Why I'm anti-anti-porn, Part 1

I've stated why I'm pro-porn, but I think its very important to also state why I'm anti-anti-porn as well. The anti-porn movement makes some rather large accusations against pornography and the porn industry. If these charges were true, they'd be quite damning and would trump much of what I have to say in support of porn as a medium. I was initially going to do this all as one post, but as I've been writing this, I find that the case to be made against anti-porn is lengthy, so I'm going to divide this up among several posts, and address some problems with arguments against pornography and with the anti-porn movement itself.

The case against pornography is two-pronged, and really involves two separate issues. The first is related to the supposed harm to the models in the production of pornography, especially women. The second has to do with the ostensible harm caused by porn as a product (and could be said to extend to porn media such as writing and comics that don't actually involve real people in their production). The fact that the two issues are conflated by anti-pornography activists, and that argument against pornography liberally slips back and forth between the two, makes their argument elusive and hard to pin down.

Taken one at a time, the arguments become clearer. First, the charge is that pornography, like prostitution and indeed any form of sexual labor, is inherently exploitative toward those who do it. It is charged that at the very least, extreme economic coercion is used to force women into porn, and at worst, its outright sexual slavery and filmed rape. Also, porn actresses are said to universally come from backgrounds of sexual abuse, and making porn is seen as a kind of revictimization.

First, I'll acknowledge that, yes, abuses do happen in what might broadly be called the porn industry. Where I differ from anti-porn activists is that I think they grossly exaggerate the amount of abuse in the porn industry. All the best evidence that I've read about the porn industry, from porn actresses and from people who have observed the industry first-hand, is that such sex work is done freely and that coercion is a rare and highly illegal exception. Also, the idea that porn actresses are from disproportionately poor and uneducated backgrounds and are therefore financially coerced does not seem to hold water. At least in the case of American, West European, and Japanese porn industries, the typical background for a porn model seems to be pretty much working- or middle-class, representative of the larger society. (In Eastern Europe, admittedly, there are a lot of women from Borat-esque impoverished rural backgrounds who go into porn as a quick ticket out – such women are also now the mainstay of the fashion modeling industry as well, and I can think of at least a few Russian and Ukrainian porn models that do both.) The "uneducated" stereotype is particularly eggregious, as its not all uncommon to find women with college degrees working in porn, as its not at all uncommon to find people with college degrees throughout the American and European workforce. (In fact, its not even particularly uncommon to find women with some background in Women's or Sex Studies in the porn world.)

Probably a note is due here about the favorite poster-girl for the anti-porn movement, Linda Lovelace. First, even in Ordeal, she never claimed she was coerced by pornographers to do porn. She claimed, rather, that her abusive pimp/husband, Chuck Traynor, forced her into doing porn, among other things. The worst thing she had to say about the porn industry is that they looked the other way when they knew Traynor was abusing Lovelace, a reaction to abuse that was not uncommon back in the 1970s. Second, in several interviews prior to her death in 2002, she recanted some of her more damning statements about the porn industry and also said that she regarded Gloria Steinem and Catherine MacKinnon as just another in a long string of people who were trying to make a buck off of her. I'll also note that Linda Lovelace's story is not at all typical of the porn world. (More on this in this in future posts – its a summer project of mine to try and get through all five – yes, five – of her "as told to" biographies and try and figure out where the truth lies.)

While I agree that any kind of coercion or exploitation in the sex industry is a problem that needs to be addressed, it is also clear to me that there is nothing inherently coercive or exploitative about porn modeling. The words of porn actresses and models who do this work by choice, and even enjoy much of what they do, are simply too compelling to make a blanket case that porn is always exploitative. (Names of some people who strongly defend their choice to work in porn – our own Renegade Evolution, Nina Hartley, Belladonna, Dana DeArmond, Justine Joli, Ron Jeremy, and Jamie Gillis, just to name a few off the top of my head.) Insofar as there is exploitation in the porn industry, this is a labor issue, and needs to be addressed the way all exploitation-of-labor issues are dealt with – by self-organization and agenda-setting of those who do the actual labor (through unions or whatever model they choose), aided by allies who accept the idea that sex workers can set their own agenda. What is not needed are would-be saviors who are more interested in imposing their own religious or ideological agenda, slaying dragons, and saving people from themselves.

From what I've heard from various porn star interviews, there may be some truth to the idea that a disproportionate number of porn actors (female and male) are survivors of child sexual abuse. However, this is purely anecdotal, and there are simply no numbers to back this up. The idea that this is universal among porn actresses and sex workers in general is pure stereotyping and related to the idea that women who are highly sexual simply must be damaged in some way. Again, I don't find this case compelling – even if someone has sexual abuse in their background, is their sexual agency as an adult null and void? I don't think so.

In a nutshell, of course I'm against exploitation and abuse, but I do not think that axiomatically leads to an abolitionist position on porn. And I'll add that the line of argument that holds if one is pro-porn, that one is automatically pro-exloitation and pro-abuse, full stop – well, that's a contemptably bad-faith argument, and a sure sign that the person that you're "debating" has their mind made up about you and your arguments already.

Next post, I'll cover the issue of the "effects" of porn.