15 men on a dead man's chest...

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum
Drink and the devil have done for the rest
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum


Hope everyone has a good International Talk Like A Pirate Day!

Why you think the net was born? Porn, porn, porn

This is the summary of the article that's titled something like "The ethics of internet porn." The presentation is going to be in two weeks, but I'm getting in early because: I have work to do; it gives you time to think about it so there can be discussion in the tute; I still have no internet at home (I know it's 10 on a Saturday. I'm at uni. So I'm an addict. I also haven't slept in the past 24 hours, and have been here since Friday); I have a lot of non-Arts work to get done in the intervening space; this is probably going to be a large part of my essay; I wrote this a while ago; etc. Pick your favourite reason. Any questions, queries, or concerns can be posted here, but I'm not actually sure how many people check this regularly, so it might be good to ask me in the tute, and I can make responses either on- or off-line (or both).

Shortest summary: amateur porn is empowering, support more amateur porn. This public service announcement proudly funded by the Australian government.

Short summary: Porn is immoral. However, immoral and unethical aren't the same thing. Amateur porn can cater to a market of interests that may not be catered for by a commercial market for lack of demand/saleability. Amateur porn also blurs the distinction between producers and consumers of porn. Despite the fact that porn is evil incarnate, the general empowerment of consumers and minority groups that amateur porn can give means that amateur porn is ethical.

Longer summary and critique: The opening of the article is an assumption that porn is completely immoral. Which is actually ridiculous, because the reasons that are given are essentially just an unquestioning assumption of some of the ideals of the Christian right and the feminist left (porn exploits women, porn makes sex something that isn't special, etc.). And it isn't actually a stretch to object to each of the reasons that are raised. That aside, the remainder of the article is an exploration of the ethics of porn production. The essence of this exploration is that porn doesn't necessarily cater to those with specialist sexual interests. Amateur porn tends to be produced by those who can't find professional porn, or aren't satisfied by the available range of professional porn. This also includes who derive their sexual exitation from the manufacture of porn. This ability to satisfy those that are left no other recourse is what, according to the author, makes amateur porn ethical. (In hindsight, I may have skipped a bit of summary in here, but the article also makes the valid point of saying that morals and ethics aren't the same thing. I think they're a lot more closely linked than the Foucaultian view apparently proposes, but I also don't entirely agree with the Foucaultian view as presented in the article. I think the issue is actually a lot older, and more detailed than Foucault)

This view actually presents a couple of interesting contrasts to other articles in similar fields. Nagel's article on perversion moves perversion (which is part of some of the reasons given for the immorality of porn) out of the realm of morality entirely. For Baudrillard, on the other hand, porn represents one of the definitional retreats from the genuine. Inasmuch as that's unethical (and I'd say Baudrillard definitely thinks that it is), then porn is highly unethical. Which is interesting also, because that comes pretty close to the communist definition of immorality that the article uses.

Workshop queries

2. The obvious ones are male/female, age, race (what's interesting is that it's not called race, but is actually ethnic background. While 'white' doesn't seem to give you the same kind of differentiation as, say, 'Irish' or 'Italian,' cultural groups which do have significant differences in attitudes/beliefs/traditions/etc.), religion, smoking and drinking (again, interesting, because it doesn't have eating habits as a separate category. While 'vegetarian' doesn't have the same connotations as 'alcoholic' or 'smoker,' it's still interesting that it's not a descriptive category), location, interests (I'd guess that they're chosen from a pre-determined list of things that you can be interested in. I don't see people listing interests like 'music - post-rock.' It assumes that there are only so many things are interests). In terms of presumptions that the site displays, it's actually hard to say. The site, while it's free to join, is commercial. The more people visiting it, the more money the site makes from advertising. Thus, if it's assumed that the site is designed to maximise visitors, the categories that are provided are the ones that people regard as valid selections in mate choice. Of course, there is only one gender-queer option (also, there are little jokes included in the gay male options that can be construed as homophobic quite readily). And the relatively limited selection of options means that people with highly specific interest groups aren't being catered for. And the relative brevity of the available descriptions promotes a view of sexuality that is both commercialised and focussed on instant gratification.

3. I've dealt with this slightly above. Essentially, available identities are trammeled into a set of well-defined boundaries, and identities outside those are not signalled as being of sexual interest. However, I also think this is a property of those who most use the site. Other sites exist which cater to minority interests to a much greater degree (say, for instance, Gaydar). I think the variety of available ethnic backgrounds could be larger, but apart from that, any changes that could be made won't actually do anything if the people who are using the site aren't using those categories.

It’s a helavalife! Workshop IV ‘Menu-Driven Identities’ Amy’s Response to Q 2&3

The identities visible in lavalife struck me as particularly western and potentially discriminatory. My first thought was that if a "foreigner" were living in Australia and wanted to meet people, they might feel excluded from taking part. For example my experience of living in Japan was that people wanted to know what animal year I was born in, but it’s not possible to include this in your profile on lavalife. Also, the concept of star signs is particularly western and one which my Japanese friends weren’t interested in. However, it’s given a fair amount of credence on lavalife ie. it comes fourth in line, behind gender, age & location. I’m sure in other cultures there are also personal details like this that aren’t given any significance on lavalife. I wonder if anyone has any examples? It also assumes that those profiled care about/ believe in star signs when they may not. Also what about people who are transgender? I bet there’s not a lot more choice than checking male/ female categories. Would they be forced to check an “other” category or is there even this option? For people who travel a lot, or spend time living in different cities/ countries, location might be a difficulty too.

My suggestion is that profiles should not be menu-driven. Profilers should have the option to include/exclude as much information as they like. In this way it would be more obvious to participants from the style/ language of their profile what others are interested in ie. rel’ship/ friendship/ bit of fun/ laughs. Btw, do any of you know people who have been profiled on rsvp or lavalife as a joke by friends? I do. Final thought: perhaps a word limit could restrict over zealous participants?

amy's thoughts on Tak-yee article

Here are a few thoughts for Week 7 tutorial on Ami Tak-yee's article[1]

Rather than utopian reading of the potential for cyberspace communications to avoid racial or sexual discrimination Tak-yee’s ICERED example shows that race and gender discrimination is just as prevalent in online forums.

Her’s is an interesting discussion, particularly of sexuality, in which she shows that despite idealistic notions of cyberdemocracy which characterized early discussions of cyberspace communication [2], to a large extent, the reality has actually been quite different. Moreover, she argues that gender and racial stereotypes were perpetuated on the ICERED community website.

To answer the first tutorial question- How do participants seek to exclude/ include others?

Firstly it must be said that the very logistics of ICERED excluded/included others. Why?

1. Participation was limited to “high income professionals and university alumni of top universities around the world” pp 2-3

2. Language - communication was only in English which immediately excluded those from participating who didn’t speak English or who were not fluent English speakers.

Participants also capitalized on this exclusion/ inclusion through the type of things they discussed and the manner of their discussions which were often exaggerated, abusive, derogatory and not backed up by real statistics or proof of their claims.

Examples

In her first example “Your English sucks!” Tak-yee shows why participants whose English was not as good as others might have been reluctant to post, while those with good English (in the participants view) were relegated to what Tak-yee might refer to as “superstar” status.

Eg. Ahem Post : “There must be only a handful of IceRedders who seem to have the ability to express themselves in English coherently…” p 3

In Tak-yee’s second example “The unbearable “white-ness” of ICERED, she refers to a thread which is blatantly provocative and which would undeniably ostracise Chinese people and westerners alike.

Eg. Ratman Post: “I read a report stating that 86% of Chinese people have only 70% peripheral vision compared with Westerners”. P 6

Eg. White Trash Post:: “ive come to the conclusion that icered is full of pathetic white racists who think theyre funny but aren’t”. p 8

Tak-yee’s third example talks about sexism on ICERED.

Eg. Ratman Post: “Chinese women have…the lowest I.Q of any other Asian country..” p 9

Tak-yee argues that this post turned out to be based on fabrication. However at the same time she argues, “Hong Kong women are reputed to be money-minded and this “reputation” has in time grown and spread via the media among all social strata. It can therefore be surmised that ICERED played a role among the middle/ upper-middle classes,…in perpetuating or disseminating this representation of the Hong Kong women”. Pp 10-11.

Tak-yee also provides an interesting discussion of sexuality suggesting that the whole general atmosphere of ICERED was homophobic.

Eg. JP Post: “why do icred allow these homosexual to discuss their unnatural and immoral activity on the messageboard?” p 13

On the other hand Tak-yee goes on to suggest that through the ICERED forum “gay people have managed to enjoy a certain amount of textual/ sexual freedom in a society where any open discussion of homosexuality is still frowned on by the conservatives”. Please post a comment if you have any thoughts on this.

Another interesting point in Tak-Yee’s article was made about the potential for cyberspace communication to influence the “real world”.

Eg. The “Party Animal of Hong Kong” who in deference to the image of her that had been portrayed on ICERED imitated this in reality. p 18


- How can we intervene?

Perhaps as Nakamura [3] argues by avoiding creation of "menu-driven identities" and sending emails which engage others in explorations of culture and race?

[1] Tak-yee, Amy Lai. 'Hong Kong cyberculture: a case study' In: E-Journal on Hong Kong cultural and social studies [2004] http://www.hku.hk/hkcsp/ccex/ehkcss01/, accessed 4/9/2006.
[2] Maurice Berger's article has interesting material on 'Race in Cyberspace', In Wired Magazine Issue 3.12, [Dec 1995] accessed 5/9/2006 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.12/berger.if.html
[3] Nakamura, Lisa. 'Menu-driven identities: making race happen online' In: Cybertypes : race, ethnicity, and identity on the Internet [2002]

Workshop 4 on WebCT this week only

Some fantastic webliographies posted - well done!
Just to let you know that this week's Workshop IV is online on WebCT and will only be available for this week. It's on time release and disappears at the end of the week, so do get on and do it while you can.
Alison