« Swinging for the Fences | Main | Why Gravel's Running »
May 06, 2007
Things I Learned In The Great Porn Conversation
Over the course of reading Amanda's responses to Garance's article, I got a sense for what could be called the "I'm unhappy with porn because I'm pro-sex" position. While neither Amanda nor I actually support raising the age of consent for porn to 21, I liked the following argument very much:
I think raising the age of consent to be in commercial porn to 21 could have to potential to protect youthful sexual experimentation. At least in the case of “Girls Gone Wild”, the presence of Joe Francis and his cameras has turned things like Mardi Gras from occasions of joyous debauchery to mean, misogynist events that aren’t nearly as fun as they used to be. It’s a shame that there’s no space for kids to experiment with some public debauchery anymore without some dick shoving a camera at them in the process of making porn movies that are punitive in nature (those sluts deserve to be humiliated wank wank).
I also liked Amanda's point that a lot of porn "is so fucking prudish with the relentless punishing of women for the crime of being sexual." This is, unfortunately, the case. A fair amount of hardcore porn involves women being called whores or sluts as they engage in various sex acts, with greater female enthusiasm receiving greater taunts. As someone who is fascinated by female sexual enthusiasm, and who sees giving pleasure as the proper manly response to receiving pleasure, I can only see the men involved as losers and the general situation as deeply unfortunate.
The general thrust of Garance's article was that raising the age of consent for porn to 21 "would save a lot of young women from being manipulated into an indelible error." Legal action can occur a lot faster than cultural change, which makes her solution a lot swifter than Amanda's -- working towards a "culture where there’s nothing embarrassing about having been in porn."
But the latter solution is the one that will completely solve the problem. It's not just wrong that an 18-year-old can be manipulated into being in a video that will cause trouble for her for the rest of her life. As a utilitarian and a generally compassionate person, it strikes me as terribly wrong that any woman in porn faces social disapproval for actions that caused no harm and only pleasure to others. We should all do what we can to bring about a time when this stigma is erased. Those of us who, in times of loneliness, have relied on porn for our primary means of sexual release have particularly strong obligations in this regard. We should oppose those who condemn the women of porn and sexually active women generally, and never engage in similar condemnatory behavior ourselves. It's unmanly, ungrateful, and immoral to bite the hand that you wank to.
May 6, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Neil, I like your points and I'm glad you brought up Amanda's point about the prudish/misogynistic nature of mainstream pornography. However, you don't just have an obligation to "oppose those who condemn the women of porn and sexually active women generally, and never engage in similar condemnatory behavior ourselves." You also have an obligation as a liberal man concerned with the exploitation of people around the world (including women) by not "wanking" to it as well...prudish/misognynistic porn that is.
Posted by: Jenn | May 6, 2007 9:48:11 PM
Jenn
Agree that there is an obligation to boycott pornography as it is currently produced and consumed. I am curious as to whether you see the obligation to extend solely to paying for otherwise creating incentives to generate pornography, or whether it extends to the consumption. Personally, I find it corrosive to consume irrespective of whether more is being generated. But this is an aesthetic or personal/spiritual choice. What is the moral argument, if you think there is one, for avoiding porn that can be consumed without incentivizing its production? It starts, I guess, with the moral relationship of the consumer to the person depicted in the "work" -- and would surely arise from the right to control or discontinue intimate relationships. No?
Posted by: R/W | May 6, 2007 10:01:17 PM
I'm sorry, but I can't help but see the "threat" of women being filmed with their tops off as exaggerated to an unreasonable degree in large part because the "victims" of this threat tend to be well-off, white college girls.
When challenged on the actual potential of something like GGW to cause harm to a woman's life, Garance invoked the absurd example of the recent Ms. America who got her crown or whatever revoked because naughty pictures of her were floating around. Needless to say, being stripped of the Ms. America title is not something that the vast majority of women have to worry about.
Posted by: Jason | May 6, 2007 10:01:55 PM
It's unmanly, ungrateful, and immoral to bite the hand that you wank to.
Ha!
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | May 6, 2007 10:06:02 PM
Jason
Come on, you can see the flaw in that argument. Fame is no prerequisite to suffering consequences for this down the line, it was just the most visible example available. Can't you imagine a young girl who appears in a particularly pervasive or popular piece of porn feeling like every guy she meets has seen it, wondering whether they are interested in her only because she is easy, feeling like she is being watched all the time, being fearful that conservative (in the social sense) job prospects might be lost to her if her potential employers learn of it, or just feeling uncomfortable that a lot of people she doesn't know and who don't respect her are having quasi-intimate experiences with her body?
Posted by: R/W | May 6, 2007 10:08:49 PM
being fearful that conservative (in the social sense) job prospects might be lost to her if her potential employers learn of it, or just feeling uncomfortable that a lot of people she doesn't know and who don't respect her are having quasi-intimate experiences with her body?
The proper response shouldn't encode the very attitudes she worries about into law.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | May 6, 2007 10:11:06 PM
Well, and that's why I felt in the end, Tim, that no matter how pro-sex Garance's proposal is, there's no way it would be treated as such in practice. But I do think it was well-intended. Garance and I differ, I do believe, on the advisibility of having some seedy youthful experiences, but we definitely agree that young women should be free to have those without being relentlessly punished for it by the cameras. I think back to my youth and some good times had, and I think it would have been a real shame to have to have not had those experiences for fear of it being used against me on the internet from here until the end of time.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | May 6, 2007 10:17:56 PM
Of course, if you define women's sexuality strictly as existing for male pleasure and don't give two shits about women's feelings, my point is probably lost.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | May 6, 2007 10:18:45 PM
Tim
What is the harm of encoding such an attitude into law? That others will come to share the attitude out of respect for the position of law-makers? Is there any reason to believe public attitude actually works like that?
That whatever the objection there is to acting on these attitudes in the private sector must necessarily apply to the law? Thats not necessarily true is it -- conservacorp might decline her employment because they want to punish her, a law allowing her to revoke informed consent within 30 days would not be punishing anything, even if both were "paternalistic."
Anyway, this objection doesnt obtain to a call for boycott, does it?
Posted by: R/W | May 6, 2007 10:19:50 PM
As I hope my above remarks conveyed, Jenn, I'm pretty turned off by misogyny. Feeling contempt for the man and sadness for the woman aren't exactly emotions that go well with lust. (Sometimes there's something else going on that really excites me, so I put up with the negative aspects.) In any case, I think the real objection would be to paying money for the porn. If you get it for free, you're not contributing to its existence at all.
Just to give an example, Jason, I'm pretty sure that in most of America, a woman who had been in porn wouldn't be able to win any kind of election. And I'm worried about what most men would think about marrying a woman who had had sex with dozens of men on video. (I actually would see that as a plus, because of strange facts about me, but I'm sure that I'm in the minority here.)
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 6, 2007 10:21:14 PM
And I'm worried about what most men would think about marrying a woman who had had sex with dozens of men on video.
This sort of worry seems ripped out of context. The reason that people might worry about marrying a porn star, it seems to me, is that--along with the worries you to which you point--our TV specials give us reason to believe that there may be all manner of baggage in her (or his) life. Those sorts of worries are pretty good ones to listen to when considering marriage, I would think.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | May 6, 2007 10:32:07 PM
R/W, I don't have a utilitarian moral arguement for not consuming porn that doesn't incentivize its production. However, I do think it is troubling that liberal men seem to think that it is morally okay to watch mainstream/misogynistic pornography (without buying it) and get off on porn that degrades women. And I realize this might not necessarily apply to all liberal men, it just seems like this from all the posts I've read by liberal men on the subject of mainstream/misogynistic porn.
Posted by: Jenn | May 6, 2007 10:34:08 PM
But again, the number of people who will ever run for public office or compete in a beauty pageant is statistically insignificant. Surely those who advocate making GGW illegal aren't primarily concerned with preserving the electoral prospects of college-age women. It seems like a red herring (or whatever) to point to Ms. America because that was a result of her being famous, which is such a unique situation that it's basically irrelevant. R/W said:
Fame is no prerequisite to suffering consequences for this down the line, it was just the most visible example available
But the example was precisely a situation in which fame was the reason why this particular woman suffered consequences. It's not a situation that can be generalized at all. What happened to Ms. America wasn't just a high-profile example - it was only an example because it was high-profile. Famous people simply face a whole set of potential problems that the vast majority of people don't.
Now this, also from R/W -
Can't you imagine a young girl who appears in a particularly pervasive or popular piece of porn feeling like every guy she meets has seen it, wondering whether they are interested in her only because she is easy, feeling like she is being watched all the time, being fearful that conservative (in the social sense) job prospects might be lost to her if her potential employers learn of it, or just feeling uncomfortable that a lot of people she doesn't know and who don't respect her are having quasi-intimate experiences with her body?
- makes much more sense to me. This is at least a realistic, generalizable scenario by which a woman suffers from something like GGW.
Whether this is a harm that is significant enough to justify bringing the power of the state to bear on it is another question. Many others have noted the similarity of this rationale to that used by Justice Kennedy recently - it's essentially saying, we have to prohibit women from doing X because they might regret it later. (It's important to remember that the proposed anti-GGW law would impose limits on what Joe Francis can do, but it would also limit what women could do.)
HOWEVER, the problem with this argument is that it could made for any age of consent law. I don't think it should be legal for a grown man to have sex with a 13 year old girl, but I do think the 13 year old girl should be able to have an abortion. I'm not sure how to reconcile the two, but it does go to show that the simple analogy to abortion rights doesn't itself refute Garance's argument.
Posted by: Jason | May 6, 2007 10:41:18 PM
Neil, I just saw your recent post. I'm SO glad that even though you're "pretty turned off by misogyny", "sometimes there's something else going on that really excites me, so I put up with the negative aspects". (SNARK)
Posted by: Jenn | May 6, 2007 10:42:01 PM
Fair enough, Tim, but I'm not that willing to trust our TV specials.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 6, 2007 10:42:43 PM
Tim, that's a bit disingenous. We all know most men's objections to it would have everything to do with a visceral loathing for marriage to a Gold Star Slut, maybe spiked with some fear of not measuring up.
However, I do think it is troubling that liberal men seem to think that it is morally okay to watch mainstream/misogynistic pornography (without buying it) and get off on porn that degrades women.
It's complicated. Male privilege means that they can afford to ignore some of the nastier stuff (stuff that's there to attract nastier men). Women don't have that luxury, most of the time, since that hatred of women is hatred of you, and it's hard to get off when someone is calling you a dirty whore for having sexual desires.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | May 6, 2007 10:45:45 PM
I do think it is troubling that liberal men seem to think that it is morally okay to watch mainstream/misogynistic pornography (without buying it) and get off on porn that degrades women.
This comes up a lot, and I think a huge part of the problem is that everyone talks about "porn that degrades women" without ever really specifying exactly what is meant by that. I sometimes wonder, then, if everyone is talking about the same kind of thing. When people talk about porn that's degrading to women, I never know if they mean almost anything that's not explicitly feminist, or if they just mean truly nasty stuff that any decent person would immediately recognize as degrading.
For example, without getting too explicit, would you consider a sex scene where three men are having sex with one women to be inherently misogynistic? Or what about the common external-ejaculation? I'm really sorry to be so crass, but it seems to some degree necessary if we're really going to distinguish between porn that is acceptable and porn that isn't (which is certainly a worthwhile goal).
Posted by: Jason | May 6, 2007 10:54:11 PM
How about- Hi Dad, I'd like you to meet my fiancee Christina. You might recognize her as Tina T, in GGW or the GGW fan favorite web site.
Raising the age limit will not stop predatory individuals like the GGW bunch, they regularly blur the lines of legal consent because they know the girls are unlikely to want to bring more notoriety on themselves after they sober up. What is needed are clearer rules on what defines "informed consent".
Posted by: Hawise | May 6, 2007 10:56:21 PM
We all know most men's objections to it would have everything to do with a visceral loathing for marriage to a Gold Star Slut, maybe spiked with some fear of not measuring up.We all know most men's objections to it would have everything to do with a visceral loathing for marriage to a Gold Star Slut, maybe spiked with some fear of not measuring up.
I don't think that's true. I can see worrying that a big differential in sexual experience might be evidence of a big difference in one's relationship to sex. Seems reasonable. I can imagine worrying that, in marrying the GSS, you would take on her problems as such; if being the sport of jokes about your sexuality sucks(I assume it does), being married to someone who is sport is probably not so much fun, either. But visceral reactions? Not so much. Fear of not measuring up? If you're young, maybe, but, otherwise,not so much.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | May 6, 2007 11:07:05 PM
Tim, you might (like me) not have the visceral reactions Amanda is talking about, and that's good. But I'm pretty sure that a lot of men would. I think that if you imagine these men being from the South, you'll agree. :)
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 6, 2007 11:15:57 PM
Jason, I would consider a man ejaculating on a woman to be degrading. Also, if a woman is called any variation of "whore/slut/bitch/c***t". Also, if it seems like the woman is in pain, grimacing. And I would have to say general abusive language and acts, like the man saying "get down on your knees and suck me off bitch" while pushing the woman to the ground. (Sorry if this is too explicit. Seems more effective.)
Posted by: Jenn | May 6, 2007 11:23:27 PM
This whole discussion seems unbelievely naive to me. No one that I've seen has raised the issue of child sexual abuse. It's the elephant in the living room. You can't have a meaningful discussion of porn without it. I haven't seen any studies, but I'd be willing to bet that a high percentage of the GGW women had been abused as children; I think there have been studies showing this to be the case for women in porn in general. Abuse is the perfect training ground for sexual exploitation as an adult. In my book, GGW and its cousins are simply another medium for exploiting vulnerable young women, and to suggest there's anything good about any of that, frankly, disgusts me. This is the kind of "liberalism" that has driven many Americans into the arms of the religious right.
Posted by: beckya57 | May 6, 2007 11:33:19 PM
I also think that it is problematic to toss all porn into the "porn degrades women" file. It seems to me that for some porn, the only reason it is degrading is because female sexuality is considered degrading and shameful. I think you have to be careful to avoid fostering the very attitudes you wish to combat, both in terms of infantilizing women and making them ashamed of their sexuality. Some women in porn find it to be a empowering and positive experience (and many don't surely).
This isn't meant to be blanket support for all porn, merely a desire to problematize a blanket condemnation. But I would agree that consumers of porn have a strong obligation to support changes in the industry towards more a more gender egalitarian form.
Posted by: Patrick | May 6, 2007 11:34:41 PM
For someone that can see the Strawfeminist everywhere, Amanda sure is blind to all the Strawman she argues against. And that goes for distorting the arguments and statements and then condemning anyone that disagrees with her as someone interested solely in wanking to 18 year olds, or a rapist.
I am not sure how ethical it is of you Neil to allow her to do just that on your blog
As I understand it, Amanda's argument is:
18 year old women are human beings and rational actors and can enter any contract they wish, but...
Since porn humiliates women in our current society
Since participating in porn leaves lifelong stigmas in our current society,
Since men in our current society are predators that exploit women, all women under 21 need protection from men.
How far off is Amanda's position from those of the evil fathers of the 20th century? It seems to me they agree on an awful lot.
Posted by: jerry | May 6, 2007 11:40:04 PM
Sorry that last link should go to your blog and not to Pandagon.
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/05/under_18_softco.html#comments
You guys don't have permalinks to poster's comments? Isn't that very 1995 of you?
Posted by: jerry | May 6, 2007 11:42:32 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
