The only real anti-pornography voice allowed in the mainstream media comes from the religious right. For years this was the only anti-pornography position that I was familiar with. It was so laughably easy to refute that it was hard for me to take anything except for the pro-pornography position of most liberal thinkers. When feminists against porn became visible to me I couldn't figure out what they were against exactly. I felt it would be worthwhile to make a handy guide that readers can link to whenever they encounter someone who is confused about the difference in the two groups. There are some good religious opposition groups that do not fit the characterizations here (like the pink cross foundation) which are worthwhile, but I am attempting to address the mainstream form of anti-pornography thought in society. I will demonstrate the difference by asking key questions about each movement's goals and philosophy. I will use the terms "feminists" and "anti-pornography feminists" interchangeably for the duration of the post for brevity.
Who is hurt by pornography?
According to religious opposition groups, men are the primary victims of pornography. If they consider women victims, it is only in their capacity as wives of addicted men. Women in pornography are perpetrators rather than victims, they are to be shamed into repentance for failing to stay pure.
Feminists against pornography recognize that women in pornography are the direct victims of the pornography industry. Women outside of pornography are affected as well, and men (as pornography users) come in last as a concern because they suffer the least and are actually creating the problem.
What kind of harm does pornography cause?
Religious groups will say that pornography causes harm by making people less pure spiritually, they may call it adultery. The main message is that god doesn't approve of sex outside of the PIV marriage arrangement, the sort that results in children. Pornography shows sex that is "wrong" according to their exclusive source on what is right in the universe (aka God). Pornography is so great that it might make a man not want to have sex with his wife and then god will be mad about deviation from his plan (its the one with fruitfulness and multiplication).
Feminists see the harm of pornography as the harm it causes directly to women in the pornography. Women are infected with diseases and can be otherwise harmed by the sex acts in mainstream pornography. Others are pressured into doing things they don't want to do or pimped out to make pornography. Many have drug problems, mental illnesses, or abuse history that makes it impossible to ethically hire them for sex work. Feminists also recognize harm done to women not-in-porn by the way pornography has dominated thought about sexuality. The vast majority of pornography shows only one kind of sexuality, the kind where men call the shots and women are totally receptive of whatever men want to do to her. Communication is abusive or non-existent. This portrait of human sexuality makes it very easy to justify rape or not notice rape. Women who have boyfriends or husbands who watch porn are pressured into porn sexuality in their relationships. The majority of men watching pornography means that this is a very widespread issue, one that women my age all seem to be aware of. No one gets to figure out what sex means for them personally when pornography is such a huge influence on sexuality.
What is wrong with men who watch pornography?
Religious thought dictates that these men have sinned because they have been led astray by satan. The images of pornography have a natural appeal that is difficult to resist. A mans sex drive, combined with spiritual weakness, is to blame for his failing.
Feminists don't think that that men are full of uncontrollable lust, they choose to watch it. Many men have internalized the ideas in pornography and enjoy the hurt of the women in the pornography. Studies about the attitudes of johns show that they use pornography at a rate that is much higher than most other men, and that they have deluded themselves into thinking that some women are" made for" prostitution or pornography, that they are inherently different than women not-in-pornography.
What should men do about pornography?
Religious groups think men should quit looking at porn. They encourage prayer and psychological help, sometimes 12 step programs.
Anti-pornography feminists believe that men have a duty to speak up against pornography when possible. Silence gives other men the impression that you approve of their behavior.
What is the ultimate goal of the anti-pornography movement?
Mainstream religious anti-porn groups typically want a homogenous population of christians (or muslims or mormons etc) that have heterosexual sex inside marriage only. Many seem to think that obscenity laws are a sensible way to accomplish this. They believe that pornography is so alluring that it acts like an addictive drug and should be banned. It appeals to some inherent desire in men so it needs to be controlled.
Anti-porn feminists want the abuse of women in pornography to end. The legislation introduced by radical feminists in the 80's tried to make it possible for women damaged by pornography to sue pornographers for damages. Other groups want OSHA to regulate pornography like they would any other occupation, and introduce things like mandatory condoms and the banning of practices that cause disease transmission. Most of us want the demand to vanish by helping women and men develop genuine sexuality that involves caring and communication, and want women to have enough economic and social resources so that it becomes difficult to coerce or force women into pornography. Most think that pornography becomes less appealing as society becomes more empathetic towards the people in the films. There is not an appeal inherent in pornography, the society that we live in (which elevates values like dominance, violence, and masculinity over cooperation & caring) is what makes pornography appealing to men.
As I was writing this it struck me that these issues are related to how these two groups view rape. Religious groups view the problem with rape as one of purity- a woman is made impure by the rape, and she can't get it back so the crime is really awful. If a woman is married or a minor and raped, it is a crime against the husband/father since he didn't approve of the use of her person. Feminists see the harm of rape as an assault on psychological welfare, a form of domestic terrorism against women to keep us in line, as something that harms all women not just "pure" women. The religious groups see rapists as men succumbing to their natural base urges, while feminists believe that rape has more to do with power over others rather than actually wanting sex.
Time and time again feminists are hit with the accusation that they are prudish or just don't like sex, equating them with the religious right in their opposition to pornography on the grounds of "dirtiness". The truth is that pornography feeds right into the religious ideas about sexuality presented here. Look at the names of the moves and the names of the acts and what the prostituted women are called in the pornography. They aren't called by respectable names, they are called dirty, whore, bitch, slut, cunt. The pro-pornography left doesn't differ at all from the religious right in the framework of discussing pornography and human sexuality. The left only differs in that they believe there isn't anything wrong with the pleasure derived from women via pornography. Feminist opposition to pornography is based on a foundation that is completely different from the two mainstream viewpoints, and makes it hard to understand at first as a result. People are so used to seeing this issue as one about freedom of speech for pornographers or sexual freedom for pornography viewers that they have difficulty stopping and thinking about it as an issue of concrete consequences for women as a class.
Thank you for your post. This is such a difficult issue to discuss with people. I often feel that they immediately assume that I'm religious when I point out the harmfulness of pornography. I need to read up on the subject more, but this will definitely provide a framework for any discussion I do have on the subject.
ReplyDeletei need to read up on this subject too. the anti-pornography beast was recently awakened within me. thanks to you skeptifem and my craven blogging partner.
ReplyDelete"The pro-pornography left doesn't differ at all from the religious right in the framework of discussing pornography and human sexuality."
ReplyDeleteI've never heard the religious right advocate for pornography that is driven by the needs and desires of the actors. I've never heard the religious right advocate for pornography which involves barrier methods for all parties and open communication on-screen. I've never heard the religious right advocate for queer bodies and marginalized bodies. But if they're really doing that, then perhaps I should invite them on over.
Again and again, I am constantly reading your posts and thinking to myself, "Hear fuckin' hear."
ReplyDeleteThank you again for your words.
I'll just say that, while feminism is extremely important to me, there are very simple reasons that I find the anti-porn arguments to be convincing.
ReplyDeleteIf women are being coerced into porn? Absolutely, tell me about it. If a company is knowingly spreading STDs, then raise a storm, I'll be right there beside you. Before I accept these claims, though, you have to give me evidence that these abuses are as widespread as you say. I will absolutely boycott a company that abuses women in the ways that you describe, and argue vehemently that others do the same. There's just no evidence that these abuses are epidemic to porn in general.
"Many have drug problems, mental illnesses, or abuse history that makes it impossible to ethically hire them for sex work."
This is why anti-porn stances are viewed as anti-sex. Is a woman (or any other person) who has drug problems or mental illnesses ethically unfit to work any other employment? If such a woman can ethically consent to any other kind of work, why, exactly, is she incapable of consenting to sex work? To pro-sex feminists, this certainly appears to demean not only sex, but the willful agency of women.
If there IS a reason or argument for why the mere existence of porn, and my consumption of it specifically, causes any harm to women, then believe me, I sincerely want to know about it.
Wow, I was just reading IBTP earlier today, and mulling over this argument to no satisfactory answer.
ReplyDeleteComing out of a right-wing christian home, my exposure to arguments against porn have almost exclusively been of that bent, and feminist explanations I've read against porn rarely addressed this difference. It always seems, in my head, to ultimately manifest as a group of people policing, and repressing, the sexuality of other people. You would think two social philosophies which are diametrically opposed at their core wouldn't share objectives.
The intentions couldn't be any different, but the practical results are the same.
That said, this is a very helpful approach for me to resolve this confusion. Gives me a lot to think about.
But one problem that comes immediately to mind is that I can't seem to accept the suggestion that in a post-patriarchal society, there would be no porn, be it supply or demand.
Firstly, the notion that all images depicting sexual acts for the purpose of inducing titillation by their very nature reinforce patriarchy, or are a wholesale invention of patriarchal forces, seems a bit off. Its as if you are just accepting the meaning that patriarchal society has ascribed to it, rather than deconstructing down to the source of porn's problems.
If you'll excuse a crude analogy, to ban porn just because the majority culture is gross and misogynist would be to ban human society, because the majority culture is gross and misogynist.
Second, you state that "there is not an appeal inherent in pornography," but there are many people, including women, who are inclined towards visual stimulation, and there are also people rather exhibitionist. How do you think people get into porn in the first place? Are visually stimulated peoples' sexualities just broken, and should be ignored and brushed off? Is there some room in the revolution to create non/anti-misogynist porn? Porn that does not hurt women in production, and does not degrade women in its message.
I know there are some groups out there fighting fire with fire and attempting such a thing. Doomed to fail, missing the point, naive, or deluded?
I have many other thoughts and questions, but I'm afraid if I voiced them all I'd just sound like a mansplainer trying to shout you down, when I'm just trying to crawl out of the dudely morass I've been dropped into.
I have to provide evidence, because if I don't educate you then you will be forced to just keep on wanking to it, eh? You don't seem very interested at all in finding out if it is true. Once you are alerted to the possibility of contributing to commercialized rape you should try to look into it yourself (if you are at all ethical). I linked to a shitload of resources for you to find out about stories of coercion and the way the industry is resisting condoms, but I should trot out all the same links again and explain them to you? Why? I challenge you to make an honest inquiry into these exact issues, using the links I provided or your own sources. Read books from porn performers, more than one (jenna jameson wrote one and so did linda lovelace), and check into what dudes like Robert Jensen and Jackson Katz have to say about pornography. Look into the little-heard stories of what HIV infected performers went through- most had fairly typical experiences before being diagnosed, and they are horrifying. Their illness was completely preventable. When researching the topic it is nearly impossible not to find a pattern of coercion and exploitation. My posts tagged "pornography" are also rich in information.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot equate sex work with all other forms of work, for multiple reasons. First off, most people don't feel that there is a problem with keeping folks with drug problems, mental illnesses, or abuse history out of certain professions already. It isn't a new idea, it is just a courtesy extended to non-prostituted women only (like OSHA protection from diseases). Most of us don't want drug addicts working in the pharmacy or a person with an active eating disorder working with those who are trying to recover. It is just a shitty idea. Pilots are also screened for mental illnesses and drug problems. So are gun owners (in some states). In some of these examples the ethical concern is both with individuals as well as the public that the individual can affect.
Most people also see the problem with employing the homeless in things such as bumfights (look it up if you don't know what it is). You cannot lump anything into "work" and accept that it can be consented to meaningfully by vulnerable populations.
People usually bring up burger flipping as the comparison, to make prostitution seem like any other job. Stealing a burger isn't comparable to rape, which is what theft of services becomes if you treat sex as a product that is equal to any other on the market. It just isn't comparable. There is another problem involved- if sex work is like any other kind of work, then what good reason is there to give welfare to women who qualify to prostitute at a brothel? If it is just like any other job there should be no ethical problem with forcing poor women to become prostitutes (just like we would require them to take a waitressing or janitorial job if it was an opportunity). Having unwanted sex (being raped) is a problem that most of us realize is different than handling food when you would rather be somewhere else. No one gets PTSD from flipping burgers. I have a very harsh opinion of the conditions of working people in capitalism, it is awful. It doesn't make the conditions that prostitutes encounter exactly as awful, however.
the nerd
ReplyDelete"I've never heard the religious right advocate for pornography that is driven by the needs and desires of the actors. I've never heard the religious right advocate for pornography which involves barrier methods for all parties and open communication on-screen. I've never heard the religious right advocate for queer bodies and marginalized bodies. But if they're really doing that, then perhaps I should invite them on over. "
I said over and over that I was addressing the mainstream, but you want me to pretend that the fringe of people saying that is the mainstream. Ever watch "the people vs. larry flint"? Dudes who want to wank are the mainstream of pro-pornography folks, and they aren't boycotting porn until the condoms show up. They are showing patronage to increasingly degrading pornography with less communication and enjoyment for women. You are talking about shit like "feminist porn", which, when googled, turns up a shitload more debates about if it is possible and the need for it, while things like "rape porn" turns up mostly...porn, and a shit ton more of it. Nine-deuce of rage against the manchine covered it nicely here:
http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2010/12/20/get-on-the-fucking-ball-janitors/
the only thing that turned up less porn than "feminist porn" was "janitor porn". You go on and pretend that what you are talking about has any bearing on the vast majority of pornography production and consumption though, I am sure it makes you feel a lot better about the world.
My apologies Skeptifem. In your replies to others, you clarify that you're talking principally about mainstream porn, not all porn as a concept. I feel like an utter idiot now. I should have read more closely.
ReplyDeletesier
ReplyDeleteWow jeez I didn't mean to make you feel bad. You aren't an idiot and it wasn't that big of an error or anything. I am grateful for your comment because it gave me an opportunity to address a common argument.
please don't feel too bad!
Thanks skeptifem. No, you really didn't make me feel bad. Just a bit of exaggeration for dramatic effect.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I'm not communicating very well. It is extremely important to me that I consume porn as ethically as possible. If there is actually no possible way for me or anyone to consume porn ethically at all, I absolutely want to know about it.
ReplyDeleteI gather as much information as I can on the porn that I support financially. I read anti-porn feminist blogs. I read I Blame the Patriarchy. I've given time and money to boycott efforts against Hustler and Girls Gone Wild, as these two companies have given us evidence that they have no compunction with exploiting women.
In some cases, the evidence against a specific porn company is absolutely solid enough to justify a boycott. Where I disagree is that there is enough evidence to extend this boycott to ALL porn, or even a large portion of it.
In a nutshell, it seems to me that an overall anti-porn stance against the mainstream porn industry as a whole relies on the premise that I cannot ethically accept the consent of any woman to give me entertainment, specifically sexuality. If this is an accurate characterization, ... it puts all women in the same category of capacity for consent and personal will as children.
Ah, here; Greta Christina is, like, five times the writer and intellect that I am: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2010/10/when-porn-goes-bad-girls-gone-wild.html
I don't know how porn can ever be consumed ethically.
ReplyDeleteOn one of skeptifem's previous posts about porn she contends that when sex becomes just another enjoyable activity like eating there will no more be movies about sex than there are movies about people eating and pretending to like the food. A commenter responded by saying her analogy doesn't hold up because there is the food channel and glossy cuisine magazines. She didn't respond and I've been puzzling over it ever since.
Most of the shows on the food channel are about food, not the act of eating which would be the correct analogy. They are mostly how-to shows, sometimes history of food shows, or know the world foods shows.
And when people do eat, most of the time they are offered food by people who hope they like it and people eat to confirm for the audience that, indeed, it is good. If they are offered food that they might not like or that is very gross, they don't pretend they like it. The recipient doesn't pretend she's loving the disgusting fare and the audience knows that as well.
Porn shows women really having sex and obviously pretending to enjoy it. Imagine a show in which a cook really prepares food that people eat and obviously pretend to enjoy. If the people have to pretend to enjoy the food, the food is not really enjoyable. That would be gross. And some people would enjoy watching that because they enjoy watching people be subjected to odious things and "take it." But, there would be no pretense that the audience derived their pleasure from simply watching people eat and enjoy food.
Any adult that has had sex, and not even watched porn, can listen to a series of audio clips and discern "Porn Orgasms" from "Non-Porn Orgasms." And that is weird. Everyone knows that women can fake orgasms convincingly in real life. (google "how can I tell if my girlfriend really had an orgasm") So why are porn actresses so bad at faking it when they presumably can get several takes to get it right?
Because it is essential that the porn audience be able to tell that the actress is faking it. That is why the porn acting is so incredibly exaggerated, faked and stereotyped - it is vitally important that the audience know the woman is NOT enjoying sex; that something unenjoyable is being done TO her that is immensely enjoyable to the man - who may also be over-acting, hence the vital importance for men to see the "money shot" for confirmation that he really did get off - and that she's taking it.
That is what porn is about - "humiliation and punishment" as skeptifem said.
Excellent article. The religious right hijacks everything. Recently Evangelical Feminist, or the hijacking of the word feminist, has been making rounds with Bachmann and her submission theology.
ReplyDeleteObviously if the Christian right deals with yucky porn as a way to get men closer to God and denies the harm done to women...that is what all the cool kids call, dookie.
Seriously, great work.
Kriss
Excellent post- thank you.
ReplyDelete