Warning: this post is about pornography, so be prepared for a massive feministing-style debate (I hope!).
When Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series appeared in the public consciousness, a lot of feminist commentators rightly took the series to task for its potential to negatively influence teenage girls in regard to the sort of partners they would deem desirable - overly-protective, stalkerish 'bad-boys' in this case. The prevalent view seemed to be that the books were sexist and potentially damaging to young women.
For the most part, I agree with this conclusion, but it strikes me as interesting that in this instance it is taken as a given that a fantasy novel can have a significant impact on a teenage (and older) person's psyche. However, in many other cases feminists seem reluctant to draw similar conclusions about the possible detrimental impacts of repeated pornography use.
To make my stance clear - I consider myself an anti-porn feminist. This does not mean, however, that I am in favour of censorship (I doubt many people really are) or of shaming people for what they find sexually appealing. For me, pornography is in the same camp as lipstick, high-heels and conventional marriage - all are products of a patriarchal society (and throughout this post I will be referring strictly to pornography that is commonly viewed as objectifying and degrading toward women) and I believe we would be happier and more fulfilled human beings without them in our lives.
However, this does not mean that I think all people who wear high-heels or watch pornography are bad people - we are all subject to some degree of influence by the patriarchy and a person cannot be expected to separate his or herself entirely from the culture that surrounds us. You can still be a good feminist and wear lipstick or watch pornography - that's your personal choice - but that doesn't mean others should stop criticising the cultural forces that tell women that they are only beautiful if they plaster their faces with make-up or that it is 'natural' for men to find the current portrayals of women in pornography attractive - portrayals which I find to be (on average) unrealistic and misogynistic.
I think it is possible to make a valid criticism of pornography without seeking to portray individuals who watch it, or men and women who participate in its production, as 'wrong' or victims of the patriarchy.
My principal point is this - the more we learn about the brain, particularly in the field of neuroplasticity, the more we are discovering about its very integrated nature. It is incongruous to assume that repeated exposure to objectifying and sometimes degrading pornography (to men and women) would have no impact on the way in which one perceives the world, while reading a fantasy novel such as Twilight would. I see no reason why sexual fantasies should be deemed to be separate from reality - indeed, the complex interplay of electrochemical signals and hormones produced during sexual release would suggest that sexual stimuli have more of a chance of altering behaviour than other stimuli.
This does not mean that I believe every person who watches pornography will view women in an objectifying and discriminatory way. However, I believe that for some young men who watch pornography (still the leading demographic) there is potential for objectifying pornography to negatively influence the way in which they view women (as sexual personality-lacking objects, rather than autonomous, intelligent, sexual human beings), similarly to the potential the Twilight has to negatively influence the ways in which young women view romance.
I think, as a movement, we are currently very hesitant to take a position on pornography generally - which is completely fair enough, because there is a lot of variety out there. But in doing so, a lot of people seem to be ignoring the sexism and misogyny present in a lot of 'mainstream' porn and giving it a sort of 'get out of jail free card' by stating that sexual fantasies have little or no relation to real life. I call bullshit.
So my question is this: do most people believe that 'mainstream' pornography has the potential to negatively impact the ways in which people view women? (especially adolescents and young men).
In this post I have tried to make it clear that I don't wish to shame anyone for what turns them on - that's your business, not mine - but I think we need to continue to criticise the patriarchal memes within the majority of pornography and not allow it off the hook because it is simply 'fantasy'.
Note: If you are commenting, please, please, please try to refrain from using accusatory or aggressive language. I am 19, and this is only the second time I have posted on the feministing community. Disagree with me all you want, but we're all on the same side really (we're all feminists!).
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Pornography Vs Reality.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16747
Beautiful post. I completely agree.
What I wonder about is how people can be strong supporters of ending misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism, fatphobia and sexism in all other forms of media, but for some reason these are never even brought up in the discussion of porn. With the "let people be aroused by what they want to be and make porn of it" argument it's as though a white man could be slapping a black woman dressed as a cheetah around in a comedy movie and because it is presented as comical that is so horribly racist and wrong (which we all know it is,) but if the same scene were in a porn movie and presented as sexually arousing, all of a sudden we can't judge people for getting off to that.
If this isn't why we ignore the subject of racism or homophobia or sexism in porn please let me know, because quite honestly I can't understand why nobody has ever brought anything but misogyny up in conversations of porn. I understand everyone has their kinks, but don't we sometimes put just awful shit in porn and create kinks for people? Like in the OP, people know that Twilight is fantasy and yet apply it to real life, so why is it we assume that everyone watches porn knows in their head that you usually can't apply moves or ideas in porn to real life? Am I the only person who knows people (well men,) that assume that how people have sex in porn is how people have sex or should have sex in real life?
I agree that men want women to have sex like they've seen in porn. I've had boyfriends who expected it. I dumped them, of course, and immediately. I'm not signing up to educate anyone. They have to be educated already if I am to let them into my private sphere.
I disagree. Life is better with pornography in it. I would never want it to go away. Especially since it's such a blanket term that covers everything from romance novels to mild erotica to hard core porn to any form of nudity.
Desiring different types of porn is understandable but I'm really getting sick of being told porn is bad and should not exist. That's not a soceity I want to live-in. I want the sexual freedom to explore myself and my sexuality and there's no doubt this is made easier by pornography. Especially if you are in a committed relationship you simply can't experience you might want to yourself or figure everything out yourself without inspiration from others.
I think that many people probably do agree that pornography affects consumers' tastes and attitudes, just like Twilight and other fantasy does.
However, the analogy between Twilight and porn is flawed because there aren't a substantial number of people who want to see Twilight censored or banned, and there are a substantial number who do want to see pornography censored or banned; I think that is why a lot of folks don't speak up about porn's impact on personal development and taste - because it seems like it could lead towards a slippery slope of censorship.
The difference between porn and sexual fantasy being that porn involves REAL people. I am permitted to have as fucked up sexual fantasies as I wish as long as I'm not under the belief that a real live person has to perform it. (Unless of course I had made a personal deal with those people to perform whatever crazy-ass act I wished?) Also, just like how S&M isn't the 'normal standard' of pornography, the exploitation of women shouldn't be the norm either. I find it to be ridiculous that I can hardly seem to find an actual video of two people actually having sex, which I am pretty sure the term pornography denotes. Every video I watch seems to be a 'Bitch getting fucked' or whatever ridiculous nonsense title we are supposed to gloss over on our search for midnight jollies.
Of course videos of sexual intercourse shouldn't be banned, if those people want to make videos, and want people to them doing it then there isn't a problem with it. Many people aren't getting exposed to sex otherwise, however, the problem lies in the fact that younger impressionable people are being led to believe that the most they have to look forward to in sex is 'fucking some bitch' or 'getting a big cock in their pussy' and that videos portraying this are supposed to be the sexual standard for masturbating or arousal or whatever.
Not just young, impressionable people, either, old, impressionable people, too.
You are totally right, btw. It never occurred to me before that there is no porn about two (or more) people having sex. It even sounds kind of boring, which is messed up. When I have sex, it is not boring, and I don't need to refer to it as "bitch getting fucked" to make it sound erotic. Interesting insight.
There's one factor you're leaving out: age.
I bring this up specifically in relation to your Twilight analogy. Porn is considered adult entertainment for a reason. If there was porn being marketed to 14-year-olds, people would be flipping out all over the place for the same reason people have issues with Twilight now- it's giving these messages to people who don't know anything about real relationships yet. This is the basis of their learning right now.
On the flip side, Anne Rice wrote some crazy-ass vampire shit (or so I hear- never read more than a couple pages of it), but that wasn't designed for kids. Thus, there wasn't any real argument (that I know of) where people beyond the loonies said her books were going to be terrible for society or something.
Does that mean the effects you're speaking of don't occur in adults watching porn? No, although a more relevant problem would be the ease with which underage people can get their hands on porn. But I think age is really why you're seeing disparity in reactions to the two.
The average age of first time porn viewing according to at least one study I've seen is 11 years old, (via google).
Now I don't know if this is an example of 1 study being rehashed, but anecdotally this jives with what enough twentysomethings who have told me. Some guys even said they were exposed to porn as early as 8 years old.
that was in response to this part of what Spiffy was saying:
it's giving these messages to people who don't know anything about real relationships yet. This is the basis of their learning right now.
Not to get into, "what about the childrenz" but I think a lot of people have the same concerns about porn.
And really porn need not not even be marketed for kids to find it appealing. American puritanism and the deliberate promulgation of ignorance is the best marketing campaign a producer could ever ask for.
That doesn't surprise me much. People who think Twilight is going to warp teenage girls should probably be looking for an answer to this problem too. But because porn is designed for adults and Twilight for adolescents, the facts aren't going to get in the way of the reactions.
I admit I view pornography, though I am frequently appalled by the titles and descriptions attached to women, of which "whore", "slut", and "bitch" are in constant usage. The conventional pornography that is commercially done does not interest me a bit and I find it beyond phony, so instead I focus only on amateur stuff done by regular human beings merely documenting their otherwise private sex lives.
There have been sites and groups of people intent on producing pornography that is not objectionable. The great debate that tore apart our mother's generation of feminists I hope will not be repeated with ours.
A lot of amateur porn is not actually amateur porn. If you're paying for it, there's a fair chance you're putting money in the pockets of the same people who make bitch-whore porn. Just a heads-up.
I admit I view pornography, though I am frequently appalled by the titles and descriptions attached to women, of which "whore", "slut", and "bitch" are in constant usage. The conventional pornography that is commercially done does not interest me a bit and I find it beyond phony, so instead I focus only on amateur stuff done by regular human beings merely documenting their otherwise private sex lives.
There have been sites and groups of people intent on producing pornography that is not objectionable. The great debate that tore apart our mother's generation of feminists I hope will not be repeated with ours.
I admit I view pornography, though I am frequently appalled by the titles and descriptions attached to women, of which "whore", "slut", and "bitch" are in constant usage. The conventional pornography that is commercially done does not interest me a bit and I find it beyond phony, so instead I focus only on amateur stuff done by regular human beings merely documenting their otherwise private sex lives.
There have been sites and groups of people intent on producing pornography that is not objectionable. The great debate that tore apart our mother's generation of feminists I hope will not be repeated with ours.
I admit I view pornography, though I am frequently appalled by the titles and descriptions attached to women, of which "whore", "slut", and "bitch" are in constant usage. The conventional pornography that is commercially done does not interest me a bit and I find it beyond phony, so instead I focus only on amateur stuff done by regular human beings merely documenting their otherwise private sex lives.
There have been sites and groups of people intent on producing pornography that is not objectionable. The great debate that tore apart our mother's generation of feminists I hope will not be repeated with ours.
This is a great post, and I agree with you. I am a feminist, but I am also a socialist, and I see porn as being a business that puts men in the position of owning the means of production (bourgeoisie) and women and certain men in the position of exploited labor (proletariat). I do not watch pornography to discuss representation within it, but I think that big-production porn is as exploitative and uncaring as a sweatshop. And, I know of feminist porn out there and porn produced for people who don't consume this mainstream kind of porn, and I hope that such work continues for those who enjoy the genre-- to do so knowing that better representations are given and that better working conditions are available.
I have mixed feelings about porn. I used to look at it a lot as a teenager but have changed my view on it after getting more interested in gender and women's issues. I've read and learned about studies in psychology classes that showed how men found "normal" women less attractive after viewing porn. I recently found out what anal bleaching is and that it is a common practice among porn stars. I've read about how brain chemistry and what turns us when we have real sex can be change after watching too much porn because your brain has learned to connect the visual stimuli with arousal. Intimacy can be negatively impacted because of this, and your brain may have to relearn what causes arousal.
On the other side, porn can open you up to new things that you wouldn't have thought to try. It can help you during times of sexual frustration. Feminists have been pushing "feminist porn" that depicts natural and normal people having sex.
Personally, I'm leaning more towards the side of less porn and more sexual education and pushing literature about how we can pleasure ourselves and our partners. I think mainstream porn has become way too easily accessible. The mainstream porn of today is more violent, less realistic, and more stimulating than in the past. I don't think it's something that very young people can really understand. Heck, I can't even process and begin to understand some of the mainstream porn out there. There's a difference between seeing a Playboy magazine as your first porn and seeing Anal Gang Bang whatever as your first porn. I know I was too young when I was first viewing internet porn. I didn't understand it, and it certainly didn't help me learn anything about intimacy. There's something to be said about learning to use your imagination to explore your sexual desires, or better yet, learning your sexual desires with a partner, a human being rather than a computer.
I don't think porn should be censored, but I do think there are consequences for allowing a free for all. I do, however, think there should be more regulation on how easy porn is accessible to minors. Sure, they'll still obtain it but at least it won't be as easy as typing in "anal" or "pussy" on google.
"The mainstream porn of today is more violent, less realistic, and more stimulating than in the past."
Eh... I don't know about that.
Violence: I'm sure you can find more violent porn than existed in the past, but you can find more of any type of porn under that definition. The entire business has changed, so that's tough to determine.
Realism: Porn was never realistic and it still isn't. If you want to hit the realism angle, look at the exploding popularity of porn that depicts situations where dudes with a camera walk up to some "random" female and get her to do this, that, and whatever for cash on the spot. They're faking reality-style scenarios, but that doesn't make them less realistic than the ludicrous porns of bygone days. Given the hook-up culture, there's a potential argument that current scenarios really are more plausible, but it's not one I'm going to make.
More stimulating: Yeah. It has to be to compete.
"The mainstream porn of today is more violent, less realistic, and more stimulating than in the past."
Eh... I don't know about that.
It's true. People who study porn make these comparisons, and modern porn is way, way different from what it was a couple decades ago.
I should have been more clear. Bodies are less realistic. If you search for porn from the 1970s or 1980s you get at least some normalcy such as pubic hair. Today's porn stars are hairless and have bleached assholes, how is that realistic?
There have been studies on how violence has changed in porn, it's more frequent and often more extreme. One book I read about porn is Pornified. While the book is biased in the sense that the author is for the regulation of porn she cites many studies regarding how violence is portrayed in internet porn. Not to mention, even if porn isn't more violent (which I doubt based on what I've read and seen, I have looked at my fair share of internet and vintage porn) it is more readily available to everyone. If you want to watch porn you don't have to drive yourself to the adult superstore to pick up a video, you just have to log onto your computer. Certainly, more people are exposed to violent porn than in the past because of the internet.
Ok. I'm curious how they quantify "more"- how are they defining it for one, but more to the point, are they saying more exists (obviously yes) or it makes up a larger percentage of existing porn? But if I want to know that badly I'll go look it up.
I will admit I hadn't thought of how people look as part of the realism aspect. That's pretty much inarguable, just on the basis of implants. My
Wait a minute -are you telling me that Big Sausage Pizza VIII isn't real?
Given the hook-up culture, there's a potential argument that current scenarios really are more plausible, but it's not one I'm going to make.
Huh? That stuff is scripted buffoonery pure and simple. C'mon.
You know what they call a real "reality porn video"?
Evidence.
Seriously.
Feh, I knew I shouldn't have bothered with that part.
I know full well it's absurd to think that any of those are in any way unscripted. The only way that's going to happen in real life is if somebody actually buys into it to the degree that they go and try it themselves, and somehow, some way, it works. A miracle, basically. What you see (or at least what I've seen) in old porn can be described in basically the same way- the only way any of it could ever happen in real life would be as part of a situation so bizarre the story told after begins, "It was unbelievable, like I was in a porno." That's all I was trying to say.
Besides, it doesn't really matter because I didn't understand the smackdown on "realism" was also based on how the actors look. Given that, what I said is pretty much irrelevant.
I totally argee with you---I love your lipstick analogy.
I feel like things like Twilight and porn---they're just manifestations of what we're taught when we're young.
Girls are supposed to be turned by love and romance and boys who love them SO MUCH it makes them do bad things.
Boys are supposed to touch themselves and wack off, but sex is dirty so all those girls in the videos are whores cuz they make them do naughty things.
So when these things are acted out when we're older, it doesn't surprise me.
On other hand, if all these guys are watching porn and most likely dating real life girls, how does that really work out? And what is the point of porn if that's not real life?
I've been thinking a lot about similar issues recently - in the context of romance novels, not porn, but I believe some of the same principles apply.
As a critic, I don't especially want to put myself in the position of judging other people's fantasies, because I'm certainly not qualified to do so. What is open to criticism - and what should be open to criticism - is genre. Whenever one comments on porn (or, as it was in my case, romance fiction) one invariably gets some responses along the lines of 'it's just fantasy, don't judge, blah blah blah'. Personally, I don't think this holds water. There are a lot of things that can be got away with in this area that get a free pass because it's 'fantasy' - but I think that once something's gone public and is being viewed or read by others, it becomes 'story'.
'Fantasy' is private. 'Story' is public, and thus should be open to criticism.
I'm still trying to nut out the detail of my position on this, but in the case of porn, I don't believe it should be censored. What it should be is subjected to fair, open and public critique. I think calling it 'fantasy' is giving it a free pass, and we should definitely think about and criticise what it is we are reading and viewing.
"I see no reason why sexual fantasies should be deemed to be separate from reality"
Agreed. What we think colors how we feel and be and are. In this sense, every fantasy is shaping reality--and we have control over our perceptions. Can ya dig? So IMO, porn (how much/what kind we watch) is nothing. How we treat each other is everything.
I recently did a presentation in class on feminist pornography, focusing on the work of feminist pornographer, sex educator and author Tristan Taormino. While I certainly agree with the OP that mainstream pornography has very problematic misogynistic, racist, and violent aspects, I also believe that it is possible to subvert the system and create egalitarian, anti-racist, sex-positive pornography that is woman-centered and shows women's pleasure as positive. Taormino has done this, as have many other female feminist porn directors and producers. In addition, porn can act as an educational tool - Taormino, Nina Hartley and others have produced porn that is also an educational video. I think that as feminists, it is possible, and even desirable, to put as much positive sexual information out there as possible for the use and pleasure of women, and pornography can be subverted, and even openly used for that purpose.
I totally agree with you. I don't think porn is per se anti-feminist and problematic. I think the context within which it is produced frequently is the problem. I know several outstanding porn actors and producers who make really good, educational porn. I think there's a big different between Taormino and the BangBus, for example.
Porn is fantasy, yes. But when that fantasy is consistently replicated to become fact, that's the problem. Like any form of media, to me.
I wonder how long until some of the regulars "feminists" on Feministing come out and start defending pornography culture as natural and merely part of "being a man."
A more analytical response later. :)
Thanks for all the comments! I usually follow the various pornography debates on the feministing community and they often have a tendancy to end up with people insulting each other and neglecting meaningful dialogue. This conversation, by contrast, has been awesome and very insightful!
Personally, I don't think the question we should be considering is whether porn should be banned or condemned as a whole - this could never really happen and would only unnecessarily limit people sexually. The question is, how do we change pornography so that the norm is not misogynistic/racist/sizist and completely unrealistic (as other people have mentioned above).
For me, porn (in general) is a clear indicator of the patriarchy in action. Patriarchy is often not so blatant in Western societies nowadays, but in pornography it seems a hatred of women is still very evident.
Honestly, until men are no longer the target audience, it will never be better than it is now. I think women should be more involved in making porn instead of being the object that is fucked. I have Playgirl's last issue (you are missed, PG!) and there is a sequence of photos between a man and woman that could be pornography, but I find it very egalitarian and the bodies are real so it doesn't bother me. I actually like it. I like a lot of things that could be considered porn, and I don't think it should be banned. I do, however, think porn reflects our societies view of women. That is honestly what I consider to be porn's only crime (including the racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.)
I agree that porn is often only reflecting misogyny that already exists - but it doesn't have to. We take other aspects of society to task for reflecting horribly sexist/racist perspectives - I think we should be applying the same standard to porn.
I also think shows a more heightened misogyny than is shown in ordinary society and that unless we try to adress the sexism in porn (as well as sexism more generally) we will always be stuck in this horrible self-perpetuating cycle (porn reflects misogyny in society -> misogyny is consolidated by the influence of porn).
I am female, becoming a feminist, and very much happy that porn exists. I don't watch any, but in my experience, it is FAR safer living as a female in an area where the men have ready access to porn. I've lived in many different places, all over, and in the ones where sales of porn are banned - you do NOT want to be a female living there - the amount of accepted violence to real females is WAY higher than in a place where the men can easily find porn and IMAGINE the violence, rather than needing to act it out irl.
Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not saying all men are violent - I'm just saying that of the ones who are violent, a large percentage of those can use the porn to imagine and not act upon their desires/needs.
I am a young man who uses porn. I find it unfortunate that you felt you had to spend literally half of this post apologizing to the egoes of guys like me, Rebecca Winter. Here's the thing, though: I probably would be more defensive and less accepting of your primary point if you hadn't. So I'm glad you did and sad you had to.
As to that point, I can attest to the fact that it definitely does have an effect and that it takes a strong will and perceptive mind to resist that effect. I don't hold any truck with reasons of brain chemistry or biopsychology; I merely understand that repetition of a stimulus acclimates the individual to that stimulus, and know very personally that fantasy and reality can blend (or in other cases compete in strange and nonsensical ways) in one's mind whether one chooses to let them or not.
Newbiefeminist, I find your posts interesting because I have wondered recently what men did in the 19th and early 20th Centuries (and earlier of course) with no way to "harmlessly" satiate their libidoes. I know that the employment of prostitutes was much more socially acceptable in the upper classes, and also that (just as today) many lower class people were married simply because they couldn't resist the temptation to satisfy their libidoes, but this is all still nothing compared to the kind of access any member of the lower middle class in the first world has today.
The hypothesis I really want tested is: do men (and women to a lesser extent) have more active sex drives today BECAUSE of the increase in the frequency of stimuli (not so much explicit ones like porn as slightly-less-explicit ones like advertisements and the standards of sex appeal we hold almost any celebrity to) compared to that time, or were people just generally more frustrated back then? Did victorian men just have to have and therefore learn to have much longer attention spans and stronger wills than men of today (and by extension me, or where would the real interest be in this after all)?
Nolan - your ideas are really intriguing! I've been thinking about them ever since reading your post.
I agree with you about the repetition effect. And the more it acclimates someone, and is not limited to that one person, then the more it becomes the norm in society, and the more anyone who is not so acclimated will be told that they are wrong in their thinking, (either told expressly, or they will get that message from their culture) and they will feel the pressure to also accept that new norm.
Other than time travel, I'm not sure how to test your hypothesis, but from thinking about it, I would tend to agree. Of course, things varied by culture, but take someone like Jack the Ripper, who was an anomaly of his time, and compare him to a man today who does the same thing and won't even rate a newspaper article. On the other hand, if you go back a few centuries, there is more of a tradition of the boy, upon reaching manhood, going off to find and fight in a war (which would be both fighting other soldiers, as well as taking the spoils of war - which, of course, included raping the women and girls in the fallen towns - two types of violent releases). Then again, they were expected to return, settle down, and only fight in defense of their own town and family.
My feeling is that porn both helps to escalate that violence (as well as send the message that, if it's against women/girls, it's OK), AND provide the release for most men who need that violence. Of course, it would be a much nicer world if that need for violence wasn't there, but I, for one, am happy that the men who feel that need have the pressure valve release of porn.
Would you mind explaining what you meant by "attention spans"? I'm lost on that point. I don't watch porn myself, so maybe I'm missing something - does it have very quick cuts and editing?
I'd be happy to. By attention span I really meant patience. Specifically the patience to endure a period of courtship that has become extremely stereotypical when it comes to Victorian society and others like it (to the point where it may not be accurate at all). Potential couples were expected to maintain a virginal state until their marriage and I think that men were expected to at least feign this and I assume not employ prostitutes, but honestly who knows?
Can you imagine spending years fulfilling a promise to prepare to marry someone without becoming significantly attracted to anyone else OR experiencing fulfilling (this is relative of course) intimacy with the anticipated individual? Think of the mental discipline! That discipline is really what I mean by an attention span. I cannot but imagine that this "discipline" resulted in some very unrealistic expectations of some very doomed marriages (but continue they did, regardless of the state they devolved into), but it also theoretically allowed these people to be masters of their sex drives in ways that we are simply unaccustomed to today.
By extension, I am also using the term attention span to address the phenomenon mentioned earlier by which people accustomed to porn find the typical member of the opposite sex less attractive. Surely this exercise that our forebears endured must have led them to see almost any well-groomed (or even "rugged") member of the opposite sex as quite a stimulating example of their gender ... or did it? If not, I think the only explanation is that the lack of sexuality in the media they were exposed to on a daily basis accounts for this difference.
P.S. I fully realize that I am not addressing the matter of LGBT individuals of today and yesteryear, and assume that everyone understands how much that would complicate my query and expand it into something too complex to fit into one of these posts.
I'm disturbed by a couple of assumptions both of you two are making. You both sound young, so I'm thinking that's part of it:
First, that male sexuality is inherently violent (at least that's what I got from it). Why do you think some men are just inherently violent? Don't you think it's possible that this violence is taught? Maybe it isn't a matter of "release" vs. "no release" but rather whether or not someone is raised in an environment where they're taught that sex is not taboo and that it can be consistant with a loving relationship? (i.e. there is a difference between rough, passionate sex and violence -women and men both like the former, and I've found boys growing up in more repressive environments have more trouble grasping this)
Also, I definitely believe rape occured plenty in the Victorian Era, and it occurs plenty today. Neither of those things to me say that it's "inevitable" or that boys must have a "release" (although if you simply mean masturbation and fantasies, yeah, that's always happened and porn isn't necessary).
You seem to be saying that young men today aren't capable of "waiting" and appreciating a partner even if sexual release isn't immediate. I strongly disagree. It's less common, perhaps, but I know some wonderful men who like to connect with their partners on multiple levels, and are content to wait awhile on sex. Sex is part of a healthy relationship, but not the ONLY part. Other things are critical too.
Look at Georgian England, one in five women was engaged in prostitution, it was considered an acceptable and encouraged practice for men to visit prostitutes. This trend continued until recent days. Among those born before WWII, 70% have visited a prostitute.
Today 5% have. Further increases in broadband internet (a major route of access to pornography) has been strongly linked to a decrease in the violence for men aged 15-19.
Yeah quite frankly I don't buy the idea of a moral past. They were far more debauched, disease spreading and immoral.
19? Wow! You are so eloquent and you definitely did a great job on this post.. very concise.. I always love to meet another anti-porn feminist!
Anti-porn as a term scares me quite a bit. Given that "porn" can be defined in multiple ways. Also, once you start making moves to restrict access to the most violent or degrading pieces then the religious right join into the fight and soon it has gone from the definition of porn that we are all working with here to their definition of porn. Their definition of porn includes homosexuality, whether it is kissing or even holding hands.
Yes, I am anti-porn but I am pro-education first. I don't think porn should be restricted or banned because the next step is banning any honest sort of relationship depiction that is not white and straight and able-bodied and thin... the list goes on and on. Men and women should be made aware of what they are consuming (think alcohol and drug labels, or even the rating system for movies, minus the homophobic aspect)
The industry really needs to have a few more workers rights related regulations but that is a separate argument.
The religious right are far better at definition and scare tactics than we are and starting down this road would mean the co-opting of our definitions and goals in favor of theirs and that is just not something I am willing to risk. I would rather have violent porn that people have the option of not watching than going back to when honest depictions of my lifestyle, and the lifestyle of many others, was outlawed.
Hi, this is the OP (for some reason I have a different name when I comment).
When I say anti-porn, I should really always say "anti the large amount of mainstream porn that depicts women as hyper-sexualised objects for the enjoyment of men (without allowing them any humanity)" and then add that I would never support censorship. But that is all rather a mouthful, so sometimes it ends up as just "anti-porn". Carisaw, I completely agree with your pro-education stance.
To the other comments above - I think it is very dangerous to imply that men have some innate tendency to violence and that porn is their way of coping with this. I don't believe this reflects most men - just certain cultures and socialisation practices that do not occur universally. This line of thinking seems to play too much into the idea of men as bestial creatures who cannot control their impulses (and therefore commit rape supposedly) and is as repulsive to me as the idea of 'pure' and 'virginal' femininity.
I'm always really interested to read the Feministing posts on pornography, and like many of the rest of you, I'm happy to see one as civil as this!
I find my own opinions on porn to be very similar to the OP's - anti-porn, sure, but also anti-censorship, and I am very open to expanding the dialogue on how to increase the market for porn (which isn't going away) that is not misogynistic and also which is more female, LBGT, trans friendly etc.
However, we live in the world that we do, and the harsh reality, for now, is that there's a lot of misogynistic porn out there, and men are using it - men that we hang out with, our friends, our family members, our colleagues, our neighbors, or employers, employees, etc etc etc. My question to those of you who feel similarly about porn as the OP does is this: How do you reconcile your feelings about porn with romantic relationships - ie, you're dating a guy and he uses porn. Is it a deal breaker? Can you ignore it? Do you talk about it? Ask about it? When? first date? second date? 6 months in?
The reason I ask is that I find it helpful to have these debates, and to talk about the market and how to get women more involved in the production of non-misogynistic porn, but when it comes down to it, we live out the reality of porn in our day-to-day lives. And there are a lot of feminist men out there who use porn - just look at some of the comments. Nolan says "I am a young man who uses porn." and agrees with the potentially behavioral modifying effects of that usage. I don't want to vilify men who use porn, largely because I know that a lot of my male friends do, and I also think they're great people - some even identify as feminists. What I don't know is how to manage that disconnect. I've had partners- wonderful, feminist men - who use porn, and honestly I still don't know how to deal with that. Obviously violent and misogynistic porn is a deal-breaker for me, but what about a bit of WASP porn that is not hardcore at all in the context of an otherwise wonderful guy? Thoughts?
Hi - I'm encapsulating a few replies into this post.
Nolan - thank you so much for the explanation of attention span. I do understand what you mean, and I tend to agree with you.
TD - I am guessing that different time periods, like different cultures in the same time period, also were quite different. Georgian England would not be the same as Victorian England, just as Victorian London would not be the same as that city in the Swinging 60's.
Ninapendamaishi - I'm really sorry if I upset you! I know that there are men who don't insist on immediate sex (I'd love to meet some, though). :-) And the "release" I was talking about is both the reality, and, more commonly, what you mentioned - the masturbation and fantasies, which are greatly aided by the porn.
Antigone - great post, wow!!! I'm sorry if I'm derailing - I really hope I'm not, but it's hard to tell. And no, I do not believe all men are violent (which is why I added the second post, to make that clear and not offend anyone). When I was growing up, I was taught that lion/baby zebra (or baby gazelle) story over and over and over and.... But I've met several men who do not have that need, so I know the story is not true for all men. And it seems unlikely that I've happened to meet every good guy out there, so my original point is only about those men who DO need the violence against women/girls - and how many of those men can fill that need with porn and imagination, rather than doing it for real. Which, in my opinion, is a wonderful thing.
And one more quick thing - I really hope I'm not offending anyone with anything I've said. I can totally promise that if anyone is offended by anything, it was completely unintentional and I apologize profusely.