Content Warning: The topic discussed is about consumption of explicit material under 18 on Tumblr (I disagree with what they said, by the way)
Context: This person was talking about children being an oppressed group in many societies around the world and the excuse some people use (protecting children) to do so.
"And many of the rules that are currently pushed for to "protect" children from evil things like checks notes porn and horror movies and serial kidnappers that do not actually exist "
"What is there to be confused by? The vast majority of teens will in some way consume porn - and always have done that. You cannot really prevent it. The best you can do is make sure that they so in a safe environment"
I think this is a trash take. Am I overreacting to this?
Edit: I reported it already for being gross. Also, for context, I am very triggered by anything related to children.
i understand that sentiment and i think it's rational, but pornography where there is an exchange of money accounts for, what, 99.9% of today's pornography? from the original producers (whether they be artists, actors, directors, editors, etc) to distributors (ranging from small websites that also produce to huge platforms like onlyfans), to the whole host of third party content resharers that make the majority of their revenue from ads, the vast, vast majority of pornography production involves an exchange of money. i think as marxists we have to take the labor theory of value pretty seriously here: the liberals are in a way correct when they exclaim that "sex work is work," in the sense that (in a world where your needs are not guaranteed) anyone participating in the act of pornography creation/distribution has a material interest in seeking compensation for their labor, and it is that interest that would be squashed with a full ban on pornography production and distribution.
because, not to be pedantic, what about nonfinancial compensation for pornography production, or sex work in general? i imagine we would all agree that, for example, an exchange of goods/services (i.e. crystallized labor power) in return for sex is just as bad as prostitution where money (i.e. a more liquid and exchangeable crystallized labor power) exchanges hands. in fact it's potentially even worse, because it's harder to write laws against and harder to enforce those laws. a full ban on pornography production/distribution avoids these potential loopholes to ensure no one (or, the least number of people possible, accepting the near certainty of a black market) have a material interest in pornography.
furthermore, pornography is obviously problematic because of its deep ties to and representation of patriarchy. it affects how people view and consequently engage in sex, and in what erotic art people might make as well. i think it's perfectly fine to ban all erotic art until the commodity form is abolished. i don't believe that free expression is more important than the minds and lives of all those who are touched and affected by pornography.
just to clarify, no, this does not apply to nudes sent between consenting adults in the same way that a ban on prostitution is not a ban on sex. and no, i don't necessarily think a full ban is something that should be implemented immediately but something that should be worked towards in stages.
I do think that expression of your sexuality without expectation of anything in return does exist right now and will exist in the future.
i completely agree with your statement, so i'm not really sure where our contradiction lies.
I disagree with the idea that being sexually open should be banned.
okay, in your own words define what you mean by "being sexually open."
I mean openly expressing your sexuality without expectation of anything in return.
I believe that the problem is right now that the patriarchy has only legitimized 18+ content done for money because it is still a method of control, just replacing morals with money.
People who express themselves sexually online while rejecting any compensation should be allowed to do so.
what, in your view, does this entail? what are some examples, real or hypothetical?
can you elaborate more on this? in what way do you believe it is a method of control (control over whom and via what means)? we live under capitalism, so what role do you see the profit motive and material interest playing in the production of adult content?
I would say someone who posts explicit pictures or videos of themselves on a platform like a public 18+ Discord server and rejects any offer of money or any other material compensation
I believe it is a method of control over women because the market for adult content still denies women control over their own bodies. This is why women as I described in point 1 are still looked down upon inside of patriarchy because they are expressing purely their own sexuality and can stop at any moment with no consequence. And as capitalism commodifies everything, it has also commodified human sexuality. There is a material interest under capitalism for monetizing your sexual expression, as there is for monetizing everything. That's why I'm explicitly for banning monetized 18+ content rather than 18+ content in general, to draw a much clearer line distinguishing expressing your own sexuality purely for fun and doing it to satisfy material interests.
but, my issue is that while the commodity form still exists, the material interest to get compensated for your labor power will also exist, inherently. you can't just legislate it away. the more labor power and surplus value that is spent on the production of explicit content (and the greater need of the producers), the stronger the material interest to get compensated for it. this is why, no matter what legislation was introduced, a black market for this content will almost certainly exist. the goal should make it as difficult and as unprofitable to enter and distribute within this black market. i believe a full ban on public explicit content best satisfies this goal without restricting the activities of private citizens. of course this should be done en tandem with providing people trapped in the industry opportunities to leave it as well.
furthermore, capitalism doesn't just provide a material interest to monetize your body, but to commodify it, i.e. to exchange it. exchange and compensation does not require the exchange of money, money is just the most liquid and mutually agreed upon form of crystallized labor power. but, it is exceptionally more difficult to write and enforce a ban on an exchange of labor power or goods than money. it also requires more invasion of privacy as well. consequently i think it's much more efficient and effective to enforce a full ban on the public distribution of explicit content.
lastly, i think sexual expression is great and important. i also agree that patriarchy looks down upon sexual expression (while it simultaneously materially encourages it). however, i think it is orders of magnitude more important that women and queer folk don't get trapped in the sex industry. i would gladly sacrifice the public sexual expression of the few for the liberation of the many any day of the week. this of course wouldn't affect private sexual expression whatsoever, and so frankly i don't think it's a very big cost. of course there's also the aspect of how capitalism affects our understanding of sexuality itself and what a socialist sexuality would look like, but i think that's too deep a rabbit hole for me to go down right now.
I disagree with the idea that providing resources for exploited people to leave the sex industry and making it not profitable would require a full blanket ban on public explicit material. What this ban will do, however, is demonize people who want to express their sexuality publicly by telling them that their way of expression is incompatible with socialist ideals when it really isn't. Such a ban will not stop at the few but inevitably seep its way into general culture, perpetuating ideas that sexuality is shameful.
that's fine, we clearly disagree on this point and it doesn't seem like a resolution here is possible.
i feel like you're really extrapolating a lot from very little, here. what gives you this impression? after all, this wouldn't be a ban on all public mentions of sex or sexuality at all, just explicit materials shared publicly. sex education would obviously be super important as well, in terms of teaching about consent, healthy relationships, etc. furthermore, i do in fact think that loveless sex is a product of capitalist patriarchy, rather than a product of proletarian ideology and ideals.
i don't think the line between private and public is arbitrary just because there are instances where it can be challenging to define one or the other, in fact i think claiming the line is arbitrary is strictly undialectical. i already made clear the high probability of a black market existing, and my reasoning despite that fact. in the hypothetical example you mentioned, if someone has a material interest in doing it once they have a material interest in doing it many times, and they have a material interest in broadcasting their intent to as many as possible. this makes it easier to notice and enforce, and it makes shutting down public explicit materials that much more effective.
the point here is that you cannot completely remove the material interest in producing and distributing explicit materials until the commodity form no longer exists. until then, we should be as strict as possible in trying to ensure that the fewest number of people have a material interest in selling their bodies. if i'm wrong, then people are essentially upset for being censured. if you're wrong, then more people than would otherwise be necessary would have sufficient material interest to commodify their bodies. i think my potential error is much more preferable.
but, is this going to happen day 1 post-revolution? or year 1? or year 100? how long will it take for capital and the bourgeoisie to wither away until communism, and are you okay with not stemming the tide of sexual exploitation as much as possible until, well, we reach communism?
i also fully accept that a blanket ban on day 1 post-revolution is also not feasible or possible, and so i would obviously take a gradual approach towards that blanket ban. however, in the gradual approach towards that blanket ban, if it so happens that no one has a material interest in commodifying their bodies despite the existence of the commodity form, i would be more than happy to settle with a partial ban. however, i do not see this as likely for the reasons i have already explained to you.
After experiencing #love & reading #Kollontai I am inclined to agree