Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Greta Christina on "Can Watching Porn Be Cheating?"

Over at the Blowfish Blog, the always-insightful Greta Christina takes on the issue of porn use in relationships:
Normally I adore Scarleteen, and recommend them unreservedly as a source of sex info and advice. And I feel a bit churlish calling them out on this one, since I found out about it because they were kind enough to link to me in their “wide range of feminist views of porn” section. If their advice had been about almost any other form of sexual activity, I would have been right there with them. And when it comes to the lap dances, I think their perspective is valid.

But when it comes to porn, I think they missed the boat.

I’m going to go out on a limb here:

I don’t think anyone has the right to expect their partner not to watch porn.

Why not? Well, let me put it this way. Do people have the right to expect their partners not to masturbate? Or, for that matter, do people have the right to expect their partners not to watch reality TV or read true crime? On their own time, when they don’t have any obligations and their partner isn’t around?

And if not — then why on earth would anyone have the right to expect their partner not to watch porn?

[more]

I elaborate my thoughts on this in the comments section after Greta's post, but basically, I'm more or less in agreement with her on this for the same set of reasons she gives, with the caveat (and nod to the Scarleteen position) that its up to the partners in every individual relationship to determine what's "reasonable" to give up or tolerate from the other partner. (Within the limits of putting up with what constitutes outright abuse by a partner.) I also think that, like attitudes toward meat-eating, religion, or monogamy, attitudes toward porn are one of those issues that its best for partners to be on the same page going into a relationship.

Addendum: Greta Christina follows up on the subject further here. She also has some interesting thoughts on how this relates to the negotiation of monogamy or non-monogamy in relationships here.

6 comments:

  1. Greta's wonderful essay couldn't have come sooner for me, since I just waddled through what has to be the most craptacularistic sham of an article about how porn is allegedly killing "intimacy"...among teenagers, no less!!!

    The London Times: How Teenage Access to Pornography Is Killing Intimacy In Sex

    As if these fools don't understand that romance novels, mainstream pop videos, and organized religion could do as much if not more to kill "intimacy" as porn allegedly does.

    But, this is Britian we are talking about, where there is a strong radfem antiporn contingent...so I guess that I shouldn't be so surprised.

    I wonder if we can clone Greta and move her there to counter that bullshit??


    Anthony

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm sure it will surprise no one that I'm not sympathetic to this kind of argument in any way.

    If the logic were reversed, I can't imagine that anyone would disagree.

    Let's see now. I consider an appreciation of porn to be a sign of healthy sexuality and that anyone who doesn't like it is hopelessly inhibited and just needs to get over it. Therefore, if she won't watch porn with me, she's history.

    Right, anybody okay with that?

    Didn't think so.

    The issue here is attempting to conform a partner's preferences to one's own, with the threat of abandonment as the weapon of coercion. That is never acceptable.

    The correct solution, if there is one, is to go on one's merry way until one finds a partner with compatible views who doesn't have to be hammered into compliance.

    At the root, this argument is about consent, that annoyance some feminists simply can't abide. The questioner most certainly has the right to choose a mate who shares her dislike of porn. The current object of her intentions most certainly has a right to choose his own entertainment at the risk of alienating her.

    Neither has a right to compel the other to change.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yep. I really think that if somebody feels that strongly against porn, they really need to find somebody who feels the same way. And chances are, its probably something that's part of a larger feminist/religious/whatever laundry list, so really, they need to be looking among their co-religionists rather than trying to hector random partners into their belief system. But then one look at the anti-porn feminist blogging will tell you trying to hector other people into lockstep agreement is what these people are all about.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In all fairness, I wouldn't characterize H.C. as a radfem, and neither does Greta Christina. Scarleteen overall is a pretty accepting forum when it comes to sexual preferences.

    But I do think this piece is indicative of a trend, and not a good one, which may be one reason Greta Christina took it on. As in American politics and culture in general, the center seems to have shifted right to such an extent that even relatively liberal commentators have moved backed away from broadly defending individual liberty in favor of predictable nods to the crowd that, for one reason or another, feels it has a right to "defend" itself by circumscribing the freedoms of others.

    At this point, I'm pretty sure I know what radical feminism looks like, but I'm no longer sure I recognize liberal feminism, or liberalism of any other kind, if and when I see it.

    There's much talk from the other side about privilege and feelings of entitlement, but those things don't seem to bother them much when it comes to feeling entitled by this or that stripe of belief to dictate the behavior of others, even when that behavior takes place in private and no one is pushing to enlist anyone else in it.

    We continue to lose ground to those who insist their grievances should limit the choices of the rest of us, and that's the real issue here. I'm not confortable with anyone advising young people that it's okay to tell other young people how to live their lives instead of seeking out partners with whom that wouldn't seem necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Some of this stuff with Heather Corinna may be water under the bridge at this point, but there's some history there. HC wrote an editorial a few years back basically breaking with sex-positive feminism over the issue of porn, basically accusing the porn industry of being a force for negative sex education and undermining the kind of work she was trying to do as a sex educator. At the same time, she had suddenly started up a close friendship with Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, aka, Heart, who many will remember as one of the more belligerent and confrontational radfems active on the blogosphere. (Though over the last year, Heart seems to have retreated to her corner of the blogosphere, leaving ND and few others to be the main bomb-throwers from that corner.) Around this time, Heather Corinna started giving some distinctly kink-unfriendly advice on Scarleteen. However, she thankfully didn't go completely over to that perspective, and Scarleteen overall has remained an excellent sex education site, and pretty much head-and-shoulders above anything else out there for that age-group. At the same time, Heather Corinna does occasionally get a bit paternalistic, and knowing some of that background has me take her with a grain of salt when she starts to come across that way.

    I agree overall, though, with your point about defense of individual rights and freedom of expression for its own sake really taking a beating, unfortunately. In part, I think its a backlash against a kind of Randian libertarianism that was in fashion from the late 80s onward. I think a lot of people have come to see the shortcomings of that ideology, but too often throw the baby out with the bathwater, and don't seem to recognize the importance of a strong defense of basic civil liberties and individual rights, regardless of one's feelings on "free market" economics.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't think I'm buying that. One of the many things lacking in radfem analysis is much understanding of or even interest in economics outside of the narrowest construction of it as concerns things like the porn industry. If you compare the word counts on radfem blogs devoted to porn and those devoted to, say, the economic conditions that drive young mothers to risk combat by joining the military because it's the only way they can afford healthcare for their kids, you'll find a great disparity indeed. As to the latter, in fact, if you read anything at all, it will be supportive of the choices of women in the military, even from those who are disdainful of the concept of choice when applied to sex work.

    There may be a generalized disillusionment with economic libertarianism among some intellectuals who were entranced with the idea until their own 401(k)s imploded, but that's not a broad contingent.

    More broadly there seems to be an unfocused anger toward those who seem to have benefitted from the anything-goes atmosphere of the past 20 years at what they perceive to have been their expense, but that anger is mainly from working-class men and much of it is aimed at those pesky cultural elites we keep hearing about.

    Those who are the most vocal in that crowd want less regulation, even though the dismantling of banking regulations is part of what put them in the hole they occupy today, and smaller government. They seem to be, if anything, more committed to the romance of rugged individualism than ever, which is sad indeed when you consider how limited their actual choices are at this point.

    Mainly, it's a circular firing squad in which everyone blames everyone else for how bad things are and nothing ever changes.

    I also think that trends play a role in this debate. Second Wave feminism has been out of fashion for a long time, but since Andrea Dworkin's death, it seems to have become something of a fad again. It would seem that many people, this time as many men as women I suspect, will have to find out all over again why that thinking was ultimately rejected the first time. ND is pretty typical when it comes to putting a hip face on retread, basically reactionary ideas. I think my director friend Toni English hits it on the head when she calls them Neo-Con feminists. Old wine in new bottles indeed.

    ReplyDelete