A lot of "x wouldn't exist under communism discourse" seems to stem from x thing being a modern invention. Communist writers didn't write about porn because filmed porn didn't really exist until the late 1960s. Movies and television as we know it didn't exist before the late 1960s either.
What you wrote also applies to acting and film making in general. You could substitute "pornography" with "movies and television" and it would be effectively just as true. Are there actors who don't like to act but do it anyways because they are promised fame and fortune? Do people who have suffered traumatic events watch films and television to dissociate from their lives? Have the producers of hollywood movies and television engaged in acts of human trafficking? Have feminists debated the inherent oppressive conditions of film production, acting, television and movies under a patriarchal and capitalist world? The answer to all of these questions is yes but we wouldn't say that communism will legislate movies and television out of existence.
more right than you think because the correct view is that most of american culture and media, like porn, is a societal ill and has a net effect of harm. i think your direct comparison is a bit vulgar though
To clarify, my point is that the exploitative conditions exist in all forms of media creation under capitalism. Analysis is not justification. The point is to remove the exploitative elements from media creation. Which is not only accomplished through regulation, but more importantly through restructuring the modes of production by eliminating the existence of profit.
I don't think that people will stop filming sex during communism, just as I don't think that people will stop making films or television. I do think people will probably watch any media less however because people tend to over consume all type of media under capitalism as a form of escapism.
What you wrote also applies to acting and film making in general. You could substitute "pornography" with "movies and television" and it would be effectively just as true. Are there actors who don't like to act but do it anyways because they are promised fame and fortune? Do people who have suffered traumatic events watch films and television to dissociate from their lives? Have the producers of hollywood movies and television engaged in acts of human trafficking? Have feminists debated the inherent oppressive conditions of film production, acting, television and movies under a patriarchal and capitalist world? The answer to all of these questions is yes but we wouldn't say that communism will legislate movies and television out of existence.
I'm sorry, no. Films and movies have, to some extent, artistic merit. I think the discourse in a communist world would be "what is pornographic" and what has "artistic value"; there's terrible movies and great porn right now so that'd make for an interesting discourse - the distinction would probably reside on performed sex scenes vs. penetrative acts. But on the concept of comparison, let's look at analogous professions like "porn star" and "prostitute" (appropriate and respectful term being sex worker). Grab a list of zip codes in this country and divided by median income. If you visited each one and offered random man or woman money in exchange for sex, how likely is it that those in higher income areas would say yes? What would they agree to? Now, widen your search and make your way down each zip code, the chances you "convince" someone increases. Imperialist white supremacist patriarchal capitalist societies create ethnic and low-income enclaves that allow for prostitution and exploitation in a variety of ways. Patriarchal systems generate sexual exploitation. Capitalist societies maintain that exploitation under class hierarchal relations and labor exploitation. Now think of this at the global scale. The existence of an industry that generate pornographic or sexually explicit interactions between client and worker, necessitate a constant supply of bodies; specially because Patriarchal values has pedophilic tendencies. I think it's also worth noting that current, and mainstream, pornsites try to filter, to some extent, major abuses; but even mindgeek/pornhub has run into legal issues due to age and model verification systems, with revenge, exploitative, and CSA uploaded to their site, not to mention they are an exploitative monopoly that control major distribution platforms. One of the arguments that pro-porn proponents are currently making is that banning pornhub or forcing them to store a license, drives users to websites that are not rated, do not follow certain policies, and are part of the "dark web"; where young adults can be exposed to unmoderated pornographic material.
I don't think we'd ever reach a communist utopia, specially with climate change breathing down our necks, but I do think that communist countries are following good principles when they try to legislate away certain industries and try to raise the standard of living for exploited populations.
What would that mean for personal sexual relationships? I think, if anything, adults might become freer from current sexual mores and would rely less on explicit pornographic material to compensate.
Do people who have suffered traumatic events watch films and television to dissociate from their lives?
Not so fun fact, yes actually folks that suffer from high anxiety will often watch the same shows this process is comforting, yes, but maladaptive.
The more that you write, the more that you are revealing that you have ulterior motives for the things that you are saying. 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. When you say that porn may only be allowed to exist if you deem to have artistic merit, you are admitting that you are motivated by reactionary beliefs.
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. This is the same reason that Republicans (and even Democrats) want to ban pornography today. 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.
Artistic merit is not objective. Neither you or I should judge which media should exist based on the grounds of lacking "artistic value". I do not see any reason why a communist society would not have consenting adults who want to film their sexual acts and then want other consenting adults to watch it.
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 wouldn't equate prostitution with porn production. Prostitution implies an exchange of money. Porn can be produced without money.
In the same work by Engels that you are referencing, he is writing about abolition of the family unit. He says that the family unit and monogamy exists because women are dependent on men under patriarchy and monogamy gives men power over women. Engels says that without patriarchy, children will be raised by the community rather than by individual families.
Our sexual love differs essentially from the simple sexual desire, the Eros, of the ancients. In the first place, it assumes that the person loved returns the love; to this extent the woman is on an equal footing with the man, whereas in the Eros of antiquity she was often not even asked. Secondly, our sexual love has a degree of intensity and duration which makes both lovers feel that non-possession and separation are a great, if not the greatest, calamity; to possess one another, they risk high stakes, even life itself. In the ancient world this happened only, if at all, in adultery. And, finally, there arises a new moral standard in the judgment of a sexual relationship. We do not only ask, was it within or outside marriage? But also, did it spring from love and reciprocated love or not? Of course, this new standard has fared no better in feudal or bourgeois practice than all the other standards of morality – it is ignored. But neither does it fare any worse. It is recognized just as much as they are – in theory, on paper. And for the present it cannot ask anything more.
Engels says that without the confines of monogamous marriage and the family unit, with women having equal footing in society, people are free to have sex for the purpose of love. I wouldn't say that people are limited to having sex for the purpose of love. It also doesn't mention filming the sex. It's also very heteronormative, but that is something else. The point of Engel's writing is that he's saying ending the family unit will give people, particularly women, more sexual freedom. It's not about enforcing heterosexuality or monogamy or limiting sex.
Editting my post to say that it's very weird that you think the word "cuckold" is related to porn. Engels used the word cuckold in the writing to describe an abusive husband whose wife decided to cheat on him. Not related to porn at all. Engels just sort of implies that adultery will be less likely in the future because women will have economic independence, leave men instead of cheating.
Engels just sort of implies that adultery will be less likely in the future because women will have economic independence, leave men instead of cheating.
That's why I mention it. Wouldn't there be a lot less women getting into porn if they were economically independent?
What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual – and that will be the end of it.
Engels says in the conclusion of the writing that we don't really know what sex will look like after the end of capitalism and I think I agree. He says that after men stop paying for sex and woman are able to choose a sexual partner for reasons other than economic dependence, then there will be more sexual freedom. "they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice" He says that the new sexual freedom will create new sexual practices.
I think we can't really say whether it will lead to more or less pornography. Maybe without economic pressures of capitalism, people will feel more free to create pornography for pleasure. Maybe without social stigma against sex, people will feel that they can create pornography without being socially outcast. Currently many people film themselves doing sexual acts for the purposes of "sexting". In the future, people will invent new ways of doing sexual acts that we do not currently understand. Just 2 generations ago, sexting was an unimaginable concept, 2 generations from now will have sexual norms that we don't understand currently. However, I don't think people will stop filming sexual acts.
A lot of "x wouldn't exist under communism discourse" seems to stem from x thing being a modern invention. Communist writers didn't write about porn because filmed porn didn't really exist until the late 1960s. Movies and television as we know it didn't exist before the late 1960s either.
What you wrote also applies to acting and film making in general. You could substitute "pornography" with "movies and television" and it would be effectively just as true. Are there actors who don't like to act but do it anyways because they are promised fame and fortune? Do people who have suffered traumatic events watch films and television to dissociate from their lives? Have the producers of hollywood movies and television engaged in acts of human trafficking? Have feminists debated the inherent oppressive conditions of film production, acting, television and movies under a patriarchal and capitalist world? The answer to all of these questions is yes but we wouldn't say that communism will legislate movies and television out of existence.
more right than you think because the correct view is that most of american culture and media, like porn, is a societal ill and has a net effect of harm. i think your direct comparison is a bit vulgar though
To clarify, my point is that the exploitative conditions exist in all forms of media creation under capitalism. Analysis is not justification. The point is to remove the exploitative elements from media creation. Which is not only accomplished through regulation, but more importantly through restructuring the modes of production by eliminating the existence of profit.
I don't think that people will stop filming sex during communism, just as I don't think that people will stop making films or television. I do think people will probably watch any media less however because people tend to over consume all type of media under capitalism as a form of escapism.
bruh
Death to America
I'm sorry, no. Films and movies have, to some extent, artistic merit. I think the discourse in a communist world would be "what is pornographic" and what has "artistic value"; there's terrible movies and great porn right now so that'd make for an interesting discourse - the distinction would probably reside on performed sex scenes vs. penetrative acts. But on the concept of comparison, let's look at analogous professions like "porn star" and "prostitute" (appropriate and respectful term being sex worker). Grab a list of zip codes in this country and divided by median income. If you visited each one and offered random man or woman money in exchange for sex, how likely is it that those in higher income areas would say yes? What would they agree to? Now, widen your search and make your way down each zip code, the chances you "convince" someone increases. Imperialist white supremacist patriarchal capitalist societies create ethnic and low-income enclaves that allow for prostitution and exploitation in a variety of ways. Patriarchal systems generate sexual exploitation. Capitalist societies maintain that exploitation under class hierarchal relations and labor exploitation. Now think of this at the global scale. The existence of an industry that generate pornographic or sexually explicit interactions between client and worker, necessitate a constant supply of bodies; specially because Patriarchal values has pedophilic tendencies. I think it's also worth noting that current, and mainstream, pornsites try to filter, to some extent, major abuses; but even mindgeek/pornhub has run into legal issues due to age and model verification systems, with revenge, exploitative, and CSA uploaded to their site, not to mention they are an exploitative monopoly that control major distribution platforms. One of the arguments that pro-porn proponents are currently making is that banning pornhub or forcing them to store a license, drives users to websites that are not rated, do not follow certain policies, and are part of the "dark web"; where young adults can be exposed to unmoderated pornographic material.
I don't think we'd ever reach a communist utopia, specially with climate change breathing down our necks, but I do think that communist countries are following good principles when they try to legislate away certain industries and try to raise the standard of living for exploited populations.
What would that mean for personal sexual relationships? I think, if anything, adults might become freer from current sexual mores and would rely less on explicit pornographic material to compensate.
Not so fun fact, yes actually folks that suffer from high anxiety will often watch the same shows this process is comforting, yes, but maladaptive.
The more that you write, the more that you are revealing that you have ulterior motives for the things that you are saying. 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. When you say that porn may only be allowed to exist if you deem to have artistic merit, you are admitting that you are motivated by reactionary beliefs.
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. This is the same reason that Republicans (and even Democrats) want to ban pornography today. 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.
Artistic merit is not objective. Neither you or I should judge which media should exist based on the grounds of lacking "artistic value". I do not see any reason why a communist society would not have consenting adults who want to film their sexual acts and then want other consenting adults to watch it.
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.
Thank you for your input by the way, your comments made me think.
Engels did write about how prostitution (and cuckoldry) wouldn't exist under communism. The principle seems similar here.
I wouldn't equate prostitution with porn production. Prostitution implies an exchange of money. Porn can be produced without money.
In the same work by Engels that you are referencing, he is writing about abolition of the family unit. He says that the family unit and monogamy exists because women are dependent on men under patriarchy and monogamy gives men power over women. Engels says that without patriarchy, children will be raised by the community rather than by individual families.
Engels says that without the confines of monogamous marriage and the family unit, with women having equal footing in society, people are free to have sex for the purpose of love. I wouldn't say that people are limited to having sex for the purpose of love. It also doesn't mention filming the sex. It's also very heteronormative, but that is something else. The point of Engel's writing is that he's saying ending the family unit will give people, particularly women, more sexual freedom. It's not about enforcing heterosexuality or monogamy or limiting sex.
Editting my post to say that it's very weird that you think the word "cuckold" is related to porn. Engels used the word cuckold in the writing to describe an abusive husband whose wife decided to cheat on him. Not related to porn at all. Engels just sort of implies that adultery will be less likely in the future because women will have economic independence, leave men instead of cheating.
That's why I mention it. Wouldn't there be a lot less women getting into porn if they were economically independent?
Engels says in the conclusion of the writing that we don't really know what sex will look like after the end of capitalism and I think I agree. He says that after men stop paying for sex and woman are able to choose a sexual partner for reasons other than economic dependence, then there will be more sexual freedom. "they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice" He says that the new sexual freedom will create new sexual practices.
I think we can't really say whether it will lead to more or less pornography. Maybe without economic pressures of capitalism, people will feel more free to create pornography for pleasure. Maybe without social stigma against sex, people will feel that they can create pornography without being socially outcast. Currently many people film themselves doing sexual acts for the purposes of "sexting". In the future, people will invent new ways of doing sexual acts that we do not currently understand. Just 2 generations ago, sexting was an unimaginable concept, 2 generations from now will have sexual norms that we don't understand currently. However, I don't think people will stop filming sexual acts.
Solid analysis. Thanks for this exchange.