A Feminist Defense of Pornography

http–www_feministes_net_-_a_feminist_defense_of_pornography_wendy_mcelroy_1.txt
 Need a response essay, do not summarize the article.

http://www.feministes.net – A Feminist Defense of Pornography Wendy McElroy

– A Feminist Defense of Pornography –

“Pornography benefits women, both personally and politically.” This
sentence opens my book XXX: A Woman’s Right to Pornography, and it
constitutes a more extreme defense of pornography than most feminists
are comfortable with. I arrived at this position after years of
interviewing hundreds of sex workers.
Feminist Positions
Feminist positions on pornography currently break down into three rough
categories. The most common one – at least, in academia – is that
pornography is an expression of male culture through which women are
commodified and exploited. A second view, the liberal position, combines
a respect for free speech with the principle “a woman’s body, a woman’s
right” and thus produces a defense of pornography along the lines of, “I
don’t approve of it, but everyone has the right to consume or produce
words and images.” A third view – a true defense of pornography – arises
from feminists who have been labeled “pro-sex” and who argue that porn
has benefits for women.
Little dialogue occurs between the three positions. Anti-pornography
feminists treat women who disagree as either brainwashed dupes of
patriarchy or as apologists for pornographers. In the anthology Sexual
Liberals and the Attack on Feminism (1990), editor Dorchen Leidholdt
claims that feminists who believe women make their own choices about
pornography are spreading “a felicitous lie” (p. 131). In the same work,
Sheila Jeffreys argues that “pro-sex” feminists are “eroticizing
dominance and subordination.” Wendy Stock accuses free speech feminists
of identifying with their oppressors “much like … concentration camp
prisoners with their jailors” (p. 150). Andrea Dworkin accuses them of
running a “sex protection racket” (p. 136) and maintains that no one who
defends pornography can be a feminist.
The liberal feminists who are personally uncomfortable with pornography
tend to be intimidated into silence. Those who continue to speak out,
like American Civil Liberties Union President Nadine Strossen (Defending
Pornography) are ignored. For example, Catharine MacKinnon has
repeatedly refused to share a stage with Strossen or any woman who
defends porn. “Pro-sex” feminists – many of whom are current or former
sex-workers – often respond with anger, rather than arguments.
Peeling back the emotions, what are the substantive questions raised by
each feminist perspective?
Anti-porn feminism
Page Mellish of Feminists Fighting Pornography has declared, “There’s no
feminist issue that isn’t rooted in the porn problem.” In her book Only
Words, MacKinnon denies that pornography consists of words and images,
both of which would be protected by the First Amendment. She considers
pornography – in and of itself – to be an act of sexual violence. Why is
pornography viewed as both the core issue of modern feminism and an
inherent act of violence? The answer lies in radical feminist ideology,
which Christina Hoff Sommers calls “gender feminism.”
Gender feminism looks at history and sees an uninterrupted oppression of
women by men that spans cultural barriers. To them, the only feasible
explanation is that men and women are separate and antagonistic classes
whose interests necessarily conflict. Male interests are expressed
through and maintained by a capitalistic structure known as
“patriarchy.”
The root of the antagonism is so deep that it lies in male biology
itself. For example, in the watershed book Against Our Will, Susan
Brownmiller traces the inevitability of rape back to Neanderthal times
when men began to use their penises as weapons. Brownmiller writes:
“From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a
critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process
of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” How
Brownmiller acquired this knowledge of prehistoric sex is not known.
Another tenet of gender oppression is that sex is a social construct.
Radical feminists reject what they call “sexual essentialism” – the
notion that sex is a natural force based on biology that inclines women
toward natural tendencies, such as motherhood. Even deeply felt sexual
preferences, such as heterosexuality, are not biological. They spring
from ideology. Men construct women’s sexuality through the words and
images of society, which the French philosopher Foucault called the
“texts” of society. After such construction, men commercialize women’s
sexuality and market it back in the form of pornography. In other words,
through porn man defines woman sexually – a definition that determines
every aspect of her role in society. To end the oppression, patriarchy
and its texts must be destroyed.
Liberal feminism
Liberal feminism is a continuation of 1960s feminism that called for
equality with men, who were not inherent oppressors so much as
recalcitrant partners to be enlightened. Equality did not mean
destroying the current system, but reforming it through such measures as
affirmative action. The liberal principle “a woman’s body, a woman’s
right” underlay arguments ranging from abortion rights to lifestyle
freedoms like lesbianism. The stress was upon the act of choosing,
rather than upon the content of any choice.
Liberal feminists share the general liberal bias toward free speech, but
they are in flux on pornography. Some liberal organizations like
Feminists for Free Expression (FFE) have consistently opposed censorship
in any form. Some liberal feminists like Sallie Tisdale (Talk Dirty to
Me) have staunchly defended sexual freedom. But many liberal feminists
commonly reason as follows: “As a woman I am appalled by Playboy … but
as a writer I understand the need for free expression.”
Such arguments are not pro-pornography. They are anticensorship ones
based on several grounds, including: great works of art and literature
would be banned; the First Amendment would be breached; political
expression would be suppressed; and a creative culture requires freedom
of speech.
Other liberal feminists, who have accepted many of the ideological
assumptions of the anti-porn position, seem willing to sacrifice free
speech for the greater good of protecting women. For example, they also
condemn the free market for commercializing women as “body parts,” which
demeans women. In “A Capital Idea,” an essay defending pornography,
which sometimes seems to be an attack, Lisa Steel comments:
Sexist representation of women … is all part of the same system that,
in the service of profits, reduces society to “consumer groups.” And
marketing is every bit as conservative as the military…we pay dearly
for the “rights” of a few to make profits from the rest of us.
Such muddled and ambivalent “defenses” often offend the sex workers they
are intended to protect.
Pro-sex feminism
Over the past decade, a growing number of feminists – labeled “pro sex”
– have defended a woman’s choice to participate in and to consume
pornography. Some of these women, such as Nina Hartley, are current or
ex-sex-workers who know firsthand that posing for pornography is an
uncoerced choice that can be enriching. Pro-sex feminists retain a
consistent interpretation of the principle “a woman’s body, a woman’s
right” and insist that every peaceful choice a woman makes with her own
body must be accorded full legal protection, if not respect.
Pro-sex arguments sometimes seem to overlap with liberal feminist ones.
For example, both express concern over who will act as censor because
subjective words, such as “degrading,” will be interpreted to mean
whatever the censor wishes. The statute that banned Margaret Sanger
because she used the words syphilis and gonorrhea is no different, in
principle, than the one that interprets obscenity today. There will be
no protection even for the classics of feminism, such as Our Bodies,
Ourselves, which provided a generation of women with the first explicit
view of their own biology. Inevitably, censorship will be used against
the least popular views, against the weakest members of society …
including feminists and lesbians. When the Canadian Supreme Court
decided in 1992 to protect women by restricting the importation of
pornography, one of the first victims was the lesbian/gay Glad Day
Bookstore, which had been on a police hit list. Among the books seized
by Canadian customs were two books by Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men
Possessing Women and Women Hating. Such an event should not have
surprised Dworkin who declared in Take Back the Night, “There is not a
feminist alive who could possibly look to the male legal system for real
protection from the systematized sadism of men” (p. 257). On the dangers
of censoring pornography, pro-sex and liberal feminists often agree. On
the possible benefits of pornography to women, they part company.
Dissecting Anti-Porn
Do the specific accusations hurled at pornography stand up under
examination?
Pornography is degrading to women.
Degrading is a subjective term. I find commercials in which women become
orgasmic over soapsuds to be tremendously degrading. The bottom line is
that every woman has the right to define what is degrading and
liberating for herself.
The assumed degradation is often linked to the “objectification” of
women: that is, porn converts them into sexual objects. What does this
mean? If taken literally, it means nothing because objects don’t have
sexuality; only beings do. But to say that porn portrays women as
“sexual beings” makes for poor rhetoric. Usually, the term sex objects
means showing women as body parts, reducing them to physical objects.
What is wrong with this? Women are as much their bodies as they are
their minds or souls. No one gets upset if you present women as “brains”
or as spiritual beings. If I concentrated on a woman’s sense of humor to
the exclusion of her other characteristics, is this degrading? Why is it
degrading to focus on her sexuality?
Pornography leads to violence against women.
A cause-and-effect relationship is drawn between men viewing pornography
and men attacking women, especially in the form of rape. But studies and
experts disagree as to whether any relationship exists between
pornography and violence, between images and behavior. Even the
pro-censorship Meese Commission Report admitted that the data connecting
pornography to violence was unreliable.
Other studies, such as the one prepared by feminist Thelma McCormick in
1983 for the Metropolitan Toronto Task Force on Violence Against Women,
find no pattern to connect porn and sex crimes. Incredibly, the Task
Force suppressed the study and reassigned the project to a
pro-censorship male, who returned the “correct” results. His study was
published.
What of real-world feedback? In Japan, where pornography depicting
graphic and brutal violence is widely available, rape is much lower per
capita than in the United States, where violence in porn is severely
restricted.
Pornography is violence because women are coerced into pornography.
Not one of the dozens of women depicted in pornographic materials with
whom I spoke reported being coerced. Not one knew of a woman who had
been. Nevertheless, I do not dismiss reports of violence: every industry
has its abuses. And anyone who uses force or threats to make a woman
perform should be charged with kidnapping, assault, and/or rape. Any
such pictures or films should be confiscated and burned because no one
has the right to benefit from the proceeds of a crime.
Pornography is violence because women who pose for porn are so
traumatized by patriarchy they cannot give real consent.
Although women in pornography appear to be willing, anti-porn feminists
know that no psychologically healthy woman would agree to the
degradation of pornography. Therefore, if agreement seems to be present,
it is because the women have “fallen in love with their own oppression”
and must be rescued from themselves. A common characteristic of the porn
actresses I have interviewed is a love of exhibitionism. Yet if such a
woman declares her enjoyment in flaunting her body, anti-porn feminists
claim she is not merely a unique human being who reacts from a different
background or personality. She is psychologically damaged and no longer
responsible for her actions. In essence, this is a denial of a woman’s
right to choose anything outside the narrow corridor of choices offered
by political/sexual correctness. The right to choose hinges on the right
to make a “wrong” choice, just as freedom of religion entails the right
to be an atheist. After all, no one will prevent a woman from doing what
he thinks she should do.
A Pro-Sex Defense
As a “pro-sex” feminist, I contend: Pornography benefits women, both
personally and politically. It provides sexual information on at least
three levels:
It gives a panoramic view of the world’s sexual possibilities. This is
true even of basic sexual information such as masturbation. It is not
uncommon for women to reach adulthood without knowing how to give
themselves pleasure.
It allows women to “safely” experience sexual alternatives and satisfy
a healthy sexual curiosity. The world is a dangerous place. By
contrast, pornography can be a source of solitary enlightenment.
It offers the emotional information that comes only from experiencing
something either directly or vicariously. It provides us with a sense
how it would “feel” to do something.
Pornography allows women to enjoy scenes and situations that would be
anathema to them in real life. Take, for example, one of the most common
fantasies reported by women – the fantasy of “being taken.” The first
thing to understand is that a rape fantasy does not represent a desire
for the real thing. Why would a healthy woman daydream about being
raped? Perhaps by losing control, she also sheds all sense of
responsibility for and guilt over sex. Perhaps it is the exact opposite
of the polite, gentle sex she has now. Perhaps it is flattering to
imagine a particular man being so overwhelmed by her that he must have
her. Perhaps she is curious. Perhaps she has some masochistic feelings
that are vented through the fantasy. Is it better to bottle them up?
Pornography breaks cultural and political stereotypes, so that each
woman can interpret sex for herself. Anti-feminists tell women to be
ashamed of their appetites and urges. Pornography tells them to accept
and enjoy them.
Pornography can be good therapy. Pornography provides a sexual outlet
for those who – for whatever reason – have no sexual partner. Perhaps
they are away from home, recently widowed, isolated because of
infirmity. Perhaps they simply choose to be alone. Couples also use
pornography to enhance their relationship. Sometimes they do so on their
own, watching videos and exploring their reactions together. Sometimes,
the couples go to a sex therapist who advises them to use pornography as
a way of opening up communication on sex. By sharing pornography, the
couples are able to experience variety in their sex lives without having
to commit adultery.
Pornography benefits women politically in many ways. Historically,
pornography and feminism have been fellow travelers and natural allies.
Although it is not possible to draw a cause-and-effect relationship
between the rise of pornography and that of feminism, they both demand
the same social conditions – namely, sexual freedom.
Pornography is free speech applied to the sexual realm. Freedom of
speech is the ally of those who seek change: it is the enemy of those
who seek to maintain control. Pornography, along with all other forms of
sexual heresy, such as homosexuality, should have the same legal
protection as political heresy. This protection is especially important
to women, whose sexuality has been controlled by censorship through the
centuries.
Viewing pornography may well have a cathartic effect on men who have
violent urges toward women. If this is true, restricting pornography
removes a protective barrier between women and abuse.
Legitimizing pornography would protect female sex-workers, who are
stigmatized by our society. Anti-pornography feminists are actually
undermining the safety of sex workers when they treat them as
“indoctrinated women.” Dr. Leonore Tiefer, a professor of psychology,
observed in her essay “On Censorship and Women”: “These women have
appealed to feminists for support, not rejection. … Sex industry
workers, like all women, are striving for economic survival and a decent
life, and if feminism means anything it means sisterhood and solidarity
with these women.”
The Purpose of Law
The porn debate is underscored by two fundamentally antagonistic views
of the purpose of law in society.
The first view, to which pro-sex feminists subscribe, is that law should
protect choice. “A woman’s body, a woman’s right” applies to every
peaceful activity a woman chooses to engage in. The law should come into
play only when a woman initiates force or has force initiated against
her.
The second view, to which both conservatives and anti-porn feminists
subscribe, is that law should protect virtue. It should come into play
whenever there has been a breach of public morality, or a breach of
“women’s class interests.”
This is old whine in new battles. The issue at stake in the pornography
debate is nothing less than the age-old conflict between individual
freedom and social control.
Wendy McElroy
Réagir sur le forum