On Z Magazine’s website, Gail Dines and Robert Jensen are criticizing the left’s attitude towards pornography:
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.
I think they make a good point. Partly, perhaps, as a result of the polarization caused by the “porn wars” in the 1980s, and the desire to avoid even a hint of censorship, lefty defenses of porn sometimes seem more knee-jerk than thoughtful. But you don’t have to endorse censorship to critique the sexism, misogyny and racism found in a lot of porn.
Where Dines and Jensen fall down, in my opinion, is in not providing a working definition of what pornography means. The truth is, porn – like “partial birth abortion” – is one of those terms that is used so loosely, it has become impossible to be sure what any particular author means unless they explicitly define their terms.
For myself, I think “pornography” is any media produced with the intention of being used as a masturbatory aid by the audience. But my definition of porn includes material that contains no violence and is not degrading in any obvious way (for example, Colleen Coover’s comic Small Favors), while Dines and Jensen’s analysis doesn’t even seem to acknowledge that there could be such a thing as non-degrading, non-violent pornography. Does this mean that they see all sexually explicit materials – even something like Small Favors – as degrading and implicitly violent? Or are they not counting such material as “pornography” at all?
Two cover-my-behind points. First of all, I’m not denying that there’s a lot of porn out there that is disgustingly violent, and disgustingly misogynistic. Just clearing out my spam makes it clear to me that porn makers believe they can generate a lot of business by appealing to misogyny: “come see this bitch get nailed!” is if anything a mild example of the misogynistic language typical of much porn advertising. Assuming that market incentives work, the high prevalence of this sort of advertising indicates that there is considerable profit for porn producers who make direct appeals to woman-hatred. And there seems to be a similar, although perhaps slightly smaller, market for overtly racist porn.
Secondly, just because a piece of porn is not overtly misogynist or overtly degrading, doesn’t place it beyond feminist criticism. For instance, a lot of porn (such as Playboy-style naked posing) endorses not only very traditional ideas of what is or isn’t attractive, but also implicitly endorses the idea that sexuality is something possessed by women, which men must pry out of women. To me these ideas are problematic; they support a narrow and limiting idea of sexuality, which I think is harmful to society. However, this isn’t a problem with porn qua porn; the same harmful ideas I dislike in even “non-violent” porn, are also found in abundance in non-porn media like “women’s magazines,” “men’s magazines” and popular sit-coms. So although I think this is a legitimate critique of a lot of porn, it doesn’t make sense to single out porn in general for this critique, since these flaws are evident in virtually all of pop culture.
Regardless of what definition of porn Dines and Jensen are using, or if they’re overlooking the existence of non-degrading porn, it’s clear that their critique is applicable to a lot of the porn out there – and that there’s no reason that leftists should give racist and misogynistic porn a pass, when we don’t give racism and misogyny in non-porn media a pass.
UPDATE: Tiffany at blackfeminism.org weighs in, and also discusses “the virgin-victim-whore trichotomy.”
Josh, I think folks have a hard time talking about what gets them off for the reason Susie Bright says it’s easier for people to say what porn they don’t like than what they do: because if we say what we like, we’re exposing something very personal about ourselves for disapproval and ridicule.
A lot of what I like is written, because it gets into the characters’ heads and because it allows me room for imagination. A lot of what I like to do to get off is just to look at something that gives me a springboard for ideas: online BDSM catalogs are great for that. I can look through them and think, “If I bought that for my wife, I think she would …”
I have not looked at mainstream porn films in many years because they do little for me. I used to read mainstream “fetish-oriented” magazines, but they were too “industry” and not enough real-people-who-do-what-I-do. There are some sites where real BDSM-community folks do real scenes for money, and I have subscribed to a few, though I find a lot of the marketing off-putting (some include outright misogyny in the pitches that is absent from the actual content).
I’m sorry for misreading you, Josh. Also, I’m sorry for not putting my definition of porn more in the context of personal experience. I’ve learned the hard way that it’s just not a good idea to do that on the ‘net, by mail, etc. Too many assholes out there looking for something they can exploit for their own purposes. (No, I don’t mean you nor anyone on this thread.)
I do have a couple of volumes of Best Bisexual Erotica that I’ve enjoyed. Not that every scenario described therein is exactly what I find hot, but most of it is well-written. I definitely have some comics by folks like Roberta Gregory, Bob Fingerman, et al., that have some graphic sexual content more in line with what I tried to describe earlier– It’s sex in the context of the characters’ whole life, with both positive and negative consequences.
But some anti-pornography activists DO work with former sex workers, or are former sex workers themselves. So obviously their opinions should have some weight, too.
[shrug] As a woman who has never done anything closer to sex work, other than a disasterous attempt at doing some erotic writing about ten years ago, I don’t think it’s fair to exclude someone like me from the discussion, either. If we can talk about secondhand smoke when we talk about the tobacco industry, or folks who don’t work for Tyson but still have to deal with its environmental impact when we discuss factory farming, we can have women who don’t participate in the manufacture of porn in the discusion as well.
One person I know is getting out of the business. She’s still got no major complaints.
Thing about the ones who “get out of the business” through murder, exposure, drug overdoses and suicide is that they don’t make complaints. Massively more women exit prostitution in these manners than by walking away, and I have a big problem with that.
I see you want to keep this conversation focused on you and yours instead of them and theirs, but it’s not about you and what gets you off and I don’t care to follow that conversation lead.
mythago said, “complaints about working conditions are mere add-ons to the real argument.”
In case you missed it, I heavily criticized liberals who say that OSHA, unionization and female pimpographers can make the pornography industry sexism-free and perfectly acceptable. I also mentioned, “There’s plenty of evidence that shows prostitution is inherently harmful to prostituted people, and since pornography is nothing but filmed prostitution I don’t see how it could be considered something wholly separate from prostitution in the harms caused to the women used to make it.
I have vociferously questioned the “sex positive” liberals who think what’s best for women and children enslaved in SE Asian brothels is an unlimited supply of condoms, antibiotics, abortions and HIV tests so they can know shortly after contracting the disease that they’re now out of a “job” and they’re going to die painfully.
I have never seen one single study purporting the majority of prostitutes in any population ever studied didn’t loathe being prostituted and wanted very much to choose to leave but felt they couldn’t. I have asked several so called “sex workers rights” advocates for any evidence they have challenging what every piece of research I have ever seen says: prostitution is inherently harmful. I have asked people on this blog to show me any collected data they might know of that says sex workers consider prostitution just another job that they would like to keep doing but under safer conditions.
The excuses for why this evidence can’t be found are numerous. I’ve been told by “sex positive” liberals that every study ever done on prostitution is wrong because they have friends who like being sex workers. I’ve been told most prostituted women just want the freedom to keep being whores on their own terms. I’ve been told it’s easier to find and speak with rape victims, drug addicts and trafficked teens than unraped, healthy, stable adult sex workers. I’ve been told pornographers don’t have as much money as “academic feminists” to conduct studies determining the general welfare of the prostitutes they use.
I don’t know how you can see my comments written on this very thread and continue to insist that I and antipornography feminists like me see OSHA as a means to eliminate prostitution like anti-choicers see medical regulations as a way to eliminate Planned Parenthood. It’s not radical feminists using the idea of a regulated market in women as a smokescreen to maintain the profitable status quo, that’s the modus operandi of most liberals. I don’t know how you missed me detailing all this in post 37, but here’s a recap:
Alsis wrote:
Thanks. I’m hopeful we can keep things more civil.
Please back up a few steps there. The last two words “as well” seem to be making me out as saying something I’m not. Everyone ought to be talking about this topic if it’s of interest to them. I don’t want anyone excluded.
But some anti-pornography activists DO work with former sex workers, or are former sex workers themselves. So obviously their opinions should have some weight, too.
Again, everyone’s opinion has weight. People who work with former sex workers or who are former sex workers are exactly the sort of opinions I want to consider. I don’t care if they’re pro or anti-porn. They’re informed on a deeper level as to what’s really going on in the industry. If something they say gives more weight to the anti-porn viewpoint, then there’s probably a good reason for that.
—
Samantha, If you’d rather talk about the harm prostitution does, I’d be happy to talk with you about that. You seem to be mistaking my interest in a few specific areas of the topic with an unwillingless to talk about anything else.
In terms of pornography and prostitution, I can talk about some of the documentaries I’ve seen about prostitution in Eastern Europe. I’ve also lived in Southeast Asia, and know a bit about the industry there as well. In fact, I was there when the AIDS crisis hit.
I’m happy to talk about the ill effects of pornography as well.
Can we start by actualy having a conversation?
Can we start by actualy having a conversation?
I’ll let you folks have it. I find as long as I’m going to be accused of making shit up and picking on women, there’s no need for my actual presence in the discussion.
Does it ever get lonely up there on that cross, mythago ?
I’ve been far too busy to participate here since my last comment (as the time of this comment in EST will attest!) by I wanted to say that I will be back and look forward to trying to address the issue of what distinguishes the objectification of women in pornography from the objectification of labor in capitalist wage-labor.
It’s a complex set of arguments so I need to be rested to have a chance of making it in an intelligible way.
The excuses for why this evidence can’t be found are numerous.
The excuse of, “I’ve got proof most prostitutes want to be prostitutes, I just don’t feel like showing it because you’re a meanypants” has popped up often.
[Stupid, faux-witty insult cut by Amp.]
As a once and former pornographer – one who, literally “writes about sex” – I agree with most criticisms of porn mentioned above. I even have to grit my teeth and admit that Andrea Dworkin was not entirely wrong about everything.
But as a libertarian, I strongly believe that the cure for offensive speech is – more speech. In this case, more pornographic speech. More and better wank.
There’s a very pragmatic reason for this; men get their ideas about practical sexuality from porn. (They surely won’t get it from church, or parents!)
What sort of ideas do you wish them to have?
Oh, and don’t suggest aloud that BDSM porn is destructive and anti-feminist. Legions of extremely empowered women will come after you for that.
Check out ASBB for details.
Bob wrote:
Why does everything about sex have to lead to us all immediately sticking our hands down our pants ? Why wouldn’t you call for “more and better sex education” or “more works of art that treat sexuality as part and parcel of human experience rather than isolating it in its own little box, off in some dark corner” ?
I said as much above. However, I disagree that this has to be the case. I concur, however, that professional pornographers would prefer it so, because as long as a vacuum in knowledge exists, somebody will come along to reap huge profits while filling that vacuum. The fact that the vacuum is filled with nonsense doesn’t matter to them.
The trouble with resigning oneself to the idea that porn is one-stop shopping for males’ applicable knowledge of sexuality is that most men are hetero, so the junk they learn from porn ends up making life for most hetero women –if not dangerous and degrading– than certainly damn dull.
And now that I think about it, I suspect that not all gay men are thrilled with the stereotypes and extremely limited view of sexuality that are standard in porn films.
While a large amount of bandwidth in this thread has been devoted to the physical toll exacted on porn stars, and the cultural toll on women in general, it’s telling that you pay no attention to this at all. But that’s libertarianism in a nutshell, whether it’s shoes or women’s bodies being hawked: “Don’t like the way I drive ? Stay off the sidewalk.” Ho hum.
I don’t have anything to add to what Samantha and Alsis already wrote. I first read about Jensen’s work on a separatist forum, then on another, multigender board, and I am thankful to both for that.
I am not a believer in “etymological proof” and I think the meaning and value of words lies in their usage. However, I’d like to correct an interesting mistake in comment #109: “literally” a “pornographer” is not “one who writes about sex”, it is, in its late 18th century meaning (I think that’s about when the term was coined), one who writes a treatise about prostitution. Porne is still the current Greek word for “prostitute”. Of course, it soon evolved to mean “depiction of what prostitutes do”.
Not to play the pedant, only to underline a connection that seems to be systematically overlooked by people who support Bob King’s position.
(By the way, I don’t want to click on the link at the end of his comment, as I suspect it is “not safe” and am not interested anyway, but I may be wrong; isn’t there a way to get people to put up a warning when posting such links, or simply to not post them at all? It happened once in the past on a similar thread and I for one found that really annoying.)
“Regardless of what definition of porn Dines and Jensen are using, or if they’re overlooking the existence of non-degrading porn, it’s clear that their critique is applicable to a lot of the porn out there”
There is a tacit understanding in leftist critiques of the “mass media” that they are referring to the likes of The New York Times and Fox News and not Zmag and Democracy Now!. In other words, we are more interested in content that is reaching the majority of the American public and thus having a large cultural impact rather than entities that, while they may be quite influential within their admittedly small demographic, basically go unnoticed by the vast majority of people. No one is denying the existence of “non-degrading” or even “feminist” pornography or its popularity among its (minute) audience, but it is simply a red herring to mention them as 9 times out of 10 it is most definitely NOT what the boy next door is watching. If you are honest with yourself, you will also recognize that most men will run a mile from anything labeled “feminist” or view it as a joke rather than a turn-on. I don’t know if it’s appropriate for me to provide direct links, but if you want to know what guys are watching google: “BangBus” or “Gag Factor” or the names of sex acts such as “throat jobs” or “ATM”. Or better yet, visit a website that provides reviews for mainstream porn films, such as “Rabbit’s Reviews.” So yes, Amperstand, the Zmag critique applies to “a lot of porn out there”—basically all of it if you take into consideration what the mainstream public is watching. It is paragraphs like the one I’ve quoted that demonstrate how out of touch so many leftists are with the reality of American society. It is all well and good to produce and consume media that fits with your ideological principles, but unless you’re content living in an egalitarian fantasy land, you’re going to have to dig your head out of the sand and take a look around once in a while.
Snackho, did your post boil down to anything other than “if you disagree with my views on porn you’re an ignorant ostrich”?