pornography and respect

I am compelled to write about a post on free thought blogs by Greta Christina. She is angry that she cannot do pornography and still be taken seriously as a female intellectual.

To which I say HA! Women aren't taken seriously to begin with. Participation in pornography (or not) is just makes it a tiny bit easier for sexist men to dismiss women. Women who want serious roles in society- like intellectuals or political candidates, are degraded based on their sexual worth OR lack of it. I will use my favorite example once again: Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin- one was berated non-stop for being unattractive and lacking sexuality, the other (who never made porn) had porn and blow-up dolls made of her to ridicule her because of her perceived sexual worth. Dudes will make their own reel of pornography of you in their minds, and then blame you for the quality of it, no matter what choices you make as a woman. This is the meaning of being of the sex class- men assume women exist for sexual usage.

Greta acknowledges that in her post, but seems to be confused about the purpose of pornography from the users point of view. She peppers her post with assertions about pornography representing sexual freedom, but doesn't seem to examine it from the average pornography viewer's point of view. There are many more viewers of pornography than makers of it, so examining the practical impact of pornography means looking at viewers. The mainstream of pornography promotes a sexist and rape culture compatible view of sexuality, and the social benefit of such a system is exclusive to men.

A woman can think she is doing something transformative or feminist when she does pornography or stripping or burlesque or whateverthefuck, but the real-life impact of the act is always the same: men feel that their view of women has been confirmed. Sexual submission to male fantasies won't get men to rethink their sexism, it will only reinforce what they already believed about women in general. It is another painful illustration that intent isn't magic, and that no matter how much any woman wants pornography to mean something different, she cannot change an entire social order by participating in dominant social institutions while calling it something else. Other collectively shared social institutions work in a similar fashion; the idea that a piece of paper with specific markings is worth one dollar of spending power cannot be changed by any individual asserting otherwise.

I also find it off-putting that Greta's post doesn't discuss her privilege in being able to choose to be a sex worker or not. I often find that discussions about sex work that chiefly focus on sexual freedom and expression are from people who do not realize that the common sex worker isn't there because she prefers being a sex worker. She is usually there because someone made her into one via pimping, poverty, drug addiction, or abuse. It is impossible to separate words like pornography and prostitution from their practical impact on the majority of women within those systems. Trying to separate the words from the women who are harmed within the system disgusts me; it makes the reality prettier for men who want to believe that their pornography or prostitute consumption is morally acceptable. Any discussion of choosing to do sex work or not should come with a disclaimer of privilege in that regard, the same way that posts about race or sexism from privileged people (white people, men) should come with a disclaimer of their position in society. Most sex workers with the privilege to choose just lament the way that there is stigma attached to their careers (or hobby in this case), as if that is the most important issue to discuss instead of the slavery and abuse going on within the sex industry right now. It may be an important issue to discuss when, at a minimum, the majority of sex workers actually choose their profession. For now, using words like sex work, prostitution, pornography, etc without making any distinction between women forced into it as slaves and women like Greta makes it difficult to discuss coherently. I generally picture the common person within those systems when they are mentioned, but the great PR campaign by "sex positive" feminists means twisting the practical definition to mean someone who is statistically exceptional. It is bullshit. These words should conjure up the ugliness that they represent (99% of the time).

PZ myers made a post asking what is especially bad about being in porn, compared to other occupations. The assumption in that common question is puzzling to me- they seem to be saying that all work is exploitative, so why care? When really it points out a lot of problems with work within capitalist systems- there are alternatives to explore.

Anyway, he seems to think that it is like flipping burgers or any other occupation, but it isn't. For one thing, workers who are in pornography are not protected by OSHA and are routinely exposed to diseases. They are screened for them (as damage control) when prevention (via condoms and exposure limiting sexual practices) is easily available. Then there is the matter of the service provided- theft of services at any other job may be unpleasant, but it isn't rape. The documentary The Price of Pleasure (available on netflix instant download) also illustrates other differences between pornography and typical employment. Even if a woman isn't exposed to diseases she is often asked to do extremely uncomfortable things. Towards the end of a movie a woman on a pornography set who has been talked into ATM (ass to mouth) after hesitating initially walks of set to vomit. There isn't an equivalent in other lines of work; no one is coerced into tasting their own shit for money outside of pornography.