Girls Gone too wild?
I've been wanting to ask this question for a while but more important matters would always steal away my time. Reading this article tonight jogged my memory.
Is starring in pornographic materials degrading or empowering for women?
I trust that everyone will maintain their respective levels of maturity and remember that, as a result of the newfound popularity of our blog, the readership has grown (i.e., please don't include lascivious details you wouldn't want to mention in front of your 2nd grade teacher).
Is starring in pornographic materials degrading or empowering for women?
I trust that everyone will maintain their respective levels of maturity and remember that, as a result of the newfound popularity of our blog, the readership has grown (i.e., please don't include lascivious details you wouldn't want to mention in front of your 2nd grade teacher).
posted by Melanie @ 9:47 PM
33 Comments:
Well, first off, the article in question and the question posed by Boudicca are two separate, yet closely related issues. I’ll try to address both of them:
First point, Part One: As to whether porn is degrading or empowering to women: I believe that depends on the woman. Now, this might sound a little misogynistic, but I’ll elaborate… Some women, like some men, are hedonists—dominant sexually, self-empowered. They see their sexuality as a blessing and are proud of it, and want to share (or, at least aren’t afraid to share) it with others. For those women, it is empowering, at least they may perceive it as such.
Other women, like other men, are repressed, or submissive… and let themselves be taken advantage of—or prefer to be taken advantage of. This is actually a two-headed [monster] point. Some submissives engage in pornographic activity because that’s how they are able to feel appreciated. These are the ones who are ‘empowered through degradation,’ so to speak. Others are just plain taken advantage of. David Cross jokes about it in one of his stand-up routines:
“'I'm going to go to L.A. and I'm going to show the world what I've got!' And they get here and they're just overwhelmed. 'There's a premiere!' And 'There's E!, Entertainment News!' And there's, 'Look at this, look at the stars and everything!' And they just know they're going to make it, and then, you know, cut to six months later when it's like: ‘[Deep breath] Ok...just...don't get it in my eye...’”
A somewhat humorous account of the sad truth. He was actually talking about how he didn’t really like it in L.A., and was glad to be living in N.Y.C. But I believe this to actually happen: young, aspiring actresses travel to La-La Land, searching for their dream, only to be taken advantage of by a porn producer, after their dreams are dashed by the reality of life in Los Angeles. For these women, I see porn as degrading.
I’ve viewed enough porn to see that some women (at least appear to) enjoy what they are doing on film; and with others, you see this soulless expression on their faces, in their eyes. There are some “reality” porn sites that find girls to take advantage of, and you can see in their faces, they’re almost about to cry. Now, I’m not sure if this is staged or real—because I know some of them are staged to seem like they’re spontaneous, “real”—but the effect is the same: these women seem like they’re being taken advantage of.
First point, Part Two: It depends on the man. Some men can view pornographic material, and can distinguish between that and reality. These are men for whom porn neither empowers or degrades women, and doesn’t lead to marital stress (something I will address in my second point). Other men, however, cannot distinguish between porn and reality, and this leads them to objectify women—expecting them to behave in reality they way that porn stars act.
Second point: The article talks about pornography and its effects on the mind and thus relationships. I never knew what to think on this matter until more recently in my life.
I have been in relationships where pornography was more interesting than sex with my partner. It didn’t make me neglect them, though. I felt bad about the whole thing, and ultimately, the relationship ended. I don’t blame sexual interpretation through pornography… but perhaps the difference in intrigue between real life and fantasy, and how each of use viewed each of those, led to a realization of differences. This probably would have happened without adding pornography to the equation.
Also, I know what extreme behavior—by those men who fail to distinguish between porn and reality, and project [force] those behaviors on women—can do to women. If a woman, who is normally somewhat demure, enters a relationship with such a man, who “trains” her to be a porn star in the bedroom, this can affect her very negatively. This is especially so if said relationship ends, which can lead to either a rash of questionable behavior, or can cause sexual dysfunction in later relationships. I know this to be true and happen. I’ve seen it.
Porn doesn’t always lead to marital stresses, but it certainly can—either in a current relationship, or through complications due to ‘sexuo-emotional baggage’ in later relationships. It depends on the man to distinguish porn from reality, and not impose extreme behaviors on women, who in turn need to analyze those behaviors to determine how extreme they perceive them to be, and reject those that surpass the threshold of sexuo-emotional comfort.
Excellent post-question and excellent first comment. I will try to add to the discussion with mine.
I'd like to start by directing everyone to consider Jenna Jameson's perspective. For a period in the late-90s, Jenna was "The Queen of Porn" and was probably the main reason pornography crossed over into the mainstream.
But Jenna's book is not just a delightful romp through her sexploits. She herself subtitled it "a cautionary tale." The biggest porn star of all time had a harrowing homelife and probably didn't enter the adult film industry as a first choice.
I bring this up because the idea of pornography being "empowering" for the participants is based largely on the idea that the adult film actresses are well-balanced individuals who are embarking on a thoughtful exploration of their mature sexuality. As it goes, they are so comfortable with themselves they're willing to share with the rest of us. Jenna indicates this may not be the whole story.
So what does this mean for young women who "go wild" for the video camera? Does this stem from a mature sexuality or because they think it's what boys want to see (in part because of the ubiquity of porn)? I think we'd agree that the purpose of women's rights and feminism is to enable women to make their own choices without first considering what men think about it. It would seem to me that "Girls Gone Wild" is the exact opposite of that.
At the same time, I must admit that some adult film actresses - and porn enthusiasts - do not all bring emotional baggage into it! In this vein, I'm very sympathetic to the idea that's all harmless fun between consenting adults. If everyone knows the rules of the game, so to speak, what's the harm?
To expand a bit further on that thought: if everyone participating and viewing realizes that pornography isn't a real, accurate representation of sexuality, it's perfectly fine. To view it otherwise and prohibit it would be to assert that, say, cartoon violence on TV is just as bad as getting in a barfight. That kind of thinking leads to a puritanical attitude toward sexuality that is just as unhealthy as hedonism in the long run. Furthermore, I agree with Gaufridus that many of the so-called "problems" in relationships that are allegedly caused by pornography have other, unrelated causes. A bad relationship with pornography could be just a symptom.
As you can probably tell, I'm really undecided on this issue. I don't like the idea of the good name of sex being used to exploit and demean; but at the same time, consenting adults have the right to feel 'empowered' in whichever way they choose.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Somewhat more coherent than mine?
Bolstering my case that some pornography is not exactly designed for 'emotionally mature' audiences: feel free to look at the titles in Nadia Nyce's filmography (some sensitive content).
Yes, I failed to mention the women who have troubled pasts, which led them to pornography. I half forgot, half avoided this subject because I don't know how to address it...
Perhaps these women fall into the "Some women, like some men, are hedonists—dominant sexually, self-empowered" category I mentioned above... There are some women who think that their only value is sexual in nature. I think it's farily logical to assume that a troubled home life would only exacerbate these feelings.
That's the only explanation I can think of for a troubled past leading ot porn. Otherwise, people just go into therapy, or pick up an expensive opium habit, or turn to other socially questionable bahavior... I assume.
That is all.
There's actually two questions at work here - whether porn is degrading to the women who are in them, and whether porn is degrading to women as a whole. And the answer to both is sometimes.
For the majority of porn actresses, this is something that they choose to do. You can say what you will about their fucked-up childhoods, and I'm sure they have issues, but in the end most of them fight tooth and nail (and... other parts) to be a top porn actress. Why? Because top actresses can make a small fortune doing it. Professional porn is a very well-run industry with professional, responsible sets and organizations watching out for the actors to make sure they're not taken advantage of. Yes, Jenna Jameson didn't come to porn through the best of routes, but I'm sure she's overall happy with her life now.
Of course, with the advent of the internet comes a lot more shady porn, and that to me can be disturbing when the woman is either clearly drunk or clearly uncomfortable. However, I would argue that that crosses the line into, well, videotaped rape. However, I'd say in general the woman who work in the porn industry are agreeing to do this films, and are 'acting,' in a way, and are not being degraded.
Now as far as woman as a whole... porn is, and should be viewed as, total fantasy. You can watch couples do things to each other that your partner never would, and you might not want them to. As long as it is thought of that way, there's no reason it should be degrading to women in general. It fulfills a need that, like it or not, is out there. The problem comes when people don't realize that porn is a fantasy, and feel that that's an appropriate way to look at and deal with women in the real world. I'd like to think that that's a small percentage of the people who watch porn, though I have no stats on this. Anyway, I can expand upon this more later, but works calls...
Something to consider...
Both questions raise the issue of sexual exploitation and victimhood, in a way which makes me wonder, why is it always the female who is considered to be exploited and victimized? I'm not denying that this seems to be the state of things, but why? Something inherent to do with the act, or simply the differences between genders. Are women just expected to be more sexually cautious, or are men expected to be better at dealing with 'those kind" of situations? Is it some of both? Because I have to wonder why the porn is degrading to women and not to the men.
True, men are involved in this as well. However, as most porn is marketed to straight men, the guys in the videos tend to avoid some of the more humiliating or, shall we say, acrobatic elements. They're usually the ones calling the shots, especially in the new, "Girls Gone Wild" style porn. This does mean, however, that they're generally paid less than their female counterparts. I'm not saying anything with this. Just making a point.
My only point was that it's a bizarre double standard, but it's not going anywhere, so why does it exist?
Pascal --
Your point is one that I immediately thought of after posting. I pseudo-rationalized my limitation to strictly women in this case by considering the number of "fetish" sites I've viewed over the years. (Disclaimer: I spent my Master's time in an office of all men, and one in particular left his laptop hanging out with no password protection, so the lads would change his homepage to something new and interesting everytime he left to teach, go to class, etc.) In the bulk of these, it was the women actively engaged in whatever the particular fetish was, with men either watching them in the pictures or with men as the obvious target audience.
With that said, I do welcome discussion on the empowerment or degradation of men in porn. I do recall some rather unique (to phrase it tastefully) fetishes that involved no women...
Apparently you weren't paying much attention when I said "I know this to be true and happen. I’ve seen it."
I've personally seen people who have been in relationships where they were coerced into performing like porn stars because their signifigant other watched porn, and thought that's how real people should act in the bedroom.
So, no... a little fantasy isn't good for people... at least not everyone. There are people who take it too far. Just because you say that "it really should be viewed as fantasy and not confused with reality," doesn't make it so. There are people out there who demoralize other people because of "fantasy."
Now I'm not saying this as grounds for the elimination of pornography. But I think some standards need to be set, and perhaps there needs to be some sort of regulation. With simulated rape, snuff, torture and what-have-you websites out there, there is certainly a lot more questionable activity that is vastly more accessable than it was before the advent of the internet.
Perhaps we need to differentiate between public and private; between societal and personal. Is pornography a national epidemic, encouraging all of us to be mindlessly hedonistic?
No.
Does pornography have a negative effect on some people, and their relationships, because they are exposed to extreme pornographic behavior, and want to incorporate it into their sex lives?
Yes.
Is the amount of dramatic primetime television that contains violence and other questionable material increasing? Exposing a broader audience to it?
Yes.
Is this trend going to encourage people to rape, rob and destroy, as is done on these dramatic shows?
We don't know.
I say, I doubt it, for the majority of cases, at least. Some people are as easily influenced in broader social contexts, and would perhaps be more likely to engage in criminal activity, as there are people influenced by porn. I'd like to think that these shows showcase the depravity that unfortunately exists in the nooks and crannies of our society.
So, this is quickly turning into a question of scope versus scale, and turning away from the original question, and the related one raised by the article.
Excuse me if this seems somewhat defensive, but my personal experience with this type of complication makes your apparent "laissez faire" attitude toward the matter somewhat hard for me to swallow.
Much of what I would have said has been covered more eloquently than I might have put it, so I will not waste words going over the same ground.
RE: Porn (and indeed mass media in general)'s detrimental effect on people:
I have no direct experience with the situations Gaufridus has described involving the forced projection of porn sexuality onto an unwilling partner, but it seems to me that the men (interesting that I assume without asking that it is the men doing the projecting in these cases) involved already have a more serious and fundamental flaw. Someone who thinks it acceptable to force their partner into any sort of action or behavior (sexual or otherwise) is failing to see the other person as an equal partner, or even as a real human being. Such people are unfit for normal healthy relationships.
This sort of problem has many symptoms, one of which is certainly sexual fantasy projection. But seeing another human being as a means to your own ends can lead to all sorts of morally repugnant behavior, from physical violence to predatory relationships that sap the partner's self worth.
I would not disagree that the particular symptom of projecting an unwanted sexual fantasy onto a partner is, in a way, more insidious than say, physical spousal abuse (if equally abhorrent) because it can be prosecuted gradually in a way that masks the essentially degrading nature of (and damage being done by) the process. However, I would argue that while ready access to pornography probably helped shape the exact form of the psychological abuse the people in question visited on their partners, it was not the cause. Someone capable of forcing their girlfriend (or perhaps boyfriend) into actions and attitudes that are clearly damaging to them, could just as easily have picked another vehicle for abuse.
The overall point I am trying to make is that when considering legal sanction against forms of expression and media, we ought to be careful not proceed in a way that strips people of responsibility for their own actions and moral decisions by transferring some of the blame to the art/media/opinions available to them.
This comment thread continues to surprise and interest. Let's see, what has been said since my last comment...
Let me say that I think pornography - at least the kind we're talking about - is a fundamentally different kind of acting from mainstream cinema. I say this because, despite the out-and-out ridiculousness, there's an inherent realism to porn. By that I mean, adult film actors & actresses are actually having sex. This would be equivalent to the bad guy in an action movie getting beat up or killed for real to give the audience that feeling of authenticity.
This is why photographs and video of sex strike us - at some level - as more unnerving than canvas paintings or erotic literature, which no one here has decried. Because we can see something so close to reality, but lacking that specialness that makes sexual intimacy unique. We see people going through the motions in a very realistic way, but we know something's missing.
I bring this up because it relates to pretty much everyone's point about seeing people as means. Kelly said Jenna Jameson is probably pretty happy with her life now because she's well-off. I mean, all she had to do was have meaingless sex with hundreds of people for money, why would that upset anyone? Why would that skewer a view of human sexuality and true intimacy?
As for LoWrit's comment's about how this debases men. A thousand times yes! In the porn/GGW universe, men only exist to consume women and be otherwise vulgar, loud, and obnoxious. Now some will instinctively say "well, that's what they're actually like," which may go a long way to proving my point about how these depictions can be more influential than we would like.
Actually, I'd like to zip back to my second-third paragraph and ask the group: are pictorial/video depictions of sex more offensive than written ones? Futher on, is there such a line as between a 'tasteful' sex scene in a legitimate movie and smut? Riff on that!
Wait, I take offense to Tacitean's comment that I think Jenna Jameson is happy because she's rich. Now, I wouldn't consider myself the expert on Jenna, but I have read a few interviews, and my comment was based on thefact that 1. yes, she is rich. I'm not going to lie, that helps a lot in life. 2. She's happily married. 3. She's famous, which has been a goal of hers for a long time. 4. She's started a foundation to help other adult film actors. 5. She's continued to act in porn despite the fact that she's rich, famous, and basically never has to work again. I'm not saying that's the ideal way to make it to the top, but from what she started from, she's made pretty good lemons from lemonade. In an odd way, she's living The American Dream. She's CEO of Jenna Jameson, Inc, and is moving into starting strip clubs in the Arizona area. Maybe I didn't explain that fully before, but I think for many (not all, many) porn stars, they are fairly comfortable with what they do. The top ones have reached a level of fame where they have the power to call their own shots and do only what they want to do.
As to Gaufridus's statements that porn can be harmful to a relationship: I have no doubt that it can be. I said that porn SHOULD be viewed as fantasy, as should films, video games, and anything that acts out our baser urges. There are a lot of things that should happen in this world, but don't. Not everyone can draw the line between fantasy and reality so easily, but this is a minority of the population. 10% of the population abuse alcohol (I don't know this for a fact, I just made up a number). Does this mean we should reenact Prohibition because of this 10%? Or does it mean that we should make it more clear to society that they shouldn't take porn, especially fetish porn, as a way to live your life? I would go with that, and with the idea that Americans should have a healthier relationship with sex in general, but we've already had that posting....
Kelly,
Thank you for clarifying that for me. In your first comment, I really did think you were saying that since Jenna earned a "small fortune," everything was okay. I didn't know you were alluding to other choices she had made, too.
But let us switch focus slightly to discussing the aesthetics of erotica. LoWrit bristled at the negative stereotyping of men inherent in pornography, and let me ask this: does this have something to do with the fact that porn/GGW (both of which designed to appeal primarily to men) is visual realism? That is, it implies that men are satisfied only by graphic and simplistic images? If this is so (discuss!), it leads me to think that - despite our 'enlightened' attitudes - we still think pornography in this form is not entirely okay. Or rather, it's okay for men because they're dolts anyway.
So I ask my earlier question: what is the difference between an artistic nude or sex scene in a 'good' movie and smut? Is written erotica more respectable than visual? If so, why? Do they affect our behaviors in the same way?
Well, studies (and no, I can't point to them right now, but they're out there) have more or less concluded that men are more susceptible to visual stimuli than women, hence the disparity in the porn market. I doubt any of us here would claim that men just want sex more than women do, so I'm willing to buy that argument, but onto your bigger questions.
I readf a decent article last year in one men's magazine or another, the title of which was "Is it okay to get off on cartoon porn?" They're answer, which I'm also prone to agree with, was yes, and it's more socially responsible as well, seeing as no one was exploited in it's creation. That's obviously the root issue we're getting at anyway - exploitation, which can't occur in animation or literature or what have you. Look at Japanese Hentai, for example. The vilest things imaginable (usually involving tentacles) happen with alarming frequency. Is this disturbing - surely. But because it's not actually happening, morality - IMHO - never comes in to play. In live action, this certainly is not the case. Now thanks to Jenna Jameson and others like her in the field, the exploitation situation is certainly improving, but it would still be difficult to know who and what you're funding as a consumer, which is worrisome. That said...
I think theres an upside to pornography in a social sense that no one has addressed here. Namely, we are not monogamous creatures by nature, but it benifits us socially to strive for monogamy anyway. Porn/GGW allows for the roving eye to be sated while still remaining fidelitous. And as long as the subjects aren't being forced into their situations, everyone wins with that.
the exploitative nature of porn is somewhat difficult to quantify. but this is my take:
selfishness is characterised by this form of entertainment - complete selfishness, an attitude that is diametrically opposed to the very nature of the act.
all parties involved (producers and consumers) would tend to, whatever their particular motives, be in it for purely selfish reasons. that could be money, exhibitionist cravings, escapism, whatever.
giving reign to pure selfishness is always degrading - whatever form it happens to take.
If it's all the same to you, Pascals, I'd rather not look at Hentai. But I digress.
Your last paragraph intrigues me a great deal. Namely, the idea that pornography is a social boon because it channels our innate UN-monogamy into harmless routes. While I think there's a lot to be said for the idea you're espousing - and I do see what you mean - I have to disagree.
First off, I don't think your concept appropriately deals with the very, very natural emotion of jealousy. Monogamy (or a strictly-defined polygamy) wasn't a bad idea forced upon the free-loving human race, but a natural way to deal with jealousy. I think it's equally likely that, because we are jealous creatures, we're as naturally (if not more) monogamous as polygamous or even polyamorous.
So how does this connect to the idea of using pornography as an aid to monogamy? I cite two sources:
Matthew 5:28 -- "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
"So I'm back in my hotel room
With John Coltrane and A Love Supreme
In the next room I hear some woman scream out
That her lover's turning off, turning on the television
And I can't tell the difference between ABC News, Hill Street Blues
And a preacher on the old time gospel hour."
- "Bullet the Blue Sky (spoken portion)" Rattle & Hum
From this perspective, 'the roving eye' is just as bad. To be sure, fidelity of the flesh is maintained, but any time one partner is turning away from the other like that, it's not the spiritual fidelity that monogamy calls for.
This is really, really difficult, of course, but that's the point of the Gospels (and Bono!): fidelity isn't about using little tricks to toe the line. Anyone can do that, and that's hardly a high religious standard.
Now before I am hit with charges of theocracy, let me make it totally clear that I am not talking about banning anything. I'm well known for advocating legal marijuana, prostitution, pornography, etc. Let everything be legal! But whether something is legal and whether it is potentially demeaning or immoral are, to my view, two different things.
Let me also add that no one has addressed my aesthetic questions of how written erotica or 'artistic' erotica fits into all of this.
And Pascals, if I have misrepresented your case in any way, please do set me straight! Thanks.
I wasnt saying that monogamy was a bad idea, but rather that it's a good idea that isn't our natural state. I don't buy the "adultery in your heart" argument, but even if there's something wrong with that, I think the problems that arise there are better attacked on the flank of jealousy. I know many couples (and have been in relationships) where the people were absolutely devotred to eachother, with as little roving eye as I think is realistically possible, and yet the jealousy still tore them apart. Meanwhile, I've known other couples who followed the "it doesn't matter where you get your appetite, as long as you eat at home" philosophy, and have been very happy for it, with little or no jealousy. The point is that jealousy isn't about one person's actions, but about the beholder's insecurities and feelings of possession. Anyway, this is well off-topic.
What I was saying about Hentai - which I wasn't actually trying to suggest to anyone - was meant to apply to erotic lit and on down the line. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.
No, I know you weren't saying monogamy was bad, just unnatural. I was arguing that it is natural. A minor clarification. I also realized you were not endorsing Hentai. Word!
I have still yet to get an answer, though: what is the difference between a nude and a smutty picture?
Tacitean --
The answer to that question, like the answers to many of the questions posed in this thread, depends on context.
More specifically, I would argue that the difference lies in the intent of the art.
Yesterday I had the good fortune to attend the opening of a photography show where the artist was speaking. The show featured a set of 10 prints divided into 3 suites, and each print focused on the form, shadow, and structure of cinder bricks, bamboo, sticks, and the human body. When I say "human body," I mean specifically the nude form from the waist down.
When discussing her works, the artist made it clear that, while her pieces featured male and female genitalia, they were not sexualized in any way. In fact, her artist's statement included a line about her curiosity in depicting the male genitalia as a thing of beauty, much in the same way the female breasts have been perceived throughout history.
I'll admit to being taken aback when I first saw the photographs. It's hard not to be when confronted with a large-scale photograph of a penis surrounded by bamboo. But the more I looked at the images, the more I began to appreciate the abstractness of the human form. There was nothing erotic or sexualized about any of the photographs; they were contrasts between the smoothness of skin and the roughness of bark, the soft, flowing lines of the body and the angularity of bamboo or rigidity of a cinderblock. In fact, the artist intentionally omitted any defining characteristics, like faces or silhouettes, that would add more to the psychology of the works than what she originally intended.
A smutty picture, on the other hand, is created for the sole purpose of being erotic and sexualized. I'm sure there is little detail paid to composition, form, color, light/shadow, etc. It exists to assuage the lust of the consumer instead of existing for art's sake.
I found it curious that someone wrote in to Dear Prudence with the exact same questions. Apparently a boyfriend found some porn on his girlfriend's laptop and couldn't "understand how a woman could get stimulated viewing something where the women are in such a degrading scenario," and wondered, "Is it wrong or hypocritical to find this unsettling?"
I agree - think it is important to distinguish between nudity and vulgarity. They're not the same at all!
Let me then totally switch gears from my previous mode of Christian ethic into a more classical and 'pagan' viewpoint of aesthetics.
Does anyone think Greek or Roman statues are vulgar or meant solely to arouse? Hardly. They are meant to create an appreciation of an idealized human form - male or female - and cultivate an aesthetic and a critical taste for artstic skill.
By that same token, I think it's very important to distinguish between visual, aesthetic appreciation of the body and a merely lustful appreciation. There is a difference. Disagree? Then I would ask you, if heterosexual, to think of an attractive person of the same gender. If homosexual, someone attractive of a different gender. Doubtless you can do it and appreciate what makes them attractive without lust being involved!
Speaking of a classical view, I will now throw this total monkey wrench into everything: in the Hellenistic world, there such people as "sacred temple prostitutes," whose sexuality was viewed as nearly holy. It wasn't seen as vulgar. Could that be the future of a refined pornography that places more emphasis on aesthetic? I put it to you.
I think the question kind of falls into the "world's tallest midget" category of paradox. The difference between porn and art, etc., in my opinion, has a lot to do with the feeling of invading someone's privacy, and seeing too much realism. Essentially, of seeing something that you're not "supposed" to. This is why even fight sceness can seem "pornographic." They can, if done a certain way, have a quality that is both exciting and naturally repelling. But different things arounse this in different people, obviously, or "fetish sections" wouln't be so varied.
The point I'm trying to make, albeit badly, is that if someone ever made your Hellenistic porn, it would pass into the gated community of "art," and cease to be considered porn at all.
Okay, let me take that to the real world: is Playboy pornography or a literate men's magazine with nudes?
And no thoughts on sacred prostitution?
Playboy, like all (or at least most) other instances, is up to the beholder for judgment on those criteria.
I don't think it's easy to pin down what Playboy is, because the magazine is run by people who want to make money and exploit a market, and hence can change the focus of their magazine (pornography vs tasteful art) in order to fit into a niche they want to make money off of.
Much more interesting to me are those antique drawings and paintings, especially those produced in South and East Asia, that very explicitly detail sex play of all kinds, but are executed with very obvious artistic skill. Are they pornography or art? Were they considered pornography when they were produced, or were they considered art? Did concepts such as "Art" and "Pornography" even exist in the culture of the artists who produced them and their patrons? Doubtlessly some of these paintings, drawings, embroderies, etc., were used for erotic stimulation; Chinese sex manuals were known to have accompanying illustrations to both serve as concrete demonstrations of what was being discussed in the texts, as well as provide stimulation for the people who were reading and practicing them. In such cases, are these illustrations, or even the manuals themselves, pornographic?
My view on all of this is that pornography is a very slippery and ill-defined term. This is because it is a relatively new concept, by which I mean that pornography as materials produced, marketed, and distributed for the purpose of sexual stimulation, whether by oneself or with partners, is a modern phenomenon. It is true that drawings of people having sex with each other have probably existed since our ancestors learned they can make marks on a cave wall with a piece of charcoal, but the idea that you can take these drawings and circulate them far and wide and then make money off of this circulation, this is relatively modern idea. One thing I noticed about the previous discussions on this topic was the distinct discomfort with the commercial nature of the whole pornography enterprise, discomfort with the idea that someone out there performed whatever sex act they performed in order to make money off of you (as a user of the said pornography). Of course, artists that photograph or paint nudes must also make money, yet of course we would say that the titillation or excitement we get from these pieces of "art" are supposed to be uplifting and edifying. To be honest though, I have seen some works in art exhibitions that I can hardly tell are supposed to be "for art's sake" and would not be able tell at all if I came across it on the internet. To sum up that disorganized rant above, I'm basically saying that we would call those erotic works "art" if we are comfortable with the commercialization of them, and "pornography" if we are not comfortable with the commercialization of them.
Asiansmiths: Yeah, you're probably right about the commercialization aspect.
Pascals: Okay, so maybe in my concept it wouldn't quite be porn... but is that so bad? To view the body more maturely and artistically?
It's absolutely not bad. I don't mean to imply that porn is, by nature, wrong. Nor is consuming it necessarily wrong, though it can come to the issue of who exactly is receiving the procedes. As odd as it might seem to us, there are women (and surely men) who fight their way into the industry. They love sex, find themselves attractive, and want to do what they love for those who would love to see it. Still, others are exploited, and the industry doesn't have an infrastrucure yet to allow the cream to rise to the top in a way the marginalizes the more unsavory elements. I can't even say what that infrastruture would look like, but I do know that CNN.com had a piece this morning about self-produced kiddie porn, which disturbs me in ways I can't begin to articulate, and makes me think that the porn industry can't truly regulate itself until it becomes more "legitimate."
I don;t know exactly what that means, either, but people like Jenna Jameson do. It might require unionization, or better crackdowns on the rampant coke usage, or simply the up-and-up producers coming down on the exploiters in a way that hurts their income. Again, I don't know. It shouldn't involve censorship, but when children are making thei'r own pron of themselves, something has gona awry and should be fixed in one way or another.
While I understand Pascal's impulse to regulate the porn industry to prevent abuse and exploitation, I think that the porn industry is precisely the one industry in America that is all in all immune to regulation. The reason is three-fold: a.)the technological development of the porn industry has immunized itself to traditional methods of regulations, b.)the taboo-breaking nature of porn already makes it naturally resistant and willing to circumvent any kind of regulation imposed upon it, and c.)the desire that porn feeds is endless, infinitely strong, and always seeks to satiate itself in new ways. I'll try to elaborate my thinking in detail in follow up posts.
1.)Technological development - If we take a look at the evolution of video pornography, we can clearly see two trends that converge neatly in our day and age: the trend towards more privacy in delivery of the porn, and the trend towards more variety in the porn. The internet is the intersection and culmination of these two trends. It is perfectly anonymous and can give you access to a mind bogglingly large amount of porn. Unless the fundamental nature of the internet is changed (which might happen), porn cannot and will not be regulated. Sure, you can find and shut down popular websites and distribution nodes, but if anyone with a webcam, a DSL line, and a person they can either convince or coerce into performing can play the porn mogul, regulation becomes meaningless.
2.)Taboo breaking - Sexuality in American culture is wrapped up in a whole bunch of taboos and unspoken rules. One of the desires that porn feeds is the desire to break these taboos vicariously, through what is performed on screen. Even the very act of watching a porn movie is transgressive. Therefore porn is inherently transgressive, of cultural rules and certainly of governmental or societal regulation. If you have laws that try to make porn less exploitative, you will end up with porn that advertises itself as being explicitly exploitative. If you promote porn that is not misogynistic, you will see sales of porn that cater to misogynistic fantasies go up instead.
An excellent article I read some time ago gave a good example of this in the prevalence of anal sex scenes in modern day pornography. If you look at pornography made in the seventies and even the early eighties, scenes that depict anal sex were not common. From the mid-eighties on, however, anal sex scenes became more and more prevalent, until today they almost constitute a sub-genre/category of porn by themselves. The article argued that the reason this shift happened was because during the mid-eighties, at the height of the AIDS epidemic, it became understood that anal sex was the number one avenue for transmitting the disease between partners, and so anal sex became more taboo than before. Of course, the more taboo something is, the more desirable it becomes to transgress it, at least vicariously, and so the anal scene became something of a de-rigeur in porn, even mainstream pornography. Most porn actresses today are catergorized by whether or not they have performed an anal scene; a sort of barometer for measuring how long they have been in the business. There are some actresses that have built their mainstream careers on their prowess in performing their anal scenes. So, a relatively minor thing like anal sex becomes an industry standard and a measuring rod for the performers.
Of course porn is already perceived as exploitative and misogynistic, so it already is somewhat taboo. This is why already a good deal of porn that is produced is exploitative and misogynistic, to feed the desire to break against the taboo. To make porn more "friendly" and less exploitative, whatever regulations you put on it will feed the far stronger, human urge to push back and indulge in exploitation precisely because it is frowned upon. Combined with the distributing power of the internet and the mask of anonymity it offers, it is easy to see why "bad" porn will resist every effort at its eradication and would indeed grow stronger by every effor you make at suppressing it.
Let me make clear that I was not calling for legislation of any kind (though some protections would probably be welcome.) My comments on exploitation were just a consumer's-eye-view of what the porn-dollar is funding.
Post a Comment
<< Home