaps by shagging en masse on pavements…

  12. I think most porn on youporn etc is studio porn.. piracy is rampant in all digital media, but I guess porn studios don’t have the pockets, nor the lobbyists, to use the courts to enforce copyright.

  13. A lot of porn creators now put a low resolution/edited version on the free sites, hoping for an upsell to the full video in high resolution.

    Anyway, the bottom line here is that there isn’t any solid rational argument against porn, so it always in the end devolves to the argument from ickyness. Or the SMFS style of “girls who do sexthings can’t form stable relationships” argument which doesn’t hold water either.

    The other bottom line is that really, it just isn’t a big deal. It’s neither significantly positive or significantly negative, it just is, like other media. Arguing about whether people should see porn is like arguing about whether they should be allowed to see comedy, adventures or romances or listen to light popular music on the wireless.

    It’s just something people like to do. The argument, let alone the censorship laws, are a total waste of effort.

    “If we do not control the wireless industry, the common workers will listen to cheap trashy “jazz” music and society will collapse”. Etc.

  14. “view women as little more than sex objects”

    If I’m not supposed to view women as sex objects what AM I supposed to view as a sex object?

  15. BraveFart said:
    “Why do feminists not think porn is a good thing? Men … do not need to go through the process of the violent penetration of the sacred female”

    Is it like the objections to e-cigs? It seems to be a Puritan approach, that “wrong” things should be purged from us with a struggle, so a harmless substitute is somehow cheating.

  16. Ian B said:
    ““If we do not control the wireless industry, the common workers will listen to cheap trashy “jazz” music and society will collapse”. Etc.”

    They were right; it did.

  17. “Sex objects” is the straw woman argument, which deliberately confuses “to see something as A” with “to see something only as A” or, slightly more comprehensively “to see one member of class B as A” with “to exclusively see all members of class B as A”.

    Powered to a considerable degree by the jealousy of women who men are very unlikely to view in a sexual manner, as “objects” or otherwise.

  18. “We should subsidise pornography”

    As we don’t tax it (or tax it as much as some people want), that means it is subsidised, if you follow the logic the Greens apply to fossil fuels.

  19. My main concern about porn is WTF kind of grades are boys going to be getting at school? Free 24hr porn in your bedroom? That’s an awful lot of studying not getting done.

    We can probably ascribe a lot of the gender gap in grades to porn availability.

    Rather like porn being responsible for the drop in teenage pregnancy, because 1, if you have porn you don’t necessarily need sex; 2 if you do have sex you are now more aware of a multitude of fun places to splash your seed.

    I think the feminist’s problem effectively comes down to the fact that if men can fulfill their desires elsewhere then they are not dependent upon the rest of the female population. The minority of women who choose to partake in porn devalues what is on offer by the rest of them. Women can no longer weaponise sex, go on strike in the bedroom? Yeah good luck with that.

    24hr porn has done for men what the pill or perhaps IVF did for women, it has made the opposite sex largely irrelevant, if you want sex, you can have it any time you want with whomever you want. Women are only required to produce the offspring.

  20. You can wank without porn, you know. Don’t get caught up in the old idea that male sexual desire is exogenously generated, so if you shield them from all stimuli they’ll be sexually inert cherubs.

    Porn is no more a replacement for actual sex than Google maps is a replacement for going for a walk.

  21. NB, the pill didn’t make males irrelevant to females. It made their cocks accessible for entertainment purposes.

  22. “Porn is no more a replacement for actual sex than Google maps is a replacement for going for a walk.”

    I think a better analogy would be watching live music or listening to the album. Sure it’s preferable to watch the band live, if they are good at live performances, but if watching them live means having to get off your arse, buy them all dinner and listen to them talking shit all night at the afterparty, well, it’s much more convenient to just put the greatest hits on and enjoy your own company.

  23. “NB, the pill didn’t make males irrelevant to females. It made their cocks accessible for entertainment purposes.”

    My poor analogy, I really meant a technological advance that precipitated a significant change in sexual behaviour.

  24. @magnusw

    “I think a better analogy would be watching live music or listening to the album. Sure it’s preferable to watch the band live, if they are good at live performances, but if watching them live means having to get off your arse, buy them all dinner and listen to them talking shit all night at the afterparty, well, it’s much more convenient to just put the greatest hits on and enjoy your own company.”

    That’s superb. I’ve pretty much done exactly what that analogy proposes, and you are right.

  25. It all depends how important the experience of jumping around in a sweaty mob of strangers is to you.

    This also applies to live music.

  26. Bloke in Costa Rica

    I suppose there must be, unless all those people are rogering each other stupid on camera for purely altruistic reasons. I can’t see the economic model, mind, but someone’s making money off it.

  27. You can wank without porn, you know. Don’t get caught up in the old idea that male sexual desire is exogenously generated

    So imagining a person doing a sex act is morally better than just watching the exact same thing?

    I take the reverse view.

    When I was single I would rather watch two people have consensual sex than imagine some real person having sex with me. That avoids me having to live in a world of make-believe people. That porn is real is pretty much it’s selling point (hence the move to fake “amateur” porn).

  28. Also, the whole feminist premise is clearly wrong.

    I can watch James Bond movies without becoming a dangerous psychotic killer.

    I can watch sport without wanting to do any myself.

    Yet watching porn is going to affect me quite differently? I don’t think so.

  29. @Ian B

    Google doesn’t work for free, either, yet I don’t pay (directly) for most of their products.

  30. I pay for porn, I find it hard to morally justifies not paying something towards someone getting fucked in the arse for my entertainment

  31. Chris,

    Free porn advertises porn, because nobody else wants to be associated with it. Well, other than herbal v14gr4. Google are able to leech off a much broader demographic of advertisers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *