Pornography has been a topic of interest to feminist philosophers and feminists in general for quite some time. (It has also been an important topic in aesthetics and philosophy of art, but here I will not engage with this literature at all.) I think it is fair to say that most feminists (philosophers or otherwise) tend to be critical of pornography and to view it as yet another form of oppression of women, for a variety of reasons. (For an overview, see Watson’s 2010 review article in Philosophy Compass.) But at least some feminists (e.g. Betty Dodson) have defended more favorable views of pornography, for example by recognizing that there is wide diversity under the general heading of pornography. Some say that there is no such thing as Pornography with capital P, but rather a range of pornographies, different instantiations of the general idea.
Let me state from the outset that I (feminist or not) identify with the second camp. I do not endorse the view that pornography is in principle, by definition, degrading (to women or others). So to define pornography as “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women, whether in pictures or words” (as MacKinnon and Dworkin did in the early 1980s) is in a sense conveniently question-begging. Moreover, it seems to exclude from the realm of pornography manifestations which most of us would not hesitate to call pornography (say, a graphic sexually explicit encounter between two men).
Now, a bit to my surprise (given the widespread feminist criticism of pornography), the Feminist Philosophers recently linked to a very interesting piece by Dylan Ryan, a feminist porn star. She narrates the story of how she became a performer in pornographic movies (mostly lesbian, if I understood it correctly), and later on also a self-identified feminist (once she got over the idea that feminism and porn could never go hand in hand). It is a very insightful piece, which goes against the stereotype of women being coerced into becoming porn performers – i.e. the idea that no women would voluntarily choose this path.
Porn has been a positive choice for me. […] it is something I can say has been empowering and strengthening rather than oppressive and denigrating.
In the same Feminist Philosophers post, a commenter linked to a quantitative study taking IAFD.com, the IMDB for pornography, as data set. This study too challenges many widely circulated preconceptions about porn and porn performers (for example, that the majority of women only do one porn video and then quit, out of disgust).
What these analyses suggest is that there are some real counterexamples to the MacKinnon/Dworkin view of pornography. But this is not the whole story, even for porn-friendly feminists such as myself. In a 2011 piece, 'The Porn Ultimatum', Cordelia Fine reviews the widely diverging recent empirical, quantitative studies on pornography, and sides with those who conclude that, all things considered, porn continues to have a degrading effect. She argues that, even if in theory there can be porn that is not based on violent subordination of women, in practice, as a purely quantitative matter, the porn that actually gets produced and consumed is in its wide majority (in particular the popular genre gonzo) based on abuse and violence. She concludes: “Even if you agree with the theory of commercial pornography, there are clearly major issues with the practice.” (Many of those who self-identify as 'feminist pornographers' would entirely agree with this conclusion, and are in fact very critical of what could be described as 'mainstream porn' -- see here for an interview with feminist pornographer Tristan Taormino.)
Personally, the aspect of current porn consumption that worries me most is its wide availability to the youth (in particular young boys). As the first generations of ‘internet kids’ now become young adults, many of them are reporting on the negative effects of early exposure to porn on their sexuality. In a nutshell, the problem is that, by being exposed to porn before they are exposed to real sex (as everyone knows, even porn fans, porn is for the most part nothing like real sex), youngsters develop entirely misguided conceptions of what sex is all about. They then have issues adapting to reality when they initiate their sex lives with (real people) partners. These concerns have motivated advertising big shot Cindy Gallop to initiate the campaign ‘Make love, not porn’ (with accompanying website, book, TED talk, the whole shebang), including some rather comic myth-busting (too ‘graphic’ to be reproduced here – go check it out yourself if you are curious).
Where do we go from here? I think the first conclusion to be drawn is that pornography, and the impact it has on people’s lives, is a multifaceted phenomenon requiring a lot of finesse to be properly discussed. (There is a new collection of essays out, The Feminist Porn Book, which promises to be doing exactly that.) There is some evidence suggesting that porn (both for performers and for viewers) can have beneficial, life-enhancing effects, but there is also a wealth of evidence suggesting that, for this to happen, porn must be consummed with moderation and a critical sense – something that, in any case, cannot be expected of young viewers. (It is not for nothing that porn is euphemistically referred to as 'adult entertainment'.) This is a serious issue, for feminists and non-feminists alike.
------------------------------------------
UPDATE: John Protevi calls my attention to the book Why Internet Porn Matters (by Margret Grebowicz), which seems directly relevant to the points I'm raising here (but judging from the publisher's description only).
Recent Comments