Banning media on the idea that it lacked artistic merit and would therefore harm society was a key principle of Nazi Germany. In Nazi Germany, media that was considered to be “d*generate” was censored or banned. Nazis censored paintings, music, films, and plays under the premise that lacking what they deemed “artistic value” would lead German society to being influenced by Jews and Communists.
I did not say porn would be banned. I said that the porn industry would be legislated away due to the tight regulations. When I talked about the hypothetical communist world, I referred to the discourse of what falls in the pornographic and in the artistic. In my initial post, I accounted for exhibitionists and later discussed kinks. Porn stars often talk about polyamory, swinging, and kinks related to exhibitionism. But that’s a minority compared to the percentage of individuals doing porn for exploitative reasons. Capitalist labor relations is inherently exploitative, this is not a matter of debate, not in communist discussions.
In writing about this topic, I’ve had in my mind so much violent and demeaning porn that objectifies and encourages violence against women, but hide behind “kinks” or “rough play”. There was a recent article about an isolated tribe getting access to the internet and young adult males starting to mimic violent sexual acts.
Choking, which has increased in popularity can cause brain damage, and can edge the line of a consensual and nonconsensual act. It is depicted so often, in even the most “vanilla” of porn. Young girls in high school and college are being choked with often zero recourse.
Reactionaries want to ban the portrayal of sexual fantasies in media as the first step towards banning those same sexual fantasies in real life. Reactionaries don’t want porn to exist because they don’t want LGBT people to exist and they don’t want sexual freedom to exist. The reactionary wants to ban pornography so that sex is more oppressive.
This is the argument that made me, need to, respond. This is naively liberal and backwards. Reactionaries think banning sexual fantasies and representation will make LGBTQ people go away, because they think the media is the root cause, and not an expression of, LGBTQ people’s existence. Clearly, you and I both know that’s not true, correct? LGBTQ people have existed for as long as there has been humans. Media representation can be correlated to higher acceptance and human right protections, but that’s clearly not always the case. At least not with the current backlash.
That said, considering there is vile and objectionable porn that represents LGBTQ people in horrible ways. I’m thinking here of porn that refers to transgender women with slurs or “she-males” or encourages “chaser” behavior, seeing people as objects or ways to satisfy a “kink”. Do not praise the master’s chains just because they are rainbow colored. The objectification, exploitation and sexual violence that occurs, and is promoted, by pornography is worthy of analyzing, criticizing, and possibly doing away with it.
You wrote that communism will have an excessive amount of legislation. (It won’t) You wrote that you think that communism is an unreachable utopia. (It isn’t) Now you are saying that pornographic media must have “artistic value”. (It shouldn’t) A discussion about whether media should exist on the merits of “artistic value” is not interesting discourse, it is incredibly reactionary.
I didn’t say excessive bureaucratic legislation. I referred to the idea of having tight controls and regulations that prevent the profitable exploitation of models. This would essentially “do away” with the porn industry as it exists.
You wrote that you think that communism is an unreachable utopia. (It isn’t)
Whether it is or isn’t, is a matter of debate not just here, but in international communist circles. I am accounting for my pessimistic outlook on the consequences of climate change, and the possible consequences of multipolarity that is developing right now. Multipolarity often ends in war.
Now you are saying that pornographic media must have “artistic value”. (It shouldn’t) A discussion about whether media should exist on the merits of “artistic value” is not interesting discourse, it is incredibly reactionary.
I make art in my spare time. I engage in drawing, painting, photography, and video making. I engage with the naked figure all the time. I actually think this is an interesting discussion to have, and not just an argument of “bare minimum threshold” to pass. I am not saying this as a throw-away sentence, or to pass judgment. This is worth engaging with, defining, and acting on. I do come at it from a communist worldview. So I’m a bit upset not to be given the benefit of the doubt here.
I did not say porn would be banned. I said that the porn industry would be legislated away due to the tight regulations. When I talked about the hypothetical communist world, I referred to the discourse of what falls in the pornographic and in the artistic. In my initial post, I accounted for exhibitionists and later discussed kinks. Porn stars often talk about polyamory, swinging, and kinks related to exhibitionism. But that’s a minority compared to the percentage of individuals doing porn for exploitative reasons. Capitalist labor relations is inherently exploitative, this is not a matter of debate, not in communist discussions.
In writing about this topic, I’ve had in my mind so much violent and demeaning porn that objectifies and encourages violence against women, but hide behind “kinks” or “rough play”. There was a recent article about an isolated tribe getting access to the internet and young adult males starting to mimic violent sexual acts.
Choking, which has increased in popularity can cause brain damage, and can edge the line of a consensual and nonconsensual act. It is depicted so often, in even the most “vanilla” of porn. Young girls in high school and college are being choked with often zero recourse.
Women are killed through asphyxiation, and husbands/murderers claim it was accidental during sex-play.
This is the argument that made me, need to, respond. This is naively liberal and backwards. Reactionaries think banning sexual fantasies and representation will make LGBTQ people go away, because they think the media is the root cause, and not an expression of, LGBTQ people’s existence. Clearly, you and I both know that’s not true, correct? LGBTQ people have existed for as long as there has been humans. Media representation can be correlated to higher acceptance and human right protections, but that’s clearly not always the case. At least not with the current backlash.
That said, considering there is vile and objectionable porn that represents LGBTQ people in horrible ways. I’m thinking here of porn that refers to transgender women with slurs or “she-males” or encourages “chaser” behavior, seeing people as objects or ways to satisfy a “kink”. Do not praise the master’s chains just because they are rainbow colored. The objectification, exploitation and sexual violence that occurs, and is promoted, by pornography is worthy of analyzing, criticizing, and possibly doing away with it.
I didn’t say excessive bureaucratic legislation. I referred to the idea of having tight controls and regulations that prevent the profitable exploitation of models. This would essentially “do away” with the porn industry as it exists.
Whether it is or isn’t, is a matter of debate not just here, but in international communist circles. I am accounting for my pessimistic outlook on the consequences of climate change, and the possible consequences of multipolarity that is developing right now. Multipolarity often ends in war.
I make art in my spare time. I engage in drawing, painting, photography, and video making. I engage with the naked figure all the time. I actually think this is an interesting discussion to have, and not just an argument of “bare minimum threshold” to pass. I am not saying this as a throw-away sentence, or to pass judgment. This is worth engaging with, defining, and acting on. I do come at it from a communist worldview. So I’m a bit upset not to be given the benefit of the doubt here.