Firstly, the whole article seems to rest on that most ridiculous of fallacies - that pro-porn = pro-sex, and anti-porn = anti-sex. Without going into too much detail, let's just say that it's bullshit. I am proof that it is not the case.
Secondly, Arrowsmith links to an article by Brooke Magnanti (AKA Belle De Jour) which argues against a scheme to allow 'opt-in only' access to pornography, with ISP-blocking coming as the default. This serves to drive home her first fallacy ("Look! Both us women love sex and pornography!" - without mentioning that they are both very lucky women to a) not have been personally harmed in their chosen industries and b) make lots of money in the industry, when 99% will not have had those experiences) and also to introduce a new fallacy - all people who are anti-porn are pro-censorship. Again, bullshit. I'm opposed to censorship in any form, but censorship of the internet is particularly bad. It's unenforceable, and will surely be used to block other things. For instance, o2's opt-out default childlock blocks some feminist websites, because the technology is not sophisticated enough to differentiate between porn and talking about porn, or sex, or bodies. One of my friends wrote this very moving but hilarious piece about how a 'pornblock' would have affected her life as a trans* teenager.
Arrowsmith's only piece of actual linked research is to a paper [PDF] which claims that as porn use went up, rape went down in certain US states. The only problem is, that's not what actually happened. The paper measured how when internet use went up, rape went down. And that's... well, that's a very different thing. When this piece of bullshit research first came around in August, Sianushka wrote about it brilliantly, so I won't dwell on the matter.
Arrowsmith chucks out a few more canards in her quest to paint everyone who is anti-porn as anti-sex, claiming that
Women's rights are far stronger in societies with liberal attitudes to sex – think of conservative countries such as Afghanistan, Yemen or China, and the place of women there. And yet, anti-porn campaigners neglect such issues entirely
which manages to ignore both the fact that liberal attitudes to sex do not equal love of porn and that, be they anti-porn or not, feminists are usually the very people campaigning for stronger women's rights in those places. I have been involved with both issues.
Arrowsmith also argues that
Likewise, porn keeps many marriages going. How many couples do you know whose partners have identically matched libidos? Not many. Porn is an outlet for the sexual pressure built up in such relationships and also for (mostly) men who feel that communicating or finding a woman to have sex with is very difficult to achieve.Which seems a bit... well frankly, a bit silly. If you can't even talk to the person you've married about your sex life, I don't see how watching 'Busty Babez 3' will suddenly magically solve this.
Then Arrowsmith brings out the big guns, claiming
One man wrote to me recently saying that he had suffered cancer of the face, which left him heavily scarred and almost completely without confidence after a subsequent divorce. He said that chatting to webcam porn stars kept him from suicide.Which is a bit like David Cameron's "I met a black man who supported my anti-immigration rhetoric!" and Nadine Dorries' "Honest, loads of people have told me the same things as I believe. No, of course I can't say who." But, you know what? Someone once emailed me to tell me about how kicking an orphaned kitten with a broken leg right in the fucking adorable face caused his backache to go away. So I propose a programme of kitten-booting for all with chronic back problems. On a serious note though, of course I feel sorry for this man - but I would suggest that anyone talking to him in a pleasant manner and appearing to care about him would have lifted his self esteem. It seems a bit ridiculous to insist that them having their tits out must have actually been what did it.
So, that's basically it. The rest of it is "Of course the industry wants access to be stricter!" (which we then find out is so they can make more money from it).
But I'm sick of this bullshit. These pro-porn arguments are always selfish and immediately debunk-able. Arrowsmith wants to make money. The people who will cite Arrowsmith in an argument want quick and simple access to mainstream porn without consideration for the impacts it has on other people and societal interactions and oppressions. And frankly, it's boring. I'd have a lot more respect for someone who said "Yes. I accept the pornography industry is a horrible thing that treats people in it appalingly, is done to make the most money possible and doesn't care about who it damages in the long run, but I've thought about it and decided my 'right' to look at stuff while I masturbate is greater" rather than "Oh but no! Porn is the best! If I have children, that's what I want them to do. It's all gumdrops and rainbows and everyone is just super-awesome!". Because at least the first person wouldn't be a fucking selfish liar.
EDIT: I've been trying to post this as a response to Sian and Alex's comments yesterday, but my blog won't let me (yeah, if anyone can explain that, let me know), so just sticking it in here. Will respond to other comments tomorrow:
I wrote this comment after Sian's and Alex's comments yesterday, but couldn't post it. I'll try respond to the rest of you tomorrow:
Sian - I completely agree, and great post as usual. I think this sums up the Mothers' Union argument perfectly:
Alex - also, great points as ever. There's a real problem with defining porn (which is one of the many reasons why a filter wouldn't work). I tend to make a distinction between stuff done for profit (mainstream stuff to make money and/or amateur stuff done for the purpose of breaking into the professional type) and stuff done not-for-profit, which is usually where you'll find the stuff that's women-positive and isn't as transphobic, sexist, racist or whatever as the mainstream (i.e. stuff done for the love of making pictures of yourself fucking etc.). Obviously the second type requires a certain amount of profit to keep going, but that's not the main motive.
I've got no problem with people wanking or what they wank to (obviously within limits), I have a problem with the mainstream industry.
I also second your point about people being able to indulge in whatever practices they want without being 'degraded' - and also second your coughmumble. There's a good post here about submission in BDSM and how it can be positive if that's what you enjoy: http://feministsforchoice.com/bdsm-can-be-what-a-feminist-looks-like.htm
But I think it boils down to choice. I'd have no problem with my partner cracking one out over my face if it were my choice - and that choice would exist in a vacuum if I were just as free to do the same to him and it didn't have any effect on the rest of our interactions. Those obviously don't apply to your average porn actress/porn film.
Sorry if this was a bit rambly, I'll try and clear any issues up if I didn't make sense!
Well said Nat.
ReplyDeleteWhat also really annoyed me is that by saying porn is good for marriage, she is completely silencing the women (and men) who have found that porn has harmed their relationships either because of porn addiction or violence - as if their experiences don't matter. And to quote that stupid Scientific American study is, well, just stupid.
If a an anti porn feminist had cherry picked research and used anecdotal evidence like that, she would be utterly shouted down...the article is very unbalanced, it ignores the wealth of research to the contrary and silences people who have had different experiences.
ooh, and here's my blogpost on the news story - thank you!
ReplyDeletehttp://sianandcrookedrib.blogspot.com/2011/10/blocking-porn-is-not-answer.html
Yeah, there's a certain confirmation bias with the Belle de Jours of the world. If someone has a blog and a book deal and a PhD student's command of English they're going to be listened to a lot more than, say, a trafficked teenager who doesn't have time for a blog and knows next to no English because she was whisked away from school at 15. The ability to speak and especially write about your experiences is a luxury, eloquence is a privilege and we shouldn't forget either.
ReplyDeleteI also find the term "sex-positive" a bit of a funny one, given that it's never actually sex being discussed. It's either pictures of sex, or financial transactions accompanying sex, or clothing and behaviour designed to imply sex, or even just words for sex. Never to my knowledge one person's mouth and naughty bits actually rubbing on another's. You might as well claim you're a pacifist because you dislike khaki.
Still, I wasn't sure about this:
"Yes. I accept the pornography industry is a horrible thing that treats people in it appallingly, is done to make the most money possible and doesn't care about who it damages in the long run, but I've thought about it and decided my 'right' to look at stuff while I masturbate is greater"
I don't see as either of those things are issues here. Firstly, this porn-block isn't going to filter porn based on how ethically it was made and what it implies about the value of women. Secondly, the right to look at stuff while masturbating is a sub-section of the right to look at stuff, which obviously is a right and a very, very important one.
But the main issue I have is with the term 'porn'. I just don't think it's useful. "It's just naked people fucking" is obviously an oversimplification and demonstrably not true, but the term 'porn' refers to couples consensually filming their consensual sex and sharing it with others as much as it does to a lucrative underground child-snuff ring or glossy LA film-parodies. It even gets applied to two women kissing on a plane in some people's minds.
On top of that, an awful lot of the arguments about what is and isn't "porn" are based on hand-wringing, frilly-curtained middle-class decency. This doesn't count as "porn" because it's art and art is wonderful and frightfully important and there's no chance of plebs tugging to it, while this clearly is "porn" because, I know it's beautifully shot, cleverly written and movingly acted, but I just don't share that particular perversion. It's a word with a very loaded history and I'm not sure I trust it.
Modern mainstream industrially-produced porn does a lot of very unsavoury things. The quaint obsession with masturbating onto women's faces clearly has some rather weird psychology behind it and probably not very feminist. Showing women actively liking sex and doing it for their own enjoyment is in and of itself a good thing, but they're treated as exceptions - it might not be slut-"shaming" considering how much porn loves sluts, but it's definitely identifying the category which is just as damaging. Nor is amateur porn blameless, as it's obviously more likely to be made by enthusiasts of the pro stuff and clearly mimics it.
[...]
[...]
ReplyDeleteBut just condemning "porn" for those things catches an awful lot of things that aren't in and of themselves bad. Pictures of a woman with a cock in her mouth aren't degrading, any more than oral sex is degrading. What often is degrading is the language and context accompanying the act. Pictures of a woman being degraded aren't even degrading, because some people [coughmumble-me-coughmumble] actually quite enjoy being degraded during sex and don't feel debased as human beings when it's over.
There are some very serious discussions to be had about what tropes are good and what tropes are dangerous, what business models in pornography are more or less exploitative (the fact that the women in porn have the scarcest and most crucial business asset and are still the ones most likely to be exploited is definitely cause for concern) and why porn has developed the way it has, but discussing whether porn is good or bad is about as useful as asking "are liquids good for you?". "Pro-porn" is not the bullshit at stake here - the bullshit is lauding "porn" as a monolithic thing without any attempt to define or specify what it actually is they're in favour of.
This is a subject that I have struggled with for a while and I agree with Alex that "Porn" is to broad a category for me to decide on a straight forward pro or anti stance.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I would like to see is the industry subject to more scrutiny from the public (and not in a titillating Channel 5 faux documentary way) so that people are more aware of the problems with the porn industry and the humanity of the "porn stars".
Fantastically put.
ReplyDeleteI read it too; and was irrate after the first paragraph!
"Since Andrea Dworkin wrote about pornography as being anti-women in the early 1980s, we have become acclimatised to the idea that porn is bad for us, and must only be tolerated due to reasons of democracy and liberalism."
Dworkin, MacKinnon and the anti-pornography feminists of the 1980s were arguing a serious issue. They worked with former porn stars and encouraged them to reveal their experiences to demonstrate that even when it’s being portrayed that the women in pornographic films are enjoying themselves, there’s sometimes a very sinister undercurrent of abuse, violence, rape and manipulation.
Whether you’re anti or pro porn or whatever, taking somebody else’s contention completely out of context and likening it with some kind of fabricated prig, killjoy campaign to stop everyone enjoying themselves is underhanded.
A lot of the arguments against porn are from those genuinely concerned about the dangers of the industry. Be it the perpetuating of the hypersexualisation of women, or the more pressing issues of violence and exploitation.
I agree that porn is a broad term and I’m not even sure exactly where I stand on the issue, but to undermine the intensions of those who are opposing it is plain treacherous.
Arrowsmith is using the oldest trick in the book here. Implying the argument is passé and thirty years old and no longer relevant.
The debate on pornography reminds me of the one over the economy. People can see that the "current" economic model is wrong, but they are less sure on what is wrong and what the alternative would be.
ReplyDeleteAnd so you have lots of people saying things like "we need a less selfish capitalism", or "short term gain is bad for the economy".
It would be nice to believe that if only we could make the system "less bad", then everything would be ok.
But this is not the case with the economy, and is not the case with porn. Both of them are bad, period. From the root. They are inherently bad, and there is no way to make them "better", only "less bad".
It takes an awful lot of "internal" work to come to terms with this reality. People usually start with "only a bit of it is bad". Some will go on to recognise the whole thing to be morally abhorrent.
It takes work to get there, but it can be done. It's much more freeing to build one's sexuality completely divorced from what brings profits to corporations.
Well hang on, what do you you mean by "porn"?
ReplyDeleteNat: Well, the choice does exist, it's just the other option might be destitution, or violence, or scuppering your chances of a Best Anal award.
ReplyDeleteI was actually going to make a wider point about degradation which is this: in a vacuum, the sub being degraded is being degraded as a sub, but the sheer popularity of women being degraded does change the context. I'm fine with women being degraded as subs, but the trope this popularity creates is one woman as sub and therefore women being degraded as women is indistinguishable.
I'd also take issue with your profit-motive thing. People don't go into porn *just* to make money but out of sheer love of porn. What the profit motive does do is shape the aesthetics of porn, and so what porn they love, and so, like I said, the same ideas will filter into the amateur stuff.
Arrowsmith's only piece of actual linked research is to a paper [PDF] which claims that as porn use went up, rape went down in certain US states. The only problem is, that's not what actually happened. The paper measured how when internet use went up, rape went down. And that's... well, that's a very different thing.
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to point out that both sides of this debate are guilty of this argument. A few months ago here in Ireland, police statistics were released showing an apparent increase in sex crimes by juveniles. The headlines screamed things like "Porn linked to rise in juvenile sex offences", with police sources blaming the fact that young people now all have smartphones. That was the extent of their evidence.
@Wendy I completely agree. I find that this 'anti-porn' evidence cherrypicking tends to come from the right wing (although not exclusively) and it's rubbish, because it undermines the entire argument. This is a pet peeve of mine - it's something that can be seen every day in the mainstream media. A couple of months ago there was a story in the Mail claiming that "Now science PROVES that bossy women have less sex!". The actual truth of the matter was..... somewhat different: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/13/bossy-women-less-sex
ReplyDeleteLot of interesting comments about the subject. The general impression I'm getting is that the term "porn" is far too vague for one to easily state whether they're "pro-porn" or "anti-porn". Even if we narrow the discussion to mainstream porn, there is still a lot of lee-way.
ReplyDeletePorn websites like the especially popular "imagefap" thrive on amateur pornography: they don't see a penny, the individuals are being totally consensual about the matter, and they are clearly enjoying themselves. No one, as far as I can tell, is being exploited in that instance, but this is very different from what we see in films like "Sex: The Annabel Chong Story". The film is quite possibly one of the most depressing documentaries I've seen. In it, a bright, friendly woman enters into the porn industry, convincing herself that what she is doing is satisfying and industrious, yet we are shown at every juncture, how self destructive it all is. She gets exploited by knowing, sleazy directors who don't pay her, her grieving relatives are ashamed of her life choices, and due to her lack of pay, she lives in appalling living conditions. And this was a women who consented to this life style. What about sex-trafficked young girls, violent sex, or racist/sexist stereotyping?
So even within the mainstream genre, we see very different experiences and conditions. The only point I can make out of all this is that the subject is too broad to say anything beyond the fact that there is good porn and bad porn, and we need less bad porn.
It's not porn I'm against, it's how porn is made and viewed. It could be not degrading, but thing is : it is.
ReplyDeleteD/s relations are not degrading, but thing is : with porn, it is.
Truth is, there's not much videos in which women are respected. And even when they are, who'll always find people (men) to make crude comments.
That's casting pearls before swine ("giving jam to swines" in my country, because I don't understand why you would talk about pearls, but anyway -).
That's how something you are supposed to enjoy watching actually disgusts you. Sad.
And I'd like to say that even when it's made with a total respect of the woman, the videos are ALWAYS aimed at men.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion. Anna Span's pornography exploitative by nature.Maybe as soon as you try to film sex it becomes exploited.
ReplyDeleteThat is not to say that I don't think Pornography is an art form. I believe it is.It's just an art form that exploits.
'Christane-F.' is an interesting film,because here drug use is explicitly shown in connection to prostitution.
Why aren't we going to see pornography with the actors/actresses using heroin? If Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston had been prescribe 'state of the art.' painkillers is it any surprise the were both part of the same nation that is a mainstream producer of gonzo porn. Maybe there is a connection?I personally praise a lot of the Anti-porn material from the USA and I think they are forward thinking in this respect.If as individuals and as a society we are happy to exploit the world for its resources then pornography to some extent is an extension of this way of thinking.What Really gets me is this planet is abundant with food,warmth everything we all need to live like kings or queens, but greed gets in the way over nature.It's interesting to think of masturbation as a spiritual and loving act you give to yourself. So if society chips in 'This is the male orgasm.You need this so consume porn, to be a man.' as people we need to question this behavior.Is this something that has is innate to us? A child has no desire to have an orgasm .As teenagers we are subjected to the axis of capitalism,which is built on pornography.This shapes our way of thinking.Teens need to stand up to porn, as they one of the main subjects of ridicule through it's propaganda.