Friday, July 13, 2007

Why I'm anti-anti-porn

So I've previously tackled why exactly I'm "pro-porn" (someday I'll get my hands dirty analyzing that term specifically, it's a slippery one) but now: Why be anti-anti-porn?

After all, the feminist anti-porn folk at least have some good points. There is misogynistic mainstream porn out there. There are, I'm sure, some compulsive users of porn whose porn use is not healthy (though personally, I think "porn/sex addiction" has officially become a moral panic, so it's hard to know whether this is truly common or not. Either way, though, I'm sure it does exist.) There are people who use porn to prop up their misogynistic worldviews and see women as dirty and as sluts for what porn "reveals" about women. There are people who learn about sex from porn and who have a difficult time differentiating between what's unrealistic fantasy on a screen or in a picture and what most women want. There are people who are in the sex industry because they lack other options and who feel stuck and want out. There are abusers who use porn to train or shame their victims. And for many people, sex performed as labor is different from other labor: more personal, more internal. To do it and be exploited doing it is particularly damaging to the psyche of these people at the very least.

So... why not respect that? I can, after all, disagree that political action to end the industry is, on balance, a wise idea or an attainable goal without having any enmity toward people who think differently than me. I actually know several anti-porn folks with whom my disagreement is exactly that. They see being anti-porn as an attempt not to feed a big, sexist, harmful machine, so they don't use the stuff, don't date people who do, etc.

All of that's reasonable and makes sense and that's not who I take issue with.

Who do I take issue with then?

Well, for starters there are the people who are against porn for religious reasons or politically conservative beliefs. I doubt I have to go into too much depth about these people and why I feel their opposition to pornography stems from an anti-sex and anti-woman perspective. I'm not for people who think of lust as a dirtying force, and not for people who think that what all people view or do should be limited based on one perspective. Especially if that perspective is based on the idea that sexual desire corrupts men, or that women who "incite" it (or admit to having it themselves!) are dirty.

That leaves us with the anti-porn left, usually feminist.

The first point against them is that quite a few of them are willing to ally with, or look the other way from, the people I've already mentioned. These people see pornography as so terrible, so godawful, that it doesn't matter whether other anti-porn groups have an explicitly anti-gay or anti-feminist agenda.

Which makes no sense to me. If the goal is to create a better world for women by eliminating an inherently sexist form of media, I have difficulty understanding why we need sexists to do it for us.

Relatedly, there are people out there who are not specifically concerned about protecting women, but who use the feminist viewpoint to bolster their arguments. They're not interested in protecting women so much as they're interested in their own agenda. Feminist copy about harms to women sounds good, so they use it. I'm against this because I think it dilutes any truly feminist message, allowing people who really aren't for women to toss in some lines from MacKinnon or whomever to sound concerned and serious. This further muddies the waters.

But, anti-porn feminists will say, all that has nothing to do with real feminism. The Wheelock conference wasn't, for example, about conservatives or about how best to ally with people who are anti-porn for non-feminist reasons. It was about radical feminist opposition to porn, a view which many radfems see as in the minority anyway.

So why take issue with that? Well, for one thing, they radically misinterpret and misunderstand what some porn is. They use sensationalistic comparisons to make pornography upset and bother people. After a while, this sure looks to me not to be about "raising consciousness" nearly so much as it is about inducing a shocked or enraged reaction that will swing people over to their side.

This impression is further bolstered, at least in me, when they actively limit exposure to other points of view. Why is it threatening to allow others to respond? What is it that so many don't want people to hear?

Sounds less about raising consciousness and more about creating selective hearing to me.

And then there are the really horrid tactics, the bullying and threats. Complete nonsense like this. Leave and don't come back, you're not radical enough. Oh, it all serves you right, you should know that what you do means women need protection from you.

It's a vile cesspool of not listening to women in the name of protecting them. It's a vile cesspool of things like vandalism. If you make one issue the holy grail of feminist freedom, you can justify doing anything at all in the name of the freedom of women. (And can someone please tell me what posting stickers calling Playboy misogynist is actually supposed to accomplish? Who does that cause to close his store, or to "see the light"?)

That to me isn't feminist. That's just disturbing, sometimes violent.

I'm anti-anti-porn because, while I know not every anti-porn person or anti-porn feminist is willing to compromise principles, good sense, and basic courtesy for the sake of destroying the Porno Monster, I see it entirely too often to remain neutral.

15 comments:

  1. Thanks tons!

    I think I may well edit and add to this one later, too. There's just so much to cover, really.

    ReplyDelete
  2. so yeah, if there's a differential between "anti-anti" and "pro" then I'm most definitely "anti-anti."

    i'm pro overtly sexual media, let's put it that way. doesn't necessarily mean that i love most of what's out there or how it's made.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "i'm pro overtly sexual media, let's put it that way. doesn't necessarily mean that i love most of what's out there or how it's made."

    Yes, which is a post I eventually want to make. I think "pro-porn" actually doesn't mean anything, at least not as used by anti-porners.

    Because it's totally vague. "I'm pro-porn" could mean:

    1) I believe that porn should exist/that the industry should not be dismantled.
    2) I believe that making porn is a feminist enterprise, and/or that viewing porn is a feminist act.
    3) I believe that the porn out there in the world is not problematic/not sexist.
    4) I believe that women who make/act in porn have the right not to be questioned/grilled/considered anti-feminist for their participation.
    5) I enjoy porn.
    6) I believe that lobbying for the industry, in some situations, is wise political activism.
    7) I believe that erotic media are good for people.
    8) I believe that images that serve the specific purpose of accompanying masturbation are good for people, and encourage people to use them.
    9) I believe people who don't use porn are sexually repressed.
    10) I believe everyone has the right to use whatever sexual media they wish.
    11) I believe some sexual media are good and worth defending, and some is bad.
    12) I believe the porn industry is transformable -- what's out there now is sexist rubbish, but the industry can be transformed by feminism. I believe feminists ought to put their energy into creating this new pornography, or into creating a social environment in which it supplants sexist, old-guard porn.

    I affirm some of those statements and deny others. Am I "pro-porn" or am I not? I have zero idea whatsoever. That's why my "pro-porn?" post had a question mark in its title.

    As far as I can tell, the word is very often an appelation given by anti-porners to anyone who disagrees vehemently enough with them.

    I think it might be worth reclaiming, a la pervert or slut, but... I honestly don't know quite what it would mean, either.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree, Trin -- that's my problem with the word. I'm pretty much exactly where Belle is. I think the world would be a worse place without depictions of sexuality, and that people have a right to create and be a part of these.

    I am curious where people stand on Trin's list. I am all for #s 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I didn't include #10 because, while it sounds good from a free speech POV, I think for example that snuff films of a sexual nature, and any porn showing violence that could result in longer-term physical harm, should be banned period.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1) well, which industry? i might have some critiques i suppose. i'm not big on "dismantling" unless i know exactly how and why and what it might be replaced with; nature abhors a vacuum.

    2) Like many other things, it -can- be. The content of a lot of porn can be and certain is very far from "feminist." I do think that a woman going, hey, this is what really turns me on is feminist in that women are encouraged to -not- do that, and embracing one's sexuality is a part of being human. and hey, if that involves a camera and other consenting adults, well?

    exploitation, physical and/or economic, is not what i would call feminist, no.

    but that'd also be true if, like, it turned out some woman at the top of her "feminist" clothing line was involved in garment industry abuses and exploitation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 3) Nope (i.e. i do -not- believe that, not for a whole lot of porn, and yeah i think it's worth talking about).

    4) YES.

    5) Some, sometimes. I'm picky, though, and most hetporn bores me, so that rules out a lot.

    6) I'd have to know more specifically what's meant there.

    7) Can be, yep. Certainly better than not having the option at all, because that automatically means heavy authoritarianism is a force at work, and it doesn't stop at eroticism either.

    8) I don't encourage anyone to do what they want to do; and i hardly think people need my "encouragement" to find and wank to porn. Either you like it or you don't; but it's not exactly difficult to find, you know...

    9) Nope. Or, well, I certainly don't believe they're repressed BECAUSE they don't use porn, for heaven's sake.

    There is, I will say, a difference between people who simply "don't use porn" or even "don't like it, think it hurts women, whatever," and people who make it their life's work to crusade against it. The former I've got no issue with; it's none of my business. The latter...Well, it's -something- all right, although i don't know if -repressed- is exactly the right word...

    10) Barring actual rape or child molestation or other unethical abuses being used to make the media (as in, real live people actually being hurt, not just acting), yes.

    11) Erm...A bit overly simplistic. I'm personally more comfortable with some kinds of sexual media than others; I don't know to what degree that's personal taste and to what degree that's genuine concern over the well-being of society or whatnot.

    12) I do buy all that, although, as with much else, I certainly don't think that that is, you know, sufficient to revolutionize the world all by itself. And I do think that, as tempting as it is to focus relentlessly on the "positive," given the hay the anti's will make with -anything- that suggests otherwise, it's reached the point of impasse: more feminists who -aren't- APRF's are going to have to engage more seriously with the darker side of the sex industry, if we want them to not keep setting the agenda from there.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Belle: in case you didn't gather, some of those were meant to be absurd. :)

    As far as #10 goes, Octo -- personally I grow ever more leery of the idea of limiting what people can access (with the "duh!" caveat of "actual rape is bad.") My own fantasies are very violent and always have been. I've never used violent gonzo porn as I understand what it is... but I've definitely masturbated to creepy images or fantasies.

    And yeah, it may well be the case that I could masturbate to something that other, less responsible people should never orgasm to. But I don't like the idea of putting myself on that kind of pedestal (and honestly it seems to me that some APRFs do -- *they* can look at whatever it is because *they* are against it, so it couldn't possibly affect *them* -- despite their frequent claims of PTSD and flashback triggers*) and I'm also, well, not the planet's nursemaid.

    And I don't know that feminists should be wanting to take that nursemaid job on... it seems to me it distracts a hell of a lot from actual activism for women.



    *I don't mean to say that they don't have PTSD or to trivialize anyone's flashbacks. Flashbacks, as I know from experience, SUCK. But I find it hard to understand how on the one hand they're uniquely qualified to examine porn with unclouded minds and on the other deeply traumatized by it. If something induces flashbacks in me, I KNOW I'M NOT UNBIASED/LOGICAL IN MY OPINION OF IT.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I am curious where people stand on Trin's list.

    I'm with 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11.

    3 and 12, I'm more qualified about – I do think a whole lot of real existing porn is not particularly problematic, if not particularly "feminist" either. As for 12, well, I think its a worthwhile feminist project – knock yourselves out! I personally am neither here nor there with it, as there's a whole bunch of things I like that probably don't stack up very well on the feminist laundry list, and I have no intention to stop watching such material.

    To my way of thinking, what I'd really like to see is sex workers having more say and control over their working conditions and greater access to the means of production.

    And more diverse voices producing porn catering to a wider variety sexual tastes. (Though this I already see happening.)

    Whether that comes out looking particularly "feminist" or not isn't so important to me.

    As for 6, I think lobbying for sex worker's rights and against threats to free speech, and all that that implies, is a wise use of political activism. The "industry" itself can and does lobby for its own interests already.

    9, not really. People who want to look at porn and feel they "can't" because of religious or ideological commitments, as Trinity described – that starts to get into the territory of sexual repression.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Trin, I hear what you're saying re #10, but MO is still that there should be limits. I'm not for pedestaling either, but I wouldn't bet that everyone else can distinguish fantasy as you are able to.

    I don't like the idea of feminists being nursemaids, but I don't think the limits need to stem from feminism. And the limits I would set are pretty far out; I have no trouble with S&M porn (um, have some), blood, verbal abuse of women or men, just porn that depicts long term injury or death. Hopefully, that would take into account pretty much everybody's needs, and I have to admit I'm not that concerned with those who would need the latter categories.

    I know this is not as clean as the belief in unlimited freedom of viewing, and I wish I had enough faith in humanity to think that there wouldn't be a slippery slope if the latter were the standard.

    Still, I realize that this is something on which reasonable minds can disagree...

    ReplyDelete
  11. "And the limits I would set are pretty far out; I have no trouble with S&M porn (um, have some), blood, verbal abuse of women or men, just porn that depicts long term injury or death. Hopefully, that would take into account pretty much everybody's needs, and I have to admit I'm not that concerned with those who would need the latter categories."

    Hrm. Regarding fake snuff: yeah, I see the worry. Still... I'd feel like a total hypocrite if I came out against it. I first watched the Broken movie (just an excerpt, NWS, triggering in every possible way...) at age 19 or so. And no, that's not made by the porn industry, but it is a fake snuff film. And parts of it (hello, that razor slicing!) do turn me on.

    Also, I have an online buddy with whom I cyber frequently, and he has quite a few fantasies along those lines. For him, the fantasy of dying at the hands of the person dominating him is the ultimate submissive experience, so he really likes it if our role-playing takes that line.

    (I like it less, personally -- to me, even when I'm RPing a complete psycho with no morals whatever, if I've found a nice victim killing it would just mean being back at square one. So for me it is an occasional fantasy, but not a usual one. It was an interesting experiment in way out role-playing one day that became a big fantasy for him.)

    So... where does that leave me? It leaves me putting myself on a pedestal, and like I said that makes me uneasy. It may well be true that I can do this and others can't. I'm smart, I'm not all that young, I know about real SM and real safety issues, I'm perfectly capable of fantasizing about, having, and being fulfilled by gentle sex as well, etc.

    But I still feel weird about that, because that kind of "I can/you can't" hypocrisy is something conservatives are huge on. Think of all the conservative gay men out there: picketing and lobbying and voting for anti-gay stuff, while going home and... yeah, this is MY PRIVATE LIFE.

    It squicks me to become that or resemble that, even if it's with the goal of keeping people safe.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I guess what I'd ask about that is: well, where does that leave Hollywood horror movies then? Because you see realistic presentations of people being raped, tortured, dying horribly -all the time.-

    what you don't see is the money shot. (it's blood instead).

    I'd be down with something like, you must be able to prove that no actors were REALLY harmed or killed during the making of this film. but apart from that...much as it does squick me personally, I can't think of a legit reason to say, okay, stuff for the sole purpose of getting you off (explicitly) is okay; and representations of killing women are okay (in horror movies; and who's to say people aren't wanking to that?); but, you can't put them together.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "what you don't see is the money shot. (it's blood instead). "

    Mmm-hm. And as I mentioned a while ago over here, it's hard for me especially to draw the line because... blood excites me more anyway.

    The whole singling out of porn is fascinating to me precisely because I didn't use porn for a long time. I used music, movies, videos, games.

    I remember a time when using the Nail Gun on my crush in Quake Deathmatch was near-orgasmic to me.

    Yet the porn is the terrifying thing? Is that because I didn't actually see representations of my ammo going directly up my crush's ass?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think the difference with Hollywood movies is that it's not supposed to be really happening or fantasy about what should happen. Violence in most mainstream movies is a plot point rather than THE point. And nobody is confused as to whether the actors are really suffering.

    The porn in the category I'd be OK with banning is that which purports to show real longer-term harm being done. Not Hollywood special effects. It strikes me that this would increase the possibility of that actually happening.

    Trin, I understand the concern about hypocrisy. I would try to draw the line in a way that balances that issue with the one about keeping people safe, which I think is a higher priority.

    ReplyDelete