Friday, 24 June 2011

Why Oppose The Porn Industry?

I’d like to open this post by saying that I’m sorry mum, and please stop reading now.

With that out of the way, I’d also like to tell you what this post will (hopefully) achieve. I self-identify as a pro-sex, anti-porn socialist feminist. It would be helpful, at this point, to define and clarify some of that. When I say I’m pro-sex feminist, it means just that. I think that the act of sex is a wonderful, natural thing, and encourage everyone to do what makes them happy*. Honestly, all I can say on this matter is that good sex is one of the finest pleasures in life, and if more people were sexually fulfilled, I think the world would be a better place. We shall come on to the anti-porn matter in time (pun NOT intended, take your mind out of the gutter). Socialist feminism I think is best described this way: 

"Socialist feminism (sometimes known as Marxist feminism) is different than liberal feminism in that it emphasizes that true equality will not be achieved without major overhauls within society-- particularly economic overhauls. Socialist feminists argue that there are fundamental inequalities built in to a capitalist society because power and capital are distributed unevenly. Thus, it's not enough for women to individually work to rise to powerful positions in society; rather, power needs to be redistributed throughout society. Liberal feminists focus on individual empowerment, while socialist feminists focus on collective change and empowerment.”  

I should also point out at this juncture that I am an anti-capitalist, which informs my views on feminism and pornography. If anyone would like me to expand on this in comments or a separate post, I will. With this post, I hope to set out the reasons why my political philosophies mean I cannot accept pornography, and I hope to also answer the most common counter-arguments I encounter when espousing these views. This post was written with the invaluable help of Georgie (AKA @mortari), to whom I am eternally grateful. I will denote the parts she wrote in italics.

(*within obvious boundaries)

Now that the disclaimers are out of the way, let us approach the main course of the post - why do we oppose the pornography industry? I would recommend, as a must read, this post by Gail Dines and Robert Jensen. I feel that it represents my ideas most excellently. To quote; 

“As leftists, we reject the sexism and racism that saturates contemporary mass-marketed pornography. As leftists, we reject the capitalist commodification of one of the most basic aspects of our humanity. As leftists, we reject corporate domination of media and culture. Anti-pornography feminists are not asking the left to accept a new way of looking at the world but instead are arguing for consistency in analysis and application of principles.”

Also,

Pornography is fantasy, of a sort. Just as television cop shows that assert the inherent nobility of police and prosecutors as protectors of the people are fantasy. Just as the Horatio Alger stories about hard work’s rewards in capitalism are fantasy. Just as films that cast Arabs only as terrorists are fantasy.
All those media products are critiqued by leftists precisely because the fantasy world they create is a distortion of the actual world in which we live. Police and prosecutors do sometimes seek justice, but they also enforce the rule of the powerful. Individuals in capitalism do sometimes prosper as a result of their hard work, but the system does not provide everyone who works hard with a decent living. Some tiny number of Arabs are terrorists, but that obscures both the terrorism of the powerful in white America and the humanity of the vast majority of Arabs.
Such fantasies also reflect how those in power want subordinated people to feel. Images of happy blacks on the plantations made whites feels more secure and self-righteous in their oppression of slaves. Images of contented workers allay capitalists’ fears of revolution. And men deal with their complex feelings about contemporary masculinity’s toxic mix of sex and aggression by seeking images of women who enjoy pain and humiliation.
Why do so many on the left seem to assume that pornographers operate in a different universe than other capitalists? Why would pornography be the only form of representation produced and distributed by corporations that wouldn’t be a vehicle to legitimize inequality? Why would the pornographers be the only media capitalists who are rebels seeking to subvert hegemonic systems?”
And: 

“Contemporary mass-marketed heterosexual pornography - the bulk of the market for sexually explicit material - is one site where a particular meaning of sex and gender is created and circulated. Pornography’s central ideological message is not hard to discern: Women exist for the sexual pleasure of men, in whatever form men want that pleasure, no matter what the consequences for women. It’s not just that women exist for sex, but that they exist for the sex that men want.
Despite naïve (or disingenuous) claims about pornography as a vehicle for women’s sexual liberation, the bulk of mass-marketed pornography is incredibly sexist. From the ugly language used to describe women, to the positions of subordination, to the actual sexual practices themselves - pornography is relentlessly misogynistic. As the industry “matures” the most popular genre of films, called “gonzo,” continues to push the limits of degradation of, and cruelty toward, women. Directors acknowledge they aren’t sure where to take it from the current level.
This misogyny is not an idiosyncratic feature of a few fringe films. Based on three studies of the content of mainstream video/DVD pornography over the past decade, we conclude that woman-hating is central to contemporary pornography. Take away every video in which a woman is called a bitch, a cunt, a slut, or a whore, and the shelves would be nearly bare. Take away every DVD in which a woman becomes the target of a man’s contempt, and there wouldn’t be much left. Mass-marketed pornography doesn’t celebrate women and their sexuality, but instead expresses contempt for women and celebrates the charge of expressing that contempt sexually.”

I also oppose pornography for the body fascism that is endemic to the culture and the way that it seeps over into the mainstream as a ‘norm’. 

In a culture of gender inequality it is impossible to make porn which isn't oppressive. Society commodifies women's bodies such that any monetising of female sexuality will reinforce the objectification and degredation of women. While woman are considered sexual things first and human beings second, any sale of sexual material featuring women will be dehumanising and exploitative.

On the problem with porn:

Is is hard to describe just how violent and degrading most pornography is. A 2010 study analysed the content of a selection of popular pornographic films (*footnote). Its findings included:
  • 88% of scenes contained physical aggression, including spanking, gagging, and slapping. 
  • nearly half of all scenes included name-calling, most commonly "bitch" or "slut".
  • Women were overwhelmingly the targets of aggressive acts, and men the perpetrators.
  • Following instances of aggression towards women, in 95% of cases the women expressed pleasure or neutrality.
The message of these porn films is clear: not only is violence and verbal abuse against women acceptable and sexual exciting, but woman enjoy and are aroused by this treatment. 

As Gail Dines said, "Pornography is the perfect propaganda piece for patriarchy. In nothing else is their hatred of us quite as clear."

Footnote: Bridges et al. analysed a randomised selection of 50 films from a list of the 250 best-selling and the 250 most-rented videos from December 2004 to June 2005, as selected and reported by pornography industry publication Adult Video News. These 50 films comprised of a total of 304 scenes.

Now, to the counter-arguments, and our counter-counter-arguments.

Isn’t it all about choice? Surely that’s what feminists want, women to be able to choose their own paths? The women in pornographic films chose to appear in them.

Yes, in a manner of speaking they did*. However, choice does not exist in a vacuum. I do not oppose the womens’ right to be in the films, I oppose the films themselves. Here is a rather good post about why a person’s freedom to conform to a certain stereotype does not mean that it is good for the people as a whole. (*I would point out that many ‘porn stars’ are failed actresses that needed to make the rent. This is obviously not true of every woman in porn, but I would suggest that it is rare to find a woman making pornographic films who had made a conscious effort to do so as a vocation.)

Well, they make good money. Surely that’s empowering?

Without willing to sound glib, there are plenty of things people do for money. Just because you enjoy the things they do does not make it empowering for them. Imagine if I paid you a million pounds to eat elephant shit. Would you consider that empowering because you were paid such a high amount?

But women produce female-friendly porn!

Yes, they do. I still find this objectionable because of my anti-capitalist views. I also feel that the fact that ‘female-friendly’ porn is a thing, and such a tiny proportion of the pornography market rather reinforces my opinion of the industry as generally misogynist. If porn were truly equal to the sexes, it would not need to exist.

Women can hold sexist attitudes too, and female-produced porn can be just as problematic. A 2008 study found that female-directed pornography was just as likely to contain aggression against women as male-directed pornography.

Porn degrades men too!

Not to the same extent as it degrades women, or with the same consequences. Women have traditionally been oppressed, so images that propagate this are, I feel, more harmful than images which break the gender binary and show something unexpected. (see also, my opinions on misandrist comedy as an allegory in this old post)

What if the women like being submissive during sex?

I have no problem with women enjoying submission during consensual sexual encounters which take place with the knowledge that the submission only belongs in the bedroom.

I/a friend of mine worked in porn and enjoyed it.

My answer (inspired by Meaghan Murphy) would be: I am glad that you enjoyed your experience, really. However, just because you as an individual woman found this empowering, that does not mean that the porn industry is not harmful for women generally. There can often be conflicts between what is good for us personally, and what benefits us as a group. The intention here is not to demonise women who have worked in porn - they need to pay the bills just like everyone else, and the point is not to criticise their choices. However, whatever the feelings of the performers involved might be, selling images of women as sexual objects which exist for the titillation of men only reinforces sexist attitudes.

What about if it isn’t a capitalist venture?

I feel that consensual pornography made for users by users with no capitalist aspects would tend to have less misogyny and therefore be ultimately preferable to any output from the porn industry.

Do you just want to ban all sexual thoughts?

I absolutely do not want to ban sexual thought. What I do object to is people thinking they have some kind of god-given right to act on their sexual thoughts. For one example, see street harassment. If I am walking down the road and see someone that I think is really attractive, it would never occur to me in a million years to shout something or believe that they would appreciate me doing so, or to do it and be offended if they don’t respond positively! Also, see objectification. I get that we all see other human beings sexually, but when it becomes ALL people see women as, it's a problem.

Can anti-porn feminists coexist with pro-porn feminists?

Of course we can coexist peacefully. Our main objectives remain the same. Feminism is not a monolithic culture that should always share the same opinions. I like to think that feminism is allegorical to Christianity – even though we may disagree on the fine details of how to practice it, we all have the same central objective.

So do you want to censor/ban porn?

No. I am not a proponent of censorship, and even if I were, a ban on pornography would be practically unworkable. Making pornography illegal would make it harder to regulate the industry, which could be dangerous for the women working in it. I would like to live in a world in which pornography was eradicated because there was no market for it. My desire is to persaude people that they do not need to see images of objectification and degredation to satisfy themselves sexually.

But all men watch porn! How could this ever change?

It is important to question men who use porn, and to challenge them on its sexism. It should not be socially acceptable to use porn. Like the use of racial epithets or other hate speech, sexist attitudes and the use of porn can be denounced by social peers. If porn were not so tolerated, people would think more carefully about its social consequences and would be less likely to use it.
  
So there you have it. With regards to the comments on this post, I’d encourage reasonable discourse about the points I address. I will try and answer everything (caveat – I will be mainly offline between Monday 27th – Friday 1st, but will try address everything eventually). Obvious usual comment rules apply, but I’d also like to add that I don’t want to see derailing. We’re talking about the pornography industry. We are not talking about prostitution. Any arguments or suppositions about my feelings towards women (or men, trans* people) who work in the sex industry are unwelcome and probably wrong.

And one last thought: You have imaginations. Use them. Embrace them.

59 comments:

  1. *puts hand up*

    I AGREE AND STUFF!

    It just has such a depressing view of sex. It's just pound, pound, pound, she seems to be having a barge pole rammed inside her repeatedly and not enjoying it, she gets called derogatory names for taking part, and it's just...ugh...

    As a species, we must be better than this, surely?

    ReplyDelete
  2. One would hope so. I cannot fathom why people would watch this when we have our imaginations. For instance, What's Eating Gilbert Grape era Jonny Depp and Jake Gyllenhaal would never have appeared in a film together, but in my imagination...

    ReplyDelete
  3. OK. Please bare in mind that I have never really considered this topic in this kind of detail before, so my points are pretty much "off the cuff."

    I think you are attaching too much power to pornography as a medium. I watch plenty of action films, but I have never had the urge to get hold of a gun and go on a killing spree. There is a difference between wanting to watch something and wanting to do something, and people who treat [non-consenting] women in the manner you're describing are a problem, regardless of whether they watch porn.

    It's all well and good to say that pornography allows men to justify their misogynistic views, so it not existing would help a great deal, but that is a dangerous Orwellian road to go down.

    With regards to the capitalism thing, please explain. My understanding of capitalism (limited as it is) doesn't bring up any inherent sexism that I can see. It may be true that men are already positioned better than women, and that gives them an inherent advantage over women, but the idea of capitalism itself doesn't favour either gender, does it?

    I'll be around for about half an hour if someone would like to [politely] tell me how wrong I am.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't think capitalism always favours men over women, but it is in capitalism's interest to continue the subjugation of women, and porn has a part to play in this.

    The pornographic 'ideal' woman is extrapolated into mainstream society (see 'hollywood' waxing being spoken of as a norm). Women are constantly told how they must spend money to be 'better' by virtue of their looks, and the influence for the look can be found in porn.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The influence for the look can be found in lots of places.

    So, if men and women WERE equal (or near as damn it), would you want to live in a world without pornography, or would porn be allowed then?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I appreciate the inspiration for the look can be found in many places, but they all have a grounding in porn.

    If I could be sure that pornography didn't harm rights for women, I would still oppose it from an anti-capitalist POV, because I disagree with our basest desires being used for profit. However, I would be a LOT more sympathetic towards it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. John, I'd like to just add to Nat's response:

    I agree that pornogrpahy is used as a justification for misogynistic views. I would say that it is a symptom of sexism rather than a root cause.

    I think it's right to criticise sexism, just like it's right to critise racism or other intolerance. I don't think that this is Orwellian - it's not about forbidding people from saying or thinking certain things, it's about questioning whether these things might be harmful to others.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You're saying that even if men and women were truly equal, you'd still object because people are making money from the act of sex? At some point in this hypothetical situation, you would be just taking away peoples ability to do something they want to do (get paid for sex, make money from peoples desire to see sex, etc).

    Also, I missed this earlier, but some people's imaginations aren't that great, it's not their fault that they can't imagine Johnny and Jake in a hot tub.

    ReplyDelete
  9. John, I'm an anti-capitalist. I oppose most money-making ventures :)

    I think that even in an un-capitalist society, the desire would still be there, and as long as it didn't objectify or harm women in any other way, I'd probably be OK with it. My problems are with the business aspect and the misogyny aspect.

    Hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Geordie. I can see the point that porn (the kind of porn Nat is talking about, not ALL porn) can hurt the plight for equality, but I'm always worried about censorship, and this sounds a lot like it.

    There will always be a demand for porn, even in a truly equal society. Sex is just a replacement mechanism for the mating instinct; we're hard wired to want to do it. If we weren't, we'd have gone extinct. Even in a world where we don't have a single standard of what a woman should look like forced on us, everyone has preference, and it's not always in our power to fulfil those preferences.

    I don't think any media (in which the people involved in the making are fully consenting and are unharmed, or no more harmed than they wish to be) should be censored entirely... and I think I'm straying into a different argument.

    ReplyDelete
  11. John, would just like to reiterate some points here:

    From Georgie: "No. I am not a proponent of censorship, and even if I were, a ban on pornography would be practically unworkable. Making pornography illegal would make it harder to regulate the industry, which could be dangerous for the women working in it. I would like to live in a world in which pornography was eradicated because there was no market for it. My desire is to persaude people that they do not need to see images of objectification and degredation to satisfy themselves sexually."

    Me: "feel that consensual pornography made for users by users with no capitalist aspects would tend to have less misogyny and therefore be ultimately preferable to any output from the porn industry."

    Me: "I think that even in an un-capitalist society, the desire would still be there, and as long as it didn't objectify or harm women in any other way, I'd probably be OK with it. My problems are with the business aspect and the misogyny aspect."

    ReplyDelete
  12. I wasn't exactly clear on the censorship thing. I didn't mean pornography as a whole, I meant specifically the kind of pornography that degrades women.

    If we were in a non-capitalist, truly equal society, there would still be men who want to see women abused in their pornography, as there would be women who want to be abused in the bedroom (and, presumably, vice versa).

    Admittedly, the current state of pornography is TOO much if your numbers are anything to go by, but I don't think completely removing misogyny from pornography would be a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Me: "I have no problem with women enjoying submission during consensual sexual encounters which take place with the knowledge that the submission only belongs in the bedroom"

    ReplyDelete
  14. So you would like big "FBI: Piracy is BAD!" style disclaimers on pornography?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi John,

    I am also concerned by the idea of censorship, so I understand your worry. Let me try to explain my position on this:

    I believe it would be wrong to censor any kind of media, including pornographic material (barring obvious cases like incitment to violence, or documentary evidence of a crime such as snuff films).
    However, I do think that you can use social engineering to discourage people from using a product without banning it.
    Take smoking, for example. Smoking is problematic from a public health point of view, but no (reasonble) person thinks that cigarettes should be legally banned. But you can make people aware of the harms caused by smoking, and making smoking less socially acceptable. So people wil smoke less, without you impinging on their freedom to buy cigarettes.
    You can do the same with porn - discourage people from using it without banning or forbidding it.

    On anoth issue, I agree that even in a non-sexist society, there may be men aroused by the abuse of women. The natural spread of sexual kinks suggests that there will always be some people aroused by such things. -If- we lived in a non-sexist socity, this could be just a kink like another other, providing material was produced consensually. However, we do not live in this world.

    I think we can all agree that some sexual desires should not be catered for (for example, pornography featuring children). We do not deny that some people -are- sexually aroused by this, but we do say that is morally wrong and that these desires should not be catered to or encouraged, because of the harm that they cause.

    The same could be said for being aroused by the abuse of women (note than I am not saying that this is equally as morally wrong as child porn, just saying that there are sexual desires which we consider socially unacceptable). Just because a person has a sexual desire does not mean that that desire is acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Interesting post, and too much to discuss in a short comment.

    Firstly, the negative. The Capitalist v Socialist arguments are a red herring and the quotes from other blogs are laughable. All I can see there are 1970s-style Marxists competing to see who can use the longest possible words to express their conformity with pseudo-intellectual Marxist dogma. Put the same people in a suit and they'd start talking about "leveraging holistic solutions to issues going forward".

    Your own points are much more pertinent. The essence is, does pornography corrupt? The answer is 'yes' when users fail to draw the line between fantasy (fed by pornography) and reality. I won't lie: I do look at pornography and find that too much is contemptuous of women in a way that I find a genuine turn-off. I worry that boys will get their first impression of sexual relationships from this stuff. I'm old enough to know better; they aren't.

    Here I totally agree with you: women have always been under pressure to conform to male sexual preconceptions. The ready availability of such pornography to adolescent boys will only entrench the idea of sex as purely a vehicle for male satisfaction.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Happy Saturday all. I'll admit to being a little tired and inebriated when I commented before, but I am able to sum up my thoughts on the censorship side of things (which, yes, I know Nat was not advocating, but I think it is relevant.

    Basically, I don't think ANYTHING should be censored (STOP! Fingers away from keyboard, keep reading), I think there should be a place for any kind of media that CAN be made. That's where we should be sticking our legal hammer in. Regulating how media is made. For example, a girl under the age of consent cannot legally star in a porno. And then we also regulate the actual watching, for example, a boy under 18 cannot legally watch a porno.

    Now, I know that under age girls in porn, and under age boys watching porn, probably happens, but that is a different issue.

    Where things get muddy is when you look at the content. An under age girl cannot star in a pornography, but what is the law on a woman, who presumably looks very youthful, PORTRAYING an under age girl in a porno? I genuinely don't know where the law stands on that, but lets assume for a second that it is legal for an under age girl to be portrayed as having sex, so long as no laws are broken in the making of the porno.

    No one (normal person, at least) disagrees that the sexual abuse of an child is wrong, but if no actual children were actually abused in the making of the porno, how do you draw a solid, clear cut distinction between a porno and a big production movie in which a child is raped? At that point, you're either censoring the movie industry (by saying neither should be allowed) or unfairly treating the porno industry (because they have lower production budgets, and you don't like their style).

    Nat's point that she would like to live in a world where porno is barely in demand because society has gotten past this notion that women are here to be abused, therefore negating the need to censor porn, is an ideal situation, and one I would hope to live to see. However, making arguments like this against pornography NOW, in the world we currently live in, is tantamount to saying porn causes this kind of mentality (which I'm not saying you are).

    In which case, you either get ignored, and you've wasted your time arguing, or people pay attention, and porn is banned/censored, and, as I've pointed out, censoring anything is a dangerous road to go down.

    OK, that was my entirely awake and sober view. I'm open to opinion/discussion...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Another thing that's worth mentioning is how the bad treatment escalates. I read, several years ago (and I wish I could remember where, or who wrote the piece) an account by a chap who'd worked on what we'd call a lad's mag, back in the 50's. Just as mainstream porn was moving away from the 'Giggles And Garters' image to a more 'racy' one, as they'd have called it at the time.

    He recalled that they ran a feature, with the same model, over a period of months, where readers could request poses, actions etc by the model, for the next issue. It started tamely enough, with changes of pose, outfits and such, but as tastes got jaded, the requests became more violence-and-degradation prone. He didn't go into details, and I suspect it'd look pretty tame to us, a mere 50 years later, but the impression given was that in a mere few months, it went from "Wow, I'd like to see her in a French maid's outfit," to "I'd really like to see her beat up a bit, the bitch."

    Anyway, my point is that a significant number of the customers get bored easily and want it 'spiced up'. And the producers, chasing the Holy Buck, will supply.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm not denying that that is the mind set of the kind of people Nat wants to change, Daz, but, well, in addition to my argument that if the woman posing WANTS to do it (for the pay; I hate my job, but I still do it willingly because I need to pay bills) take this into consideration;

    You can effectively boil people down to two types; impressionable (ie: children, mentally handicapped, etc) and responsible (ie: adults). Impressionable types should not be watching this kind of stuff, whether it is softcore romance stuff of damn near snuff-film stuff. Responsible people, on the other hand (responsible as in, "responsible for my own actions") should not be able to claim that a violent porno validates their desire to hurt women.

    If impressionable types are watching it, they should be stopped, and if responsible types think that the content is an accepted norm, they should be educated, but just cutting out the content altogether seems like a quick fix.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Very interesting points made and reasons given some of which I am going to think about, but I now have questions:
    1) Sex shops for women only, do you consider that are they bad just because they monetise sex?
    2) The use and sale of sexual aids for both men and women of all sexual preferences do you consider this to also be bad?
    3) Your focus is on Heterosexual porn, but what about porn for gay men and women, how would you consider this to be sexist or is it just bad because it monetises sex?
    4) What about BDSM and those who consider it to be a sexual identity in the same way as homosexuality, bisexuality and Transgender are considered a sexuality?
    5) What about sex workers who deal with strictly same sex or BDSM clientèle are these people wrong for doing so because money is involved?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jayleon,

    1) I detailed my thoughts on Ann Summers here: http://fortyshadesofgrey.blogspot.com/2011/05/ann-summers-youre-doing-it-wrong.html a few weeks ago. I hope that answers your question.

    2) No. If people want to use sex toys/aids with consenting partners, or alone, that's fine by me. I feel this is a different issue from pornography as there is not the social problems involved with the use of sex toys alone.

    3) Although I focus on heterosexual porn, I feel that the problems of the industry as a whole transcend the 'type' of sex we're talking about.

    4) As I stated before, I have no problem with consenting adults doing things between themselves. If a couple (or group) wish to practice BDSM, that's their call. I think that the fact that the participants know and interact with each other outside the setting of the sex means that they still see each other as full human beings, not as objects that have things done to them for the person's gratification.

    5) As mentioned in the post, I'm not willing to talk about sex work here. I have a lot of conflicting opinions and I don't want to feel forced to express something I'm not fully committed to in order to answer a question. However, I will say that as that is a dealing between two individuals rather than the output of a corporation, I view it as less inherently evil.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I, pretty much, agree with all of this.. but I am a man who enjoys pornography. I'm not seeking to defend that (as a relatively wealthy white male living in the UK there's not a lot in my life that's not been made possible by fucking someone over at some point.. so I'm not going to get too worked up over this).

    My reason for commenting was to say that all the things about mainstream porn that concern you are the things that, in my view, make that porn deeply unappealing. I like pornography which appears to depict non-violent, consensual, realistic and FUN sex. It does exist.

    The mainstream porn industry is like any other mainstream industry.. pumping out generic nonsense for people who aren't interested in finding anything better. Sadly, in the case of porn that genre is a deeply unpleasant thing.

    I'm not naive enough to think that because I don't watch 'that sort of porn' I'm not a part of the problem... but I try to be responsible (I am so tempted to write that I try to be an ethical consumer of porn.. but then I'd have to kill myself).

    I don't think porn is inherently bad, but the industry around it is rotten as hell. This is far from atypical in the modern age.

    ReplyDelete
  23. All questions answered, thanks :), apart from the first one.

    Although I would say that there is a duality with BDSM as there is both the understanding and respect you speak about as well as treating people as objects that have things done to them for the person's gratification.

    But no was not asking about Ann Summers, I am asking about the sex shops that are run by women, for women or shops that have a women only area, a few of which are to be found in Brighton. I cant say much more as being a chap I am not allowed to enter. Anyway, what about them?

    ReplyDelete
  24. @John Bullock

    I wasn't trying to address your points, so much as add a point that Nat hadn't addressed in the OP. Sorry if I gave the impression that I was arguing with you.

    That said (ahem)...

    Whether the model/actress wants to be involved or not isn't the issue. The issue is that pornography turns people into sexual objects; things to be stared at, used and thrown away. And, given that with the internet, it's available with none of the social-embarrassment or effort that used to accompany buying it, there's even more distancing now, between viewer and viewed than there ever has been. It's available as easily as turning on a tap for a glass of water. It's casual; accessed on a whim, with little thought and no effort. And familiarity, as we all know, leads to contempt.

    I'd also argue that the internet actually skews the kind of pornography viewed, and therefore the kind produced, toward the more misogynistic varieties. Quite simply, the men who'll find it hardest to find what they're looking for away from the computer screen, are the very same men who want sexual experiences that most women aren't going to want to take part in.

    RE: wanting to do it for the pay? To put it bluntly, so what? That doesn't stop us wanting to close sweat-shops down, or prosecuting firms who pay less than minimum wage, even if it means they end up laying off staff.

    I'm not sure how your idea of not allowing the impressionable to watch it would work. How would impressionability be tested and judged? Who would test and judge it? Would we trust any testers/judges to be impartial? Seems even more Orwellian to me than the phasing out of the porn industry would be, especially as Nat isn't advocating banning the industry, just, as far as I can tell, making it socially unacceptable, and therefore eventually unwanted.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Kensey: Thanks for sharing your experiences. I agree with you that one can find more 'ethical' porn, and also appreciate that you see it contributing to the problems I have with it. I am really glad to have the point of view of an engaged consumer, as it does tend to help me see the 'other side' a bit better!

    @Daz and John: I'm going to leave this to you two, if that's OK. I think Daz can argue my opinions better than I could ever hope to! (I don't say this enough, but Daz you are AWESOME.)

    @Jayleon: I've got no problem with sex toys being sold. I see sex-toy shops as I see every other shop - as an anti-capitalist, I don't like them, but I appreciate the current need for them and I'm fine with them as long as they trade as ethically as possible. I outline my opinions towards 'female-friendly' porn in the post. Does this help? I'm really not anti-sex at all. Just anti-porn.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nat

    That loud 'pop' you just heard was my ego swelling past my body-size! :-)

    Thanks. I'll try to live up to it. I'm more used to the atheist/religion gig though, so don't be surprised if I reach a limit...

    (BTW, adding you to my links page, unless there's anything on my site you'd rather not be associated with. Lemme know, could you?)

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Daz "I wasn't trying to address your points, so much as add a point that Nat hadn't addressed in the OP. Sorry if I gave the impression that I was arguing with you." - me too :D

    Your sweat shop example is a good point, but that's a line we draw subjectively. For that to be applied to pornography, we would have to prove that the actors involved are being mistreated and/or having their human rights violated. Sweat shops exist in China because the law allows it, they don't [legally] exist here because it doesn't. There's a difference between a child being forced to work for 20pence a week in for long hours in dangerous working conditions, and me being forced to work a job I don't like because I need the money and can't get the same wage elsewhere.

    My idea of the impressionable, really, just covered children and people deemed to have the mentality of a child. There are other cases, but, ultimately, if the law says a person is responsible for their own actions, the fact that questionable pornography exists should not be a defence for committing violent acts, and if the law says you are not entirely responsible for your actions (you're a child, for example) you shouldn't be allowed to watch this kind of material.

    I understand that policing this kind of thing (making sure children don't watch/participate in porn) is hard, but I'm extremely uneasy with censorship as a means to fix a problem that the thing being censored is not the cause of.

    Additionally, could you (or anyone, for that matter) address my point about mainstream movies vs. porn? How do you draw the line between objectifying/violent pornography, and objectifying/violent sex scenes in big production movies?

    As an aside, I would be interested to hear someone with psychological expertise explain how the availability of questionable porn (by which I mean porn that is filmed legally, but may portray something illegal, such as rape) might affect potential sexual offenders. For example, if a man starts to feel urges that might lead him to one day rape a person, could the ability to watch pornography depicting rape (presumably realistically) help quash the urge to actually do so himself?

    ReplyDelete
  28. The mainstream porn industry is like any other mainstream industry.. pumping out generic nonsense for people who aren't interested in finding anything better. Sadly, in the case of porn that genre is a deeply unpleasant thing.

    I want to touch on this a bit, too. I read the post, and my initial questions have been answered in the comments (really great comments on this post!), but this helps me clarify my own opinion on porn and the industry, which is both in agreement and opposition with yours.

    As Kensey mentioned, this mainstream porn industry is pumping out generic crap for people who aren't interested in finding better, but I think it goes further than that. Mainstream anything churns out what the mainstream wants, which is why the mainstream porn industry is so depressing. Who wants to believe that most men want what we see as obviously harmful to women? This, of course, leads into your argument about porn existing within capitalism. It benefits the capitalist system to keep men believing they are, in some way or another, dominant over women.

    ...on the other hand, I see porn similarly to marriage. Porn doesn't have to be damaging or oppressive, or aiding in oppression. Porn is really just one or more people engaging in sexual activities. If it were, as has been suggested in the comments, practiced in a way that did not produce profit and was simply for the sexual pleasure of BOTH the actors and the viewers, it wouldn't be a problem. I think it'd be more useful to "reform" porn, rather than abolish it. But yeah, I also agree that porn (like most of the sex industry in general) would practically cease to exist-- or at least the market would be dramatically smaller-- if we lived in a more egalitarian society.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I have read the comments here. I am not sure there is a great deal more I can add suffice to say that censoring the pornographic industry would not cause me the slightest concern whatsoever.

    To me it is an appalling reflection of our society that films that portray the degredation and dehumanification of women are somehow considered acceptable.

    Quite frankly I do not give a fuck about supply and demand. I accept that the practicality of censorship would be difficult but that is not a reason not to do it.

    As an aside what saddens me is that I consider that most of us are complicit in this abuse because we are aware that it occurs but we do very litle, if anything, to stop it (and yes I do include myself in that statement).

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi Graham. Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not endorsing pornography of any kind, least of all the kind where women are depicted as being abused.

    I am, however, saying that it should NOT be censored, as I would say if we were talking about fundamentalist Christian hate propaganda, or a home video from Hitler. Nothing should be censored.

    Were we to (if it were possible) get rid of porn because a wide number of people share your sentiment, that it is an "appalling reflection on our society..." then we open the door to unnecessary arguments.

    For example, if you can get porn banned, why can't I get Jeremy Kyle banned? I think that program is an appalling reflection of our society, and, while I doubt anyone commenting here watches it, I would hope no one here would want to take away the shows makers right to create that rubbish, or the audiences right to watch it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. John Bullock

    Yes, I see the difference between a porn studio and a sweatshop, and I'll admit that no analogy is perfect. I merely meant to show that possible loss of employment is not always the top priority when we talk about closing a business that does harm.

    You're still fixated on possible harm to the performers though, when in actual fact the harm being addressed is that which is caused to the end-user and those around him. Maybe a lab producing herion would have been a better, though possibly over-the-top, analogy?

    "...but I'm extremely uneasy with censorship as a means to fix a problem that the thing being censored is not the cause of."

    And I'd like to point out both to you and the other people who've mentioned it, that Nat specifically addresses the subject of censorship in the OP and says:

    "No. I am not a proponent of censorship, and even if I were, a ban on pornography would be practically unworkable."

    "My idea of the impressionable, really, just covered children and people deemed to have the mentality of a child."

    That's something of a strawman argument, as it's already illegal to supply or show pornography to a child. I'm not sure whether the same applies to those of diminished mental capacity, but I'd venture to suggest that it would produce the kind of social opprobrium that Nat's implying should be heaped on the viewing of porn by 'normal' adults.

    "How do you draw the line between objectifying/violent pornography, and objectifying/violent sex scenes in big production movies?"

    Not only 'how', but 'where'. That's always going to be a problem,and different people will have different opinions. Where is the line between a regular drinker and an alcoholic? At what point does a liking for pain become pathological self-harm? At what point in pregnancy does a fœtus become a person?

    Most people would agree that a glass of wine once a week doesn't constitute alcoholism, and no one would say that 'when they've died in a gutter, of long-term alcohol poisoning' is an acceptable cut-off point. Ditto for the other examples, making allowance for religious prejudices in some cases. I trust you get my point: that the extremes are not useful places to draw the line.

    I'm going to take a stab at your aside, even though I'm assuredly not qualified.

    I'd say that a realistic portrayal, if it managed to show the true horror of the situation the victim finds themselves in, might discourage some potential offenders.

    I'll add my own aside:

    The stereotypical view of rape is that of stranger-rape. The 'accosted in an alley' scenario. Most rapes, in fact, are perpetrated somewhere where the victim feels safe (at home, say) by someone known to them. The perpetrator has managed the objectification process so 'well' that they not only objectify women* in general, but a person they actually know, and have a presumably good relationship with. That's the ultimate, though not only, harm in portraying women as nothing but objects of desire.

    *I know not only women get raped, but they constitute the vast majority of victims.

    Some interesting reading.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Sorry for double posting, but I wanted to keep this separate from the conversation with John. It's an added point of my own, rather than part of that.

    At the risk of appearing pro-censoring (which I agree is impractical), one thing that could be done would be to put more restrictions on the free, 'teaser' items that porn sites use to drag in customers. They should, I think, be forced to place much more of their explicit content behind either a paywall or at least an age verification wall, preferably one requiring the user to provide personal details, which would add a distrust-of-provider and/or embarrassment factor into the viewing process.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I apologise if my comments seem disjointed, it appears Nat's blog has decided to delete my comments; Nat has had to go into her blog and undelete the comment Daz replied to, and the last comment I posted (a reply to Graham) has also vanished, so I don't if/when it, or indeed THIS comment, will appear.

    Daz,


    I know Nat is not pushing for censorship, I have addressed that. I feel that, as the preferred goal is a world where this kind of porn has a very limited market, making these kinds of posts will either be ignored or taken as a demand for censorship; if you are not blaming pornography as a cause of the wider issue, why post about it? And if you are blaming it, why wouldn't you want to get rid (censor/ban) it?

    The other reason I talk of censorship (other than it being my main bugaboo across many arguments) is that Nat wants this kind of porn to not exist. Regardless of how that happens, her ultimate ideal scenario is one in which this kind of violent porn doesn't exist, but that will only happen in a censored situation, as there will ALWAYS be a desire for it, just as there will always be murderers and paedophiles.

    I'm glad you mentioned the foetus/baby argument, as that illustrates my point nicely (and, coincidently, is an argument I've had with Nat before), in that everything in this field is subjective. Some people can watch horrifically violent horror films and sleep easily, others see the first 10 minutes of mildly scary horror film and spend the night wide awake with the lights on.

    I feel that allowance of any media, whatever the content, should be allowed, and we should be able to reach a point where laws governing the making of the media, and laws governing who can watch the media, are sufficient. Yes, it would be easier to just say pornography is illegal, rather than stop anybody who shouldn't be watching it from watching it, but the fact that it is easier does not make it the best situation.

    As you said, it is already illegal to supply a child with pornography, as it is illegal to have sex with a child, so, if these laws are not broken, why shouldn't someone be able to make a pornography depicting child sex? (Incidentally, where do you stand on the recent, controversial film starring Dakota Fanning, in which she was depicted being raped?).

    Ultimately, I think this discussion is the wrong discussion to have. I agree with the aim of Nat's argument; to have a world where men do not objectify women, and do not feel that violence towards non-consensual partners is acceptable, but making a push for that world through this discussion will only lead to people believing pornography is the problem, and that shows a complete lack of faith in the human ability to make their own decisions.

    I agree that perception of women as objects should change, but this kind of pornography is more of a symptom of it than a cause, and discussion that could lead to the banning of pornography is damaging to much wider issues.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "It should not be socially acceptable to use porn. Like the use of racial epithets or other hate speech, sexist attitudes and the use of porn can be denounced by social peers. If porn were not so tolerated, people would think more carefully about its social consequences and would be less likely to use it."

    I wonder if this would be possible without demonising those who work in the porn industry. I believe Georgie used the tobacco industry as an example of the kind of societal change that is needed and yet this has led to those who work in the tobacco industry being portrayed/viewed at best as immoral at worst as malevolent (I'm not saying that they are not, just that this was not a view that was held before smoking became unacceptable). Could this play in to the hands of misogynists, many of which already seem to have a negative view of women who have sex for pleasure?

    Also, with regard to the use of imagination in place of pornography, I don't think this really deals with the problems of misogyny, body fascism and aggression towards women which seem to be perpetuated by the mainstream media (although often in a more subtle way). It seems to me that the state of pornography is as much a symptom as a problem and as such it cannot be treated seperately from the rest of the media.

    On the anti-capitalist stuff about monetising sex I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  35. John

    Had to split this into two posts. Sorry.

    "if you are not blaming pornography as a cause of the wider issue, … why wouldn't you want to get rid (censor/ban) it?"

    I'm not sure where I said I wasn't blaming porn as a cause, nor what issue I wasn't blaming on it. Could you point that out for me?

    Because banning doesn't work. Especially for a product that can be downloaded anonymously on the internet.

    How would porn becoming unwanted and therefore it no longer being produced, be censorship in any way? There's little to no market, at present, for video extravaganzas about the lives of great nose-flute players, and hence there are none made. That's not censorship, just basic supply and demand at work. Furthermore, if anyone reads the OP and gains the impression that Nat's promoting censorship, it says nothing about her post, and everything about the reader, given that she devotes a whole paragraph to it.

    "why shouldn't someone be able to make a pornography depicting child sex?"

    I'm assuming you mean by using actors who aren't children, but portraying them.

    Nothing at all. I'd seriously worry about anyone who wanted to view it, however. I most certainly wouldn't want them left alone with children.

    Sorry, I don't know anything about the film you mention. Nor have I any idea who Dakota Fanning is. Off-hand, I'd say that if the rape of the character furthered the plot and was treated as a horrific act, then I have nothing against such. If it was played for titillation then all involved should be, at the least, blacklisted from the industry.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Parte, thee seconde:

    Going back, I'd be interested to know why you brought up the subject of 'the impressionable', if you were aware that your very definition of the word made your argument a strawman.

    "there will ALWAYS be a desire for it, just as there will always be murderers and paedophiles."

    By your reasoning, then, paedophile porn would be acceptable, because there will always be a desire for it? How about heroin production? That's the problem with libertarian capitalism: "Leave your morals at the door. If there's a demand, supply it. Sod the consequences. Blame the consumer, but not the supplier."

    "I'm glad you mentioned the foetus/baby argument, as that illustrates my point nicely ... in that everything in this field is subjective."

    I also pointed out that, though we may argue over the fuzzy area in the middle, most people wouldn't place the dividing line at either extremity. My analogy—which you seem to have missed the point of—was meant to show that there's a huge grey area of nudity, sexual depictions and such that fall between the extremes of pornography at one end of the scale, and no sexual representations whatsoever at the other.

    "but making a push for that world through this discussion will only lead to people believing pornography is the problem"

    Well it is the problem, or part of it. Pornography turns people into objects.

    "and that shows a complete lack of faith in the human ability to make their own decisions."

    Believe me, people's abilities to come to rational decisions that go against the culture they were brought up in, are highly overrated. We live in a culture that has been highly skewed toward men's dominance over women, for at least 2,000 years. Women have been sought after as prizes in marriage, given away in marriage as part of business-deals, denied education, subjected to marriage by rape (she is forced to marry her rapist, to 'make an honest woman out of her'), paid less for the same work, and many many other things. Oh, and viewed as sexual objects.

    "and discussion that could lead to the banning of pornography is damaging to much wider issues."

    Pornography is both a symptom and a cause. As a symptom, its 'socially acceptable' to objectify women, which makes porn easier to market, and as a cause, it furthers that acceptability. The phrase we're looking for here is 'vicious circle'.

    You say that we shouldn't discuss this because discussion could lead to the banning of porn. Aren't you, then, advocating censorship of discussion?; a much harsher, and more basic, infringement of freedom of expression.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Daz, I think our discussion may be suffering from lack of practice at this sort of thing. Ie, I'm giving you the wrong impression on a few things. I'll try clear them up...

    "I'm not sure where I said I wasn't blaming porn as a cause, nor what issue I wasn't blaming on it. Could you point that out for me?"

    I didn't mean YOU specifically WEREN'T blaming porn. I mean that, IF you weren't advocating the banning of porn, why post about this pornography's effect on sexism, rather than posting about the other issues that affect it. Like I said, I'm not great at this.

    "if anyone reads the OP and gains the impression that Nat's promoting censorship, it says nothing about her post,"

    Again, I know she is not advocating censorship. Your side of the argument on this post and its comments seems to have expressed a reluctant acceptance that porn would still exist, but that you would prefer to live in a world where porn didn't exist, preferably because nobody wanted it. My point is it will always be wanted, and banning it is the only way you would get rid of it completely.

    "I'm assuming you mean by using actors who aren't children, but portraying them."

    Yes, I mean media that is filmed entirely legally; no underage actors. I agree, if I knew someone liked to watch videos of children involved in sex acts, real or staged, I wouldn't want them near my son. Just as I would not want someone I know to have a drinking problem driving my girlfriend anywhere. But, while I might not get in the car with an alcoholic, unless they actually drive drunk, they shouldn't actually be prosecuted for it.

    "Sorry, I don't know anything about the film you mention"

    The film is called "Hounddog" Dakota Fanning is (possibly was, I'm not sure) a child actor. The film depicted her being raped, at the time she was 11 or 12. There was controversy because she was acting this scene when she was a child herself. If someone gets off on this sort of thing, do you imagine they won't be able to get off on scenes from movies like this?

    "By your reasoning, then, paedophile porn would be acceptable, because there will always be a desire for it? How about heroin production?"

    Heroine is a bad example for me, I believe drugs should be legalized and regulated, I find it odd that the government chooses which harmful drugs (they can all kill you) we are allowed to take. If by paedophile porn you mean actual child porn, involving children, no it shouldn't be allowed, because it would be illegal to make. This was merely an extension of my point that, no matter how equal the sexes become, there will be people who want to be slapped and called slut, and people who want to watch it. If all parties are old enough to consent, and do consent, I see no problem.

    "which you seem to have missed the point of"

    You are saying that there is a sliding scale from one extreme to the other, which makes it difficult to truly determine what is wrong. I am saying you are right, and that is why we shouldn't be trying to determine what is wrong in media, only what is wrong in life.

    "Well it is the problem, or part of it. Pornography turns people into objects."

    Increasingly in popular culture, the opposite of your preferred world has been happening, in which women objectify men. I'm not saying that it is anywhere near the level that men do to women, but have you considered the possibility that sexual equality may be reached from that end?

    "Aren't you, then, advocating censorship of discussion?"

    No, I am not saying you shouldn't be ALLOWED to discuss this. I am saying this seems like the wrong route to take. But here, I think, we have reached our impasse, because you believe that pornography is a major cause of this problem, and believe it is more a symptom than a cause.

    ReplyDelete
  38. John Bullock:

    "How do you draw the line between objectifying/violent pornography, and objectifying/violent sex scenes in big production movies?"

    Well, although i don't like rape and abuse scenes in movies as i think they often glamourise and sugar coat the violence, the simple line is:

    1. Porn is made and it is intended that you wank to it.
    2. Violent films in movies are not ostensibly made to be wanked over (although i imagine they are by some)

    That's one of the reasons i hate the comparison between violent computer games and porn. The two are not equivalent.

    Also, there is a lot of porn out there that offers the viewer 'young looking girls' ie adult women dressed as schoolgirls. Gail Dines reckons this is linked to child abuse - ie if you have an orgasm looking at pictures of women looking like girls, then that *can* become problematic. She has some compelling research on this.

    in the post patriarchy we won't have porn because it would seem daft to portray women as objects for another person's pleasure.

    ReplyDelete
  39. OK, I'm getting into the actual issue here. Previously I've been approaching this from my own concerns over possible censorship (please don't tell me Nat was not saying she wanted porn to be censored, I've covered that), but, that aside, this is the first time I've considered objectification in any depth, so I have this question, and please answer it politely, I am asking because I genuinely want to know.

    What makes the world which Nat and Daz and a number of the other commenter's here wish to live in, where women are not objectified and porn has next to know demand because of the change in mindset, a better world than;

    a) one in which men and women are objectified equally or,

    b) people are objectified (whatever the ratio of men to women) but people have truly equal opportunities in life. For example, a woman who can do a particular job as well as a man will be paid the same.

    ReplyDelete
  40. John

    "I believe drugs should be legalized and regulated,"

    OT, really but... Separate issue, and I agree, for the most part. I have some, ahem, experience in the area. Heroin's a bastard, out on its own and different to most, though. I've seen what it does, and it ain't nice.

    "and that is why we shouldn't be trying to determine what is wrong in media, only what is wrong in life."

    I don't really see how media should or can be separated out from life. It's all interconnected. People get many of their impressions, usually subconsciously, of what's normal—and what isn't—from the media. If they see women portrayed as objects often enough, at least some of that attitude will be taken up by them. At the same time, media takes input from what they think their public wants, amplifies it, and sends it back out. It's a feedback loop.

    "What makes the world which Nat and Daz and a number of the other commenter's here wish to live in...?"

    Frankly I don't want to live in the kind of society wherein 'equal' means 'treated/viewed equally badly'. It would definitely be equal and fair, yes, but hardly a nice place to live. I want to see my fellow human beings as more than mere objects, and I want them to see me in the same light. Otherwise, well, what's the point in having a society? Slavery abolitionists worked to free slaves, not make everybody slaves. Blacks campaigned for equal rights to vote and all the other things, not to have those rights taken away from whites.

    Saved this for last...

    "Like I said, I'm not great at this."

    Dude, I debate creationists. They have three or four central arguments that they learn parrot-fashion from websites, and repeat them over and over, with the wording changed slightly each time. They flat-out lie, and refuse to acknowledge any argument that contradicts their points. You're at least trying to engage instead of just repeating mantras. Don't put yourself down.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Objectification is dehumanization.

    When someone objectifies someone else it allows them to act without considering that person as a whole sentient and emotional being.

    When someone objectifies someone else it allows them to treat that person badly as they only see that person in terms of the service they provide them.

    A world where people view each other as one dimensional objects without minds or emotions to be treated as insentient objects to be used in whatever way gratifies the user seems wholly depressing and negative.

    You don't need to disregard the feelings of people unless you suspect that what you are doing is hurting those feelings.

    Surely the obvious ideal is a world where everyone views others as fully rounded individual people and considers the results of their actions on those people.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thank you for the explanation, Daz Spudman, it makes sense. I have one final question.

    In the last 40 or 50 years, we (Britain) seem to have greatly overturned over 5000 years of sexual prejudice. It may still be around, but you have to admit that women have it better now than they did. Whose to say that generation our two of living in a society that prohibits sexism won't lead to a natural shift of mindset in the direction you would like?

    ReplyDelete
  43. The major advances in women's rights have been gained over roughly the last 150 years. Every one of them, from the rights to file for divorce, to vote, to own property separately from their husband, to equal pay, to equal opportunities, have had to be fought and campaigned for. Sitting still and saying nothing might not result in backsliding, but it sure as hell won't move anything forward, either.

    ReplyDelete
  44. (Here via Feministe's SSPS)

    My thoughts on these issues got long. I posted my reply at my own blog instead:

    http://afemanistview.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-reform-porn-industry.html

    ReplyDelete
  45. Daz,

    "The major advances in women's rights have been gained over roughly the last 150 years."

    I realise that it's been a long, hard slog to get to where we are, but my perception was that the LAW placed men and women equally, (I'm sure you'll let me know if there's some major issue in which women are still being screwed over), and that the sexist element is more a residual mentality left over from worse times. We haven't been long in a world where nobody in power can remember a time when women couldn't vote, and the people who are in power grew up with people who can remember that time.

    My generation (28, I'm not sure of your ages) is more willing to accept women as equals than my fathers generation, and his, in turn, is more willing to accept it than his father.

    Obviously, this point falls flat if there IS a place in law where women are treated unfairly, but, anecdotally, I've seen more instances of reverse sexism than sexism by the larger entities (the government, for example). The only example I can think of off the top of my head (because I'm a tennis fan and Wimbledon is currently going on) is the recent change in the prize money for the women's tennis players;

    Women tennis players used to earn less prize money than the men's tennis players at the Wimbledon Championships. A number of parties called this sexist, and the Wimbledon organisers caved, upping the women's prize money to equal the men's, which seems fair, right?

    Only (without boring anyone with the rules of tennis too much) men's tennis matches are best of 5, women's are only best of 3. Typically, a men's tennis match will last twice as long as its female counterpart, so the women tennis players are now effectively getting paid better than the men.

    ReplyDelete
  46. John.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but prizes aren't normally allocated on a paid-by-the-hour basis.

    As to advancements being in the law, you seem to have it backwards. The law changes when the old law becomes socially unacceptable. Thus the passing into law of women's rights—or rather more often the correction of those laws that took away those rights—happened because changed social attitudes forced lawmakers to address the problem.

    Anecdotal case in point: When I was growing up (in the 70s) it was 'common knowledge' that 'gays would be okay if they'd just stop hanging around toilets to pick up young boys'. Most of my generation grew out of that attitude, once we got old enough to (a) question 'received' ideas from our parents and (b) actually meet some homosexuals, and realise that they weren't especially different from anyone else. The law had nothing to do with this process. My Beautiful Launderette probably had more positive impact on the perception of homosexuals in this country than any law.

    There's a major perceptual problem with most civil-rights campaigns, by the way. (See the current brouhaha over gay marriage.) They get stigmatised as wanting more (often phrased by opponents as 'special') rights for the group in question, when they're actually just striving to get rid of laws that take away rights from them, that others already have.

    ReplyDelete
  47. There's a new post on this which is in response to SnowdropExplodes:

    http://fortyshadesofgrey.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-oppose-porn-industry-part-2.html

    ReplyDelete
  48. Before I read Pt 2, I just want to defend my Tennis analogy :D

    True, prizes aren't paid on an hourly basis, however, Wimbledon is a Grand Slam Tournament, which is one of four in the year which are the biggest tournaments a tennis player can compete in. Only at Grand Slams are men's matches best of 5. The rest of the years tournaments, men compete best of 3, same as women, and the prize money is significantly smaller.

    I worded my example badly, it was more a statement that fear of being labelled "sexist" pushed the Wimbledon organisers to award women the same prize money as men, even though their achievement was not the same achievement as the men's.

    In this situation it seems like either a) women are being given an advantage, which is still sexism, or, b) Wimbledon are saying that women are physically inferior to men, and their accomplishment is magnified because of that.

    I see your point about attitude changing law, but what law is there still to change? I'm not aware of any law that is still inherently sexist.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Re sport, esp Wimbledon. Seems to be a case of 'buggered if they do, buggered if they don't.' I'm not a sports fan of any kind, but my personal feeling (and a feeling is all it is) is that professional and monetarily-prized sport is too big anyway. We hear all sorts of stuff about 'for the honour' etc, but they wouldn't step on the playing field with out a promise of big bucks, either as pay or prizes. 'Sporting' used to be an adjective having to do with honourable behaviour, as well as the more common meaning. We need that back, I say. But I'm veering way OT here :-)

    Twas you who brought law into the equation, not me. I was merely trying to counter your assertion (as I read it) that the law was the driver of social change, when it's actually the reverse that's true. In this case, where a law would be impractical, the same social pressures can still bring about a change in the common perception of pornography.

    A statement of personal opinion: If it were practical to ban it by law, I would advocate for that. It would, I feel, be no more censorship than are laws against child porn. Certainly we'd need stringent guidelines as to what constituted pornography, but we already have at least the makings of that, in the shape of film classification boards.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @John RE: legal equality - you might be interested in what I wrote in March about feminist jurisprudence: http://fortyshadesofgrey.blogspot.com/2011/03/introduction-to-feminist-jurisprudence.html

    On the problems of achieving legal equality specifically:

    "There are three types of equality we may consider:

    1. Equality of treatment
    2. Equality of opportunity
    3. Equality of consequences

    No maternity provision in the workplace would be a result of (1) equality of treatment. However, women are more likely to be primary care-givers, this would mean a lack of (2) equality of opportunity for women. One result of this if that men and women do not share (3) equality of consequences when having children. Equality-based legislation has been ineffective in providing equal consequences in the workplace.

    There are also two different meanings of the word 'equality' that we may consider. Firstly, there is material/factual equality - that is to say, that two things/people are the same/interchangeable. The problems with this definition are that no two people are ever the same, and that women are designated different roles and functions to men and tradtionally have been viewed as materially different. Assumptions about gender differences are still made.

    The second meaning we may consider is moral equality - that is to say that two people are intrinsically worth the same. The problems with this are that sexes and nationalities have historically been viewed as materially different. Again, assumptions are still made. Also, the standard of comparator is the male norm. Similar treatment is only justified if men and women are the same in respect of the quality under consideration. Women are not competing on the same basis because of social norms which require women to be primarily responsible for the domestic sphere. If the experience is not shared by men (i.e. pregnancy), it is impossible for equal treatment to be attained."

    ReplyDelete
  51. @Daz

    OT: I agree the money in sport has gotten too big, but as the money comes (one way or another) from the people watching, I'm not sure there's an argument to make. In Tennis' defence, the players only earn money if they play well. A player wins Wimbledon, they get something like $2,000,000. If they don't get past qualifying, they get nothing.

    Your desire to ban porn (were it possible) I wholly disagree with on the basis that the acts depicted in the porn are not inherently illegal (whether they should be or not is a different debate). In the case of child pornography, the act of child sex, or sex with a child, is illegal, the act of consensual sex, however degrading to either party, isn't.

    @Nat

    I'll read your post tonight (on break atm), I did contemplate asking about the physical inequality, but avoided it as I'm probably already out of my depth in this debate (I intend to run crying back to my tech feeds when I'm done here).

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hello there,

    I've read this and many of the comments but not all, and I just have one question that hopefully someone can answered (and I apologise if it has been answered somewhere and I've missed it!)

    I read in the comments...

    "On another issue, I agree that even in a non-sexist society, there may be men aroused by the abuse of women. The natural spread of sexual kinks suggests that there will always be some people aroused by such things. -If- we lived in a non-sexist socity, this could be just a kink like another other, providing material was produced consensually. However, we do not live in this world.


    I think we can all agree that some sexual desires should not be catered for (for example, pornography featuring children). We do not deny that some people -are- sexually aroused by this, but we do say that is morally wrong and that these desires should not be catered to or encouraged, because of the harm that they cause.

    The same could be said for being aroused by the abuse of women (note than I am not saying that this is equally as morally wrong as child porn, just saying that there are sexual desires which we consider socially unacceptable). Just because a person has a sexual desire does not mean that that desire is acceptable."




    So, I mean first off, obviously problems with comparing any kind of porn of children with porn of BDSM. Children are not seen as legally being able to consent, which is why it's not only seen as morally wrong but also legally wrong. However, people who participate in BDSM are adult (thus able to consent) and unless in extremely awful circumstances (which obviously do exist sometimes with sex work) able to consent, therefore the "morally" wrong part of this is VERY subjective.

    Given this, how is it fair to dictate that this desire should not be catered for or to say it's a socially unacceptable desire? This seems to me like a mixing of the lines between fantasy and reality - without getting onto a huge discussion about reality vs fantasy and censorship and ect ect ect - how is it fair to dictate to people that their desire is socially unacceptable if it is consentual? Unless emotionally unstable, people can work out the lines between reality and fantasy, and I don't believe that all sex shown on a screen is automatically objectifying because it rules out the quite human desire to not only watch others but be watched - it's like saying those people don't exist?

    I understand the issues are that it COULD lead people to believe it's okay to abuse women, but that's missing out a huge part of the conversation - that someones sexual lives and their social lives are different, a huge discussion on consent, and also that BDSM porn isn't just abusing women, what about porn where the women is the dom?

    It's all well and good saying it's fine between people in the bedroom, but that's not really furthering the conversation, it's more like saying "behind closed doors" - which isn't really going to further society along in discussions of sexuality.

    Coming back to the original point I picked up on... "If- we lived in a non-sexist socity, this could be just a kink like another other, providing material was produced consensually. However, we do not live in this world."

    How do you plan to make this world without discussing that some people like BDSM, some like watching it, and some like being filmed?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Aimée Claire

    Sorry, little confused here. Could you point out, please, where someone on this thread has compared child porn with specifically BDSM porn, rather than with mainstream porn which increasingly contains BDSM elements portrayed as part of 'normal' sex?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Hey Daz, I've put the part I was referring to in in quotation marks? That seems like comparing it to me? But please correct me if I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hi Aimee,

    The comment which you are referring to was in he context of discussion of mainstream porn and censorship, rather than BDSM porn.

    I understand that BDSM is a complex issue, and that kink folks are very aware of and thoughful about issues of consent, respect for partners etc. I believe that Nat's follow-up post to this one discusses this issue more, and I recommend you read it as she's much more knowledgeable on that topic than I am. :)

    I do have some concerns, however, about the way in which pornography is discussed in feminist / BDSM dialogues. Whenever anyone rasises a feminist critique of mainstream porn, inevitably someone brings up BDSM and this becomes the focus of the conversation (Aimee, I don't mean to pick on you or suggest that's what's happneing here, it's just that I've had similar discussions on twitter recently whenever posting about mainsteam porn). And I think that this is an interesting issue which is certainly worth discussing.
    But it bothers me that debates over BDSM provide cover for mainstram porn which most people agree is deeply unpleasant and abusive. The vast majority of porn which is consumed is mainstream, not kink, and it seems like many BDSMers agree with the feminist critiques of this mainstream material. I don't think it's a bad thing to have an in-depth discussion, but it would be good to have some unity against the mainstream rather than divisions over details.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hi Georgie,

    Thank you for clearing that up! Sorry for the misunderstanding there, and I can understand the importance of not wanting to sway from the original argument into side details. I've read this post over a few times now and I'm still kind of absorbing it (and a few others), I feel very torn on some of these issues so I'm trying to understand where my views fit in really (so bare with me :P)

    I think what I'm finding hardest at the moment is the way that you're both saying (it was you and Natalie that kind of wrote this post somewhat together, is that right?) porn shouldn't be made illegal because obviously that drives it underground and thus makes it more dangerous, but we shoud hope to elliminate the need for it. I feel it kind of limits us as sexual beings though, and puts a limit on what masturbation is as such? I just feel like the idea of hoping that someday we don't have a need for it, limits the quite human desire in some people to watch others, and to also be watched? I mean hell my imagination is awessome too but when it comes to discussing sexuality, sex and especially porn and masturbation is put into this little box that limits the ideas of what it can be. I mean, if you're coming from an anti-capitalist angle, do you not mind people making porn as long as it's not making money for it or? (you'll have to excuse some of these questions if they're silly!)

    I just feel like rather than trying to make it so there isn't a demand for porn, there should be more of an idea to reform what porn actually is maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Ok, discussion aside. I agree 40 Shades of Grey. Now how do you intend to make it happen? This week it is quite clear just how powerful Murdoch the media has been to push pornography headed up by a woman.(First hurdle) We live in a country that has the lowest level of women MPs etc etc (even with fixed lists). How do you intend to make the difference in real nuts and bolts activties as clearly human rights laws and ethics is not yet working in the UK? If you go back to how women got the vote, (well documented by Wiki) it was mass civil disobedience & protest. I don't believe we have the poltical will to do stop pornography yet. So how can it become part of an education system for the future? What are the steps you suggest? Thanks !

    ReplyDelete
  58. You have a very good blog that the main thing a lot of interesting and useful!
    Buy Anti-Depressants Drugs

    ReplyDelete