|
Point
Pornography and Female Objectification
by Lexie Tourek |
Counterpoint
The Limitations of Anti-Pornography Feminism
by Rachel Yung |
Mass produced videos of the “barely legal” girl, the Asian sex-slave, and the impossibly perfect blonde objectify, oppress, and stereotype every womyn. It does not matter that these womyn are filmed voluntarily, that men recognize the fantastical nature of pornographic material, or that no one is physically harmed. Every explicit sexual image degrades womyn in the eyes and minds of porn’s audience and creates expectations regarding how womyn are supposed to look, act, and respond sexually.
Feminist scholar and UM professor Catharine MacKinnon offers a brilliant counterargument to the defense of pornography as an avenue for “liberation”: she argues that pornographic material is an obscene creation that actively constructs a sexual reality in which womyn are, in effect, made submissive, not only depicted as such. In this sense, the very existence of explicit sexual images of womyn (and men) removes the very possibility of gender equality. So long as people make porn a part of their lives, its social repercussions will affect everyone, regardless of whether he or she views it.
There is no opportunity for equality when pornography thrives in an undetected and un-debated social realm; sexual representations link female gender with a womyn’s sexuality...
There is no opportunity for equality when pornography thrives in an undetected and un-debated social realm; sexual representations link female gender with a womyn’s sexuality, which becomes inseparable from tendentious images disseminated by a network of PlayBoy-esque industries propagating a proper form for what a womyn should be. Moreover, the sexual reality of pornography is not contained in the bedroom: objectification of womyn jeopardizes attempts for female economic and social equality when sexual stereotypes come to describe (and stigmatize) womyn as political subjects.
Within our highly sexualized culture, porn is not the only locus spreading harmful sexual representations, but it is one of the most powerful. Porn creates sexual norms, linking violence with pleasure and pleasure with male satisfaction. Cultural encouragements for womyn, to conform to this gendered dynamic, explains much of what we see today: many womyn aspire to change their bodies with plastic surgeries, hair removals, and diets to become the porn star. For males, “normal sex” entails a portrayal of the domination over female sexual partners as illustrated in porn.
Porn’s sewage seeps not only into our learned sexual roles, but further into other social and political roles. It is impossible to say whether the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace or the media’s fixation on what color lipstick Sarah Palin wore during the elections is a direct result of porn’s prescription of female sexuality, yet it is disturbing that a womyn’s role as a politician or employee must be viewed or complicated by sexuality. Porn cements the relationship between a womyn and her body to how society desires to see her body and to how men use her body.
As a corollary to this general description of dehumanization, the sexual portrayal of minorities creates and reinforces other stereotypes. Porn links race to false structures of sexual desire that unite separate systems of domination. Womyn of different socioeconomic classes are distinguished from one another by the types of sexual acts, and racist depictions of sexuality begin to perversely inform the base stereotypes upon which they thrive.
For example, a video featuring a “hard-working Latina” engaging in obscene sexual performance immediately distinguishes her identity from that of a white/privileged womyn; the fact that the Latina is seen engaging in indiscriminate and ‘filthy’ sex as if it were natural for her to do so disturbingly maps onto racial stereotypes describing the “colored womyn as insatiable sex-fiend” and makes the misapplication of assumptions about “her” identity (as standing in for all Latinas) all the easier, for it is (1) presented in the reinforcing context of the most extreme and basest objectification and (2) attended by the gratifying release of masturbatory orgasm.
Porn stands in for real life encounters, yet simultaneously constructs our fantasies into our reality. This has the most terrifying implications for gender relations in that womyn’s sexuality is shunted by a collective attitude and message that realization of sexual power or equality is not desirable or profitable. How are we supposed to change this dynamic when porn has such an ominous voice in our politics? Is it at all troubling that significant numbers of our public officials have documented problems with sex and sex addiction? Could a porn-based critique of legislative outcomes offer insight into why enormous inequalities still attach to gender in America?
Whether or not pornography contributes to sexualized violence against women and the extent of such an effect, have been hotly contested issues in feminist debate. Anti-pornography feminists tend to argue that porn is intimately linked to sexual violence and enables it, if not instigates it. In his essay “Using Pornography,” anti-pornography feminist Robert Jensen cites particular examples of men who claim that pornography “shaped [their] fantasies, increased the frequency of masturbation [ and, with regard to violence,] was ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’” (1998). Interestingly enough, every subject cited is described as “reluctant to blame his behavior on pornography, […] resist [ant to] putting sole or even primary blame for his abusive behavior on pornography” (ibid). Nonetheless, Jensen insists that the interviews reveal a causal link between pornography and sexual violence against women and children.
Scientific links between male aggression and pornography have been uncertain at best (Donnerstein et al. 1987), leading anti-porn feminists to claim that although “‘science’ has not yet conclusively shown a causal link between the use of pornography and sexual violence, […] such a link is beyond the capacity of science to determine” (Jensen ibid). There have thus been countless testimonies publicized by anti-porn feminists in which women who have been sexually abused recount their husbands and boyfriends wishes to reenact pornography. Yet as many anti-censorship feminists point out, pornography is not the source of the inequality here. Rather, as Carol reports, it is “the fact that men feel entitled to make these demands which is disgusting—not what they desire sexually” (Carol and Pollard 1993), and pinning the blame on pornography “trivialize[s] the degradation and pain of the majority of rape and abuse victims for whom pornography has been irrelevant” (Carol 1994).
...pornography is not the source of inequality here...
The arguments made by anti-porn feminism with regard to the exploitation of women in the porn industry are remarkably similar to feminist anti-prostitution arguments. Both anti-porn and anti-prostitution feminists argue that sex work is inherently harmful to women and that state action against sex work is needed to protect women from these occupations. There is an underlying assumption that the experiences of women in the sex business are uniformly negative, that they have been coerced into participating and their superiors are misogynistic males who actively enjoy using their positions to abuse them.
For example, in a description of a heterosexual scene between two partners in a particular film, Robert Jensen and Gail Dines describe the female as “one of [a] stable of women performers,” and the male as “a male pornography actor” (Jensen and Dines 1998). These descriptions reveal a sharp disparity in the way anti-porn feminists view the roles of males and females in pornography, regardless of what actually takes place.
Another argument shared by anti-porn and anti-prostitution feminists is that women are often forced by economic conditions to enter the sex industry and that the sex industry should therefore be abolished. While the former is certainly true, the latter is hardly a logical response. It implicitly suggests, “Women are not harassed, underpaid, exposed to danger, and mistreated in any other industry. This is obviously nonsense; […] there is no industry where women are not economically exploited” (Carol 1994). By singling out pornography as a source of female disempowerment, anti-porn feminists ignore the fact that women in other occupations also face gendered harassment and danger. Moreover, this line of thinking posits that women not involved in sex work have the freedom and economic stability to choose whatever line of employment they so desire. A vast number of women, particularly the poor and working classes, choose their jobs in any industry due to economic stress; pornography is certainly not unique in that respect. By singling out sex work as an industry to be destroyed rather than improved, anti-porn feminists tell disadvantaged women that they should starve to death rather than endure less than optimal working conditions, as long as their work is condemned by state morality.
The “anti-anti-porn” position is not an endorsement of pornography, nor a defense of its possibilities for female liberation, though there are cases in which we can imagine porn being “good”: e.g., for a young gay person experiencing intense hetero-normative family pressures, porn may be an outlet for exploration, experimentation, and confidence-building. However, with a critical eye on the direction of feminist scholarship, the anti-porn camp is here characterized as overly reductionist. To focus on the exploitation of women in the pornography industry as the cause of sexual domination obscures other, more pressing gender issues. As feminist thinkers, we must choose our words and our theory carefully. While it may be indeed true that pornography is “bad for women,” we may lose more than we stand to gain by focusing our energies on what is, in the end, one disturbing cultural product among many.
About the Issue
Point author: Lexie Tourek is a sophomore majoring in Mathematical Biology and Women’s Studies. She hopes to find a way to combine both of her interests as a feminist mathematician, a mathematical feminist, or something in between.
Counterpoint author: Rachel Yung is a senior majoring in Cultural Anthropology and minoring in LGBTQS Studies and Asian/Pacific American Studies. Born and raised in Ann Arbor, she’s a queer vegan liberal feminist secular humanist; she’s an artist, a museum docent, and an activist.
Edited by: Alexandra Tourek
Cover by: Rose Jaffe
| Share This: | Tweet |
You must be logged in to leave a comment.
19 Comments
I’m fascinated by this article…. and as everyone’s response seems to be either a research or differing paradigm critique… I’ll rephrase it as well.
The poor and disenfranchised are taken advantage of, and other poor and disenfranchised pay for it. These are the table scrap diversions our society leaves and our biology points us toward – whether its to stay fed, or sane. And it applies to most socially contentious issues. Abortion? Drug? Overcrowded prisons?
Eliminate economic disparity, the only problem left are cultural norms that are legacy, and the sociopaths. Which at that point, would be easy to identify.
Equity in living for everyone, men, women, latino, black, white, green.
yes the paradigm critiques are quite fascinating
Using the spelling “womyn” doesn’t look like you’re trying to assert your gender identity. It looks like you’re trying to establish a different species.
I wonder if Ms. Tourek has ever watched any porn? I wonder if she has ever seen the “pre-sex” admiration of the woman. It’s not, “I just wanna fuck you.” It’s: “Wow, you are gorgeous.” Systematically complimenting the women in terms of looks.
To which you might say, “Well that’s exactly what I’m talking about. There is the objectification.” Well, not quite. Men have one function in about 65% of porn videos: they have a penis. Women, however, are put on a pedestal in certain terms. I’ll agree that it comes with a degree of objectification, but you can’t have it all one way. Most porn heavily ADMIRES women. Even if it is in a sexual capacity, it is still admiration. It’s not like most men who watch porn (I’d say a good 75%, but I’m pulling that out of my ass) go out asking chicks to bang in the back of their car. “[porn star A] gives a great blowjob/handjob”, “[porn star B] has an orgasm” – these are very common porn movie titles. There is so much focus placed on the women in pornography that you can’t claim that it is all so bad. If “You’re gorgeous” is wrong in porn, then “You’re gorgeous” is also wrong during foreplay and prior to consensual intercourse. And don’t tell me the sole focus is male pleasure – women are portrayed to derive pleasure from the sex depicted in pornography as well. The pleasure is portrayed as mutual.
But nevermind all this – let us just focus on that which achieves our end. Let’s ignore that men are taught from day 1 that they need to get lucky. Let’s ignore that genital mutilation is still prevalent for males in the United States, and focus our efforts on that obscure African country no one has ever heard of because they mutilate female genitals. We are the female liberation movement and we are completely ethnocentric!
After all, womyn are their own species. They should probably all move to Forks, Washington and secede from the Union.
Lexie,
Sorry to dwell on it, but the use of “womyn” really isn’t helping your case. You bring in some nice examples of how pornography is degrading yet you never offer any shred of a solution or look into the other side.
I think you could have spent a lot less time speaking about “privilege” and earning sympathy points via your latino-example and a lot more time examining WHY porn is bad.
Why is porn bad? It is not to demean women, it is because of the way men are genetically programmed. They want to pass on their genes, therefore, they want to have sex… and when that isn’t readily available, porn becomes an option. Take that several years into the future without any regulation or publicity (aside from ranters like you), and of course the market becomes sleezy.
What happened during prohibition? It didn’t work then, it sure as hell isn’t going to work now. Porn is here to stay, I think a better approach would be to encourage a more regulated and less demeaning trade. Or even better, to educate the public on human sexuality and what it means.
However, what does not help is a page-long repeat of the same point: womyn are mistreated by men. That not only defeats your point of trying to reach sexual equality (if you want to talk about this more, let me know and I’d be happy to tell you why using the word “womyn” is several steps backwards for feminism), but pushes away many of the non-radical feminists that would support you otherwise (like me).
Sincerely,
Elton
Lexie, I agree with you that most porn follows patterns of objectification and subordination which pervade not just porn but many other media. But I would argue that this problem isn’t inherent to porn itself – it lies in the particular framing devices chosen by porn producers and demanded by porn audiences, and the same framing devices (or more subtle versions) can be criticized outside of porn, as well. It is not impossible to present media messages in more progressive ways, and I see no reason porn isn’t as salvageable as other media. The most productive social critique pushes for reform rather than wholesale rejection.
Rachel, scientific links between certain forms of pornography and sexual aggression are NOT “uncertain at best.” The cite you provide is from 1987. There have been over twenty years of social psych research since then, and what I would term a methodological revolution in the realm of social cognition. Violent porn definitely enhances violent attitudes. Nonviolent porn is more ambiguous.
I agree that pornography is not the source of inequality, and that it is “one disturbing cultural product among many.” I STRONGLY agree that critique of media messages should not be used to marginalize or shame sex workers of any sort.
If you have to write “womyn” you are clearly not emotionally divested from your subject matter and shouldn’t be called a Scholar. Especially considering that Porn is primarily a male subject matter, it is equally understood that a “feminist scholar” has no idea what men really think when they look at porn, as she constantly asserts only how a woman would really understand porn. Do men like porn because they just LOVE to degrade women and revel in the way the woman’s status is torn down? (Hint: No unless you have other problems), or do men like porn because it’s just sexually charged and they don’t care about what’s underneath?
Porn HAS changed society, but the only real negative affect it’s had on men is through it’s constant supply of “perfect” looking women (and the misrepresentation of less than pleasant sexual activities), thereby causing people to lose satisfaction with natural beauty, which in turn causes women (see the author’s next article: Women can’t control themselves apparently) to strive to fit the male idea of what looks good.
You could probably write a far better article if you wrote a claim of how women have actually risen in status and equality as porn has grown and spread throughout society.
Caleb – I disagree with Lexie that an alternate spelling of “women” is necessary, but that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and it shouldn’t be used against her.
You have no more idea what other men think of when they look at porn than anyone else. One thing is certain – media effects are not entirely conscious, and self-report is not a reliable way of evaluating them.
I’d like to clarify a few things regarding my article: first, it is a snippet reproduced verbatim from a much larger essay addressing the anti-pornography movement of the 1980s as a sex panic. I had a very definite word limit and no time to write a new piece; as such, it is not intended to provide a comprehensive argument for or against the legalization of pornography, much less an analysis of sexuality in the United States.
If anyone has specific questions, I can provide references and resources.
..it is disturbing that a womyn’s [sic] role as a politician or employee must be viewed or complicated by sexuality…”
They want sexuality to be divorced from life, as if there is something wrong with it. What kind of world do they envision, one where there is no emotion, no irrationality, and perfect equality?
I hope that gender inequality continues to diminish, but the assumptions these people make about how humanity and sexuality works are simply wrong, and kind of scary.
And I’m not sure why they think the existence of pornography is causing the gender inequality, as opposed to simply being coincident.
In regards to the first article from Ms. Tourek, the article isnt about what it says its about. Porn is bad for a number of reasons, and the article does a good job illuminating some of the most serious issues, whether they be racial or hierarchical. But the discussion is short-circuited by the lack of acknowledgment as to just what it would mean to make porn illegal. Its the same issue with people who want to criminalize abortion: do you put a woman in prison because she has consented to kill her “baby”. most anti-abortion whackos are much likely to put the doctor in jail, or failing that, assassinate one every once in awhile.
So are we going to let the government look at everything we have on our computers (although im sure they are looking at them anyways)? Usually liberals are pretty good at keeping government out of our bedrooms, and I don’t know if I really want that to change. But yea, i guess my concern is just trying to figure out what the law would look like and how it would be enforced.
Louis – Freedom of speech should guarantee the right to make porn, or Glenn Beck’s right to broadcast hateful rhetoric, or any other media message, but that certainly shouldn’t stop us from criticizing those messages when they’re nasty.
So we DO get to criticize and discredit Lexie for using “womyn”. Excellent.
Your argument failed at the first obnoxious spelling of the word “women.”
Sorry.
Her spelling choice ruins her argument? Not sure how that works.
The spellings “womyn”, “wimmin”, etc say something about her ideological leanings, in this case a kind of extreme radical feminism. And, yes, rhetorical excess like this tends to lose people at the starting gate. It allows people who see this kind of ideology as fringe (eg, most people) to simply say that if I don’t buy this person’s ideological underpinnings, the rest of the argument, presumably built upon it, won’t hold up either.
That may not be fair, but that’s the way it is. Its about knowing your audience and knowing how to address an audience that doesn’t share your ideology. And if you’re somebody like this author who clearly subscribes to a fringe ideology, you should pretty much presume most people don’t and write accordingly.
As it stands, I don’t think Ms. Tourek’s argument holds up terribly well even on further reading. Its based on a lot of assumptions and assertions about the social effects of pornography, all of which are quite arguable.
Just some facts both writers should’ve bothered researching if they ever want to be taken seriously by myn.
Myn act in porn too. They get paid less money than womyn to act in porn. They often have to act in gay porn in order to make as much money even if they are not gay. They can be forced into it. Myn also are sexualised by the media and womyn. They are often depicted in derogatory manners and are moslty potrayed as always being the aggressors of abuse.
Young males and boy-children are most likely to be sexually abused by womyn pedophiles (60% of their abusers in SA)than male paedophiles (40% only) (look it up). Myn get raped and sexually abused as much or possibly more than womyn in society (research into this is only coming to light in the last few years after having been actively suppressed by society and members of the feminist movement, studies are slowly being done that show the extend of abuse caused at the hands womyn), and they have very little legal recourse or protection because it is assumed that because a myn has a bigger body than a womyn that this somehow gives him magical kungfu powers that helps him protect himself at all times even when asleep against multiple people or drink spikers.
More men get killed and murdered in the world, period. Myn have little legal recourse when they are sexually assaulted by women or men. Police and the courts will not take a male victim of rape or sexual assault committed against a man by a womyn seriously in any country in the world. Womyn don’t take seriously the large role their gender plays in the mass sexual abuse of young female and male victims. Many refuse to acklowdege how wide spread a problem womyn abusers are. Lots don’t even think womyn can be abusers which is a reprehensible attitude that slaps the face of the abuse victims.
There is almost zero education about what myn victims of rape should do if it happens to them.
So the question is.. what are womyn doing to help young male victims of rape and sexual abuse committed by womyn? What are they doing to educate young boys on how to protect themselves? What are womyn doing to address their stereotypical and antiquated sexual stereotypes of myn. A big fat resounding zero. This is the reason why womyn feminist will not be taken seriously until they get their own genders house in order before pointing fingers at others.
I think you’re right to highlight some little-known and under-appreciated issues surrounding the porn industry and rape. The dialogue definitely centers on women. BUT you fail to acknowledge that the preponderance of prejudice and violence in these industries (and indeed largely globally) is carried out by men against women. Historically this has been the case, and even today advances made by some women are being eroded by a worldwide feminization of poverty. I think the pieces should be taken on their own merits. We should recognize the significance and merit of the topic they address. This merit alone should be enough for us to “take the writers seriously,” as you phrase it.
I’m not really sure what whataboutmen’s response has to do with the question, after his (I assume) 2nd paragraph. The remainder seems to be both pro-femenist and pro-masculist, albeit an attempt to discredit the former. To paraphrase him: “we all get fucked.”
I assume, then, that whataboutmen is arguing for the banning of porn or the implementation of some form of regulation. This is tricky. For example, it is legal for a street performer to exercise their freedom of speech/expression if there is some artistic or political merit to it. This leaves most police officers a tough personal decision to make, which, more often than not, leads to a legal shamble that results in wasted time, wasted money and a lot of resentment. What merits should we measure porn by? Artistry? That it portrays some level of equity between protagonists?
And even if a law was passed, how would it be implemented? We could, like China, gag google and handcuff pornographers, but pushing sex work underground is no step in the right direction. The benefits of counseling sex workers, compared with the effect of sending sex workers to prison, is no longer a debate (outside of religious circles). Keeping porn out in the open seems like our only chance to improve things.
My suggestion for the anti-porn league would be to convince governments that spending more money on courts and prisons is a waste: instead, break the spell by launching on a psychological campaign. Outbid Viagra for space on porn sites’ sidebars, and use that space to publish images of fat men crouched naked over a netbook. Use the freely available information on net-traffic to humiliate local districts: “Award for the Most Bukakke Videos Watched per Head of Population!” Find some way to shake us up a little.
On a personal note (disregard, if you don’t want messy details), I’m currently dating a girl who is everyman’s dream – for your imaginations, I’ll explain: she’s a size zero, has the American estrogen-via-fast-food-enhanced chest, and until recently was both a swimmer and a gymnast. What will probably match most male readers’ tastes, as well, is that she keeps talking dirty, wants me to pull her hair, and is less interested in kissing than in fucking. And afterwards, she normally starts on a torrent of (unwarranted) compliments until my dry response encourages her to stop.
I cannot help that I am attracted to an unrealistic body-type, or that I like to please. I’m certainly not doing a good job of convincing her that hers is a faulty sexuality. What I can’t deal with, however, is that during our “love” making I cannot disassociate the experience from my many years of watching porn. What would quite easily get me off in fantasy makes me uneasy when there is a person there. What makes me achieve, rather, is what no porn could offer: a connection between myself, my ego, and my partner. Porn, it seems, has not yet sullied me to the point of believing in it, but it is hindering my ability to ignore it.
A bit of social commentary to end on. I never went to bed with a girl in England (where I’m from) who was so eager to be dominated. Porn is readily available there, and a recent study showed that English girls have the most number of partners in Europe by the age of 21. Your experience in that country might differ from my 19 years there, and of course I have heard the stories of what some of my mates used to do with their girlfriends. But I don’t believe sexual degradation is the norm, there. So could the problem in this country be that the commercialized American is simply used to getting fucked?
everyone is affected by sexual representations. our definitions of “men and women” only function because, at bottom, we make assumptions about what it means to have a gender; our critical perspective on “myn and womyn” also suffers from linkages to a hitory of gendered oppression, affecting both categories of any proposed analysis.
what the above pieces attempt to do is describe an argument of about porn and women (piece 1) and criticize modern feminist perspectives on porn (piece 2) without, yes, acknowledging social-sexual violence against men in the same depth. they do, however, tangentially refer to male objectification: see paragraph two (piece one) and paragraph four (piece two).
granted, i have little to gain from defending these articles against the above comment – violence against males SHOULD be discussed; by foreclosing the “oppressed category” we jeopardize the strength of our theoretical power.
that being said, i think there is still ample room for pushing. what if sexual violence is ALWAYS MASCULINE? that is to say, regardless of what “sex” commits violence, the act of sexual violence (as reflected in secondary representations, like pornography) is fundamentally an assertion of masculine domination – i.e., i hope to use “masculine” as a category standing in for “power, aggression, violence, etc.” RATHER than a category whose first condition requires the exerting agent of masculine power to possess a penis.
this way, we can still hold on to the explanatory power of our gender critiques while acknowledging the above argument.