I recall a few years ago being interviewed (read ‘debated’) by two young men on an Adelaide radio station, on the issue of prostitution and trafficking. After cataloguing a litany of harm caused as a result of the global trade in the bodies of women and girls, the boys came up with what they thought was the perfect solution. Each woman in prostitution could carry a document declaring she was “traffick-free”.
This encounter was brought to mind when Melbourne academic and women’s activist Caroline Norma sent me this piece dismantling the proposition that pornography can be ethical.
Caroline Norma is a lecturer in the School of Global Studies at RMIT University. I’ve published her before here.
In ‘The ethical dilemmas of Cocaine and bottled water’ (The Australian, Monday), Minister for Human Services and Minister for Social Inclusion Tanya Plibersek calls on Australian pornography consumers to ‘ask themselves about the circumstances of the manufacture of what they’re watching’ so they can start to make better decisions about the materials they masturbate to.
She asks them to more closely consider the ‘life choices available to the participants’ in pornography so that they can ‘ethically’ choose ‘non-exploitative’ materials to download. To her credit, Plibersek makes this argument within the context of a general discussion about the benefits of the government’s “clean feed” internet regulation initiative of which I am a supporter.
However, I am concerned that Plibersek appears to align herself with the ‘dolphin-free tuna’ crowd of pornography apologists when she makes the argument that men’s consumption of pornography is acceptable, as long as the women in it are found to be willing. There are various groups that defend the production, consumption, and distribution of pornography in Australian society, including the Eros Foundation, the Sex Party, and Scarlet Alliance. However, different to the crowd Plibersek aligns herself with, these groups are generally blunt in their public pronouncements that pornography, prostitution, and all other parts of the sex industry should be celebrated and legalised.
Most defenders of pornography cannot afford to be so upfront about their support of the sex industry. The industry worldwide is too closely associated with organised crime, trafficking, the exploitation of women and children, callous forms of sexuality, and drug addiction among people in the industry. So, people like Plibersek who have to defend pornography in a family-friendly way, alternatively rely on the ‘dolphin-free-tuna’ strategy.
‘Dolphin-free tuna’ was created as a marketing gem of the commercial fishing industry to respond to declining public consumption of canned tuna because of concern that dolphins were being killed in its production. There is, of course, no possible way that the canning industry can ensure that dolphins do not become ensnared in the nets of trawlers that supply tuna to them. But canning companies nonetheless get their suppliers to sign a ‘pledge’ that the tuna they sell has been caught with no loss of life to dolphins.
Similarly, there is no possible way that pornography consumers can know that the pornography they are masturbating to has been produced using women who are not exploited or have ‘life choices’, as Plibersek puts it. On the contrary, just as the production of canned tuna inevitably causes loss of life to dolphins, the production of pornography inevitably causes psychological and physiological harm to the women and girls who are used to make it.
The women who have their bodily orifices pounded, poked, and prodded during the production of pornography are facing pretty grim ‘life choices’. If their entry into the sex industry wasn’t paved by incest, mental illness, poverty, drug addiction, or homelessness, then their exit from the industry will be shadowed by these problems and more.
The women who must live, work, and interact with men who consume pornography are also facing less than ideal ‘life choices’. They must acquiesce to the blueprint of female sexuality that pornography imposes on them through their husbands’ and boyfriends’ expectations in the bedroom, and they must put up with an overall lowered status in a society where men think that ejaculating on a woman’s face is an acceptable and normal activity.
Girls, too, suffer the effects of male pornography consumption, regardless of how many ‘life choices’ are enjoyed by the women who are used to make it. They must grow up in a society where the practices of pornography—anal sex, pubic hair waxing, turkey slapping, and deep throating—have become normal sexual behaviour for a whole generation of boys. Girls are also caught up in the harms of pornography when they are groomed for sexual abuse by men who normalise their crimes by showing them ‘erotic’ pictures.
Instead of teaming up with the dolphin-free-tuna crowd of pornography apologists, Plibersek should reconsider the significant harms of pornography and support an increasing number of women’s organisations in Australia that are standing up against the sex industry. These organisations, including the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women Australia and Collective Shout: for a world free of sexploitation, reject the idea that the sex industry can ever be anything but an institution that promotes women’s second class social status.
The only ‘ethical’ choice in relation to the sex industry is to shut it down in the same way the tobacco industry in Australia has been forced to face imminent demise.
17 Responses
This is an interesting perspective and one which I agree with but your proposed solution to shut it down is not the answer. ‘Prohibition’ has been tried as a solution to eradicate perceived social problems in the past and merely serves to further popularise the offensive behaviour/activity.
I think you’d gather more support if you sought not only to empathise with the poor women who are affected by porn but also on the re-education of the men out there who have been acculturated to think that the practices depicted in porn are normal.
I also think that for many your approach comes across as prudish. I’d like to see a filter for certain internet material for under 18’s but for over 18’s watching people (so long as they are consenting and not being exploited) having sex is not a problem.
Anyway, I do commend you for your efforts nevertheless – the world needs voices like yours.
Well once upon a time long ago seat belts in cars were considered to be an abuse of individuals’ rights and whilst laws were passed making it compulsory for drivers to wear seat belts there was also a sustained educational programme directed at every one telling us all why wearing a seat belt saves lives. What happened? Why eventually most individuals accepted the fact wearing a seat belt does save lives. So it is with smoking – once upon a time smoking was considered acceptable but now it is commonly viewed as not acceptable.
However because pornography has swiftly become malestream and has inserted itself into every aspect of men’s (particularly men not women) and women’s lives there is a huge power struggle going. In effect porn is profitable, it provides huge profits for the male pornographers, the multi-national corporations and also various governments and institutional bodies. This is why porn is commonly viewed as ‘fantasy’ and spurious claims are made concerning ‘women supposedly freely choosing’ to subject themselves to being group raped and subjected to sadistic sexual and psychological violence by men.
Instead of demanding an end to the widespread dehumanisation of women and girls we hear/read claims of how much better everything would be if the porn industry just abided by certain codes of practice. However, this is all moonshine because porn is not about individual women and men claiming ‘but porn is fantasy; porn is harmless; no one forces women to enter porn etc. etc.’ Rather it is the filmed common sadistic sexual violence men inflict on women because men get off on subjecting women to sexual violence and torture. Therefore it is the harm pornography causes women which is the issue and if the harm is removed from porn then porn is no longer porn. Porn is the eroticisation of male sexual violence against women and it doesn’t take long for the male buyers to become immune to the male sexual violence they masturbate to. After all the women filmed are not human are they? They are just one dimensional sexualised objects and hence men can do whatever they wish to these non-humans can they not? Similar claims were/are made concerning slavery because certain human groups are viewed as non-human by white men and included in this group are the largest human group in the world. And what is this group collectively called? Why it is women – not men because men form the minority of the human race.
Pornography is the deliberate dehumanisation and reduction of all women and girls to men’s disposable sexual service stations. Porn is filmed prostitution wherein women and girls are not human but just robots whose only value is to be outlets for men’s penises. Then there is the issue of the immense harm and destruction pornography inflicts on women and girls, not just the women and girls involved in the porn industry but also all women and girls, because porn proclaims the misogynistic lie that women and girls are not human but just men’s disposable sexualised commodities.
Male power is at the centre of pornography and it is a fact that because women have gained a smidgen of our human rights, male power had to reassert itself and what better way than pornography and together with advances in technology this in itself made it much easier for the male consumers to buy their porn without anyone knowing they were viewing porn.
It is essential that rather than prevention measures be put into effect we have suggestions of control because if only women involved in porn would all say ‘yes we freely and willingly choose to have innumerable men subject us to degradation, sexual torture and/or anything else men can imagine then no we are not harmed in any way.’ Such suggestions do not focus on the immense harm pornography causes women – no instead ‘control measures’ are suggested because men apparently have the inalienable right of viewing and treating women as dehumanised sexualised commodities. Remember that old adage male police officers used to write when reporting yet another male had murdered a prostituted woman. No human being involved – meaning of course prostituted women are not human and hence men can murder then with impunity.
Same applies to pornography – no humans are harmed because pornography promotes and profits from men’s lies that women are not human.
Oh and by the way claiming anti-pornographers are prudes is an old, old trick and no we aren’t fooled. We focus on the immense harm and suffering pornography inflicts on women who have to submit to men’s sexual violence being inflicted on them and also the innumerable women who are forced by men to submit to what these men believe is their sex right to inflict sexual degradation on women because these men view porn and think ‘yes I can do that to women too.’
This is absurd. Of course pornography manufacture can be ethical. Humans, unlike dolphins, have agency *and* voices. They can tell us their stories, the reason they got into it and their experiences in it. There are numerous people who not only carefully researched before entering sex work, but also left better paying (eg modelling) or more socially acceptable (eg nursing) work to be in it. Those are the ones who not only last longer, but also give better performances because their hearts are in it. Even one of Gail Dines’ former research assistants preferred working as a sex worker to working for Dines. Indeed, one thing many such sex workers almost universally complain about is people who assume they were abused or otherwise unable to think for themselves. As to consumers, there are now several forums where fans can communicate with the participants to research which performances any particular participant enjoyed being a part of. Just like with with every other purchasing decision, the information is available for those who want to avoid sweat shop labour, cruelty to animals or environmental exploitation. Is someone who doesn’t think twice about purchasing a garment made by a 9 year old in south east Asia really on any higher moral ground?
I don’t think this argument is prudish. Prudish would be saying ‘I do not like this, therefore no one else can like it either.’ This argument is slightly different and more insidious. It is saying ‘I believe I have all the information, and I wouldn’t make that decision, therefore anyone who does make that decision is broken in some way’. It is patriarchal thinking, and the basis for slut shaming.
There are real problems that mean that people who wouldn’t choose to work in the sex industry have little choice. Taking away that choice doesn’t help those people. If someone is forced into pornography or prostitution due to poverty, they would still be suffering economically, and would no longer be able to put food on the table to boot, if neither of those options existed. The real problem here is a tax system that dramatically favours the wealthy, and the lack of proper social welfare systems to allow them to work towards supporting themselves in a way that they are happy with. If your choice is between flipping burgers, cleaning toilets or taking your clothes off, some people are going to find the last option the most palatable.
As to abuse, becoming a sex worker wasn’t the cause of the abuse, it may, however, be a symptom. Abuse victims certainly don’t make up the majority of sex workers. The real problem here is lack of decent mental health care, including properly trained therapists, and insufficient law enforcement resources to deal with the abusers. Entering sex work may deepen their injuries, but they were already victims well before then. In a properly functioning society their abuser would have been caught, and victim treated before sex work became an issue in the first place. General child abuse, not just sexual abuse, is a family problem. Research shows women are just as likely as men to abuse their children. It is almost always done by relations or family friends. The stranger abducting and abusing a child is rare, but the most publicised. Men, however, do make up the large majority of the stranger abusers, and are also slightly more likely to engage in sexual, as opposed to other kinds of abuse towards children.
Finally, as to society, as I’ve said repeatedly before, the real problem is that we do not provide halfway decent sex education to our young people. Meta-studies of pornography show that there is very little evidence for a causal relation between pornography and aggression. What little correlation exists can be completely eliminated and dramatically improved by education either prior to or after exposure to pornography. Media literacy, and pornography literacy in particular, should be an important part of the school curriculum.
Thanks Caroline. As usual, you make good points – points that most people are too scared to admit.
Arved: What is pornography literacy? How, specifically, would this be taught at schools?
Well, first it is accepting that young people are going to be exposed to pornography. There is no technological solution to this. Additionally, it is unlikely to disappear or decline for the coming decades either. That’s given, and it is the framework we have to work in. Pornographic literacy would then be approaching sex education with this in mind. It would be age appropriate, of course, but it would address the ethical and partner problems that can arise in any relationship. It would be teaching that pornography is fantasy, and what is seen, read or heard isn’t the full story. It would explain the amount of preparation, lubrication and, in particular, negotiation that occurs off screen. It would be reinforcing that no one appreciates being slapped, spat on, gagged or penetrated without prior negotiation. It isn’t that these things can’t be enjoyable regardless of who is receiving, but that even missionary penis in vagina sex is not acceptable if both partners do not enthusiastically consent to it. It would be explaining that such negotiation means that both partners actively want a particular sex act, and that bullying and coercion in a relationship is unacceptable. It is the difference between asking as equals and using the power dynamics of a relationship to exert one’s will on the other. It isn’t about shaming people who are aroused by the idea of being tied up, but teaching there is a lot more negotiation and trust required in that kind of sex life than something more vanilla. I think it is a much more achievable aim than attempting to eliminate pornography, and the skills are important regardless of whether pornography is involved.
Very interesting (though lacking any acknowledgment of the spectrum of human experiences). A few points:
1. Dolphins aren’t endangered, tuna is.
2. Male dolphins have been observed herding female dolphins away from a pod and depriving them of food and sleep until they capitulate with being mated. My argument being that dolphins may not be the best icons for ethical choices and behavior.
3. There is no discussion (above) of male-male, female-female (i mean actually made for lesbians) or even male-male-female or female-female-male porn (i.e. made for bisexuals). These are types of porn may (or may not) portray similar sadistic/domination/unusual sex scenarios as are played out a lot of male-female porn. However, there is much less indication that these forms of porn are the cause or consequence of personal harm to the participants or other individuals. This shift in perception leads me to think that porn, itself, is not the issue that needs to be dealt with.
4. Men are more visually oriented in their sexual expression. This is demonstrated by the (almost) complete lack of opposition to, and (almost) ubiquitous usage of, gay porn amongst homosexual men. This needs to be understood *a priori* before formulating any men-are-bastards argument.
Peace.
@ Gordon. You might like to read a book by Christopher N. Kendall ‘Gay Male Pornography: An Issue of Sex Discrimination’ 2004 re opposition to this porn on grounds of harm.
Caroline
Great article and a thoughtful response by Jennifer Drew
Some of the other comments are a little ‘interesting’, Arved: the real problem is the tax system (what a red herring, to go with the theme) and that women are just as likely to abuse children as men (no). Arved’s ‘pornography literacy’ and media literacy are neoliberal, individualised copouts – we need collective action.
Gordon – point 4, this is called ‘neurosexism’, read Cordelia Fine; for critique of gay male sexual privilege and its relationship with male supremacy read John Stoltenberg’s work.
Yep, I’ll cop to the tax system being a red herring. That wasn’t really what I wanted to say. I meant to indicate that there isn’t enough support for those who are already financially disadvantaged.
Read chapter 5 of the US Children’s Bureau, 2009 (most recent) Child Maltreatment Report (Perpetrators: 53% women vs 44% men, victims: 48% boys, 52% girls):
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/cm09.pdf
If you want to limit abuse to sexual abuse only, then as I said, yes, men comprise the majority (but not totality) of abusers.
I’m still looking for an Australian version of such a report, but have no reason to believe it would be terribly different. The point is that child abuse is a problem within families. The large majority of abuse is done by a parent. Painting men as always being the abusers, and women and girls as always the victims is not true to the data and is harmful to those who have suffered. It completely erases boys victimised by adult women, for instance. However, the last thing I’m attempting to do is set up an Oppression Olympics.
It isn’t a copout, it’s harm minimisation. It’s practical and realistic. Eliminating pornography is a pipe dream that cannot be realised any time soon. While it may eventually be possible to do so after decades of ‘collective action’, there will be hundreds of millions of children who grow up in a culture where exposure to pornography is simply a fact. Educating them helps them have better lives in the meantime. It will help real young people today.
I also don’t particularly agree that males are more visually oriented. I do, however, think the male gaze has been supreme for a long period of time. The large and growing number of women who also enjoy looking at pictures of naked men attests to women also enjoying the visual.
Ryl Harrison, you say that “’pornography literacy’ and media literacy are neoliberal, individualised copouts – we need collective action”, but then fail to say what action is needed. You may want to note that Clive Hamilton (who guest posted about a Playboy book being available in Dymocks on this blog earlier in the week) authored a 2003 research paper called “Youth and Pornography in Australia: Evidence on the extent of exposure and likely effects”. This was co-authored by sociologist Michael Flood. Interestingly at the “Tangled Web” hosted by newmatilda.com back in June 2009, Flood rejected Hamilton’s arguments for banning porn on the web stating that “We argued for porn education. We said that we should be going into schools and teaching children how to respond more critically to the material that they see online whether deliberately or accidentally, so that they become more critical media consumers.”. I’m not sure if I’d call Flood a neo-liberal. It makes absolute sense to teach kids and adults about porn (as well as better sex education) and media literacy. Just looking at the ratings for the Gruen Transfer, I’d say people are crying out for stuff deconstructing and explaining the ins and outs of the media.
Arved, have you checked out a website named Bish? It’s a UK website that’s a great place for teens to learn about sex and includes numerous sections about porn and the acts in porn. So there is already pornography literacy available, but you have to search for it.
Shahid
The action needed is to ‘quit porn’.
The website http://www.collectiveshout.org is just one example of people collectively working together to name corporations who sexualise women and children in their advertising practices. This is one part of a much bigger movement that is needed.
Of course, you, and others, are right; we absolutely have to educate our kids to view the media with a critical eye, what I disagree with is the idea that pornography is inevitable, ‘a given’ and that the primary way to manage its harms to inoculate each person / child with media literacy (convenient though – you get to blame ‘bad’ parents for failing to educate their kids, you get to blame kids for making bad choices, you get to pathologise each individual person, all the while the multibillion dollar sex industry gets to celebrate its ‘free speech’, and to perpetrate its racist stereotypes and sexual hierarchies); instead people need to come together on social, cultural and political levels and say loudly ‘It’s not ok’, without feeling the need to preface that with ‘I’m not a prude’.
So yes, let’s do media literacy, but not at the expense of challenging the bigger picture – because that is a cop out – we all deserve a world where woman and children enjoy full human rights and are not set up as sexual objects to be bought and used.
The website http://www.artemisfundinc.org/notforsalemediaproject.html has some useful posters.
I wrote a response above that is apparently still in moderation. I didn’t think there was anything in it that was offensive, but this isn’t my space and if MTR doesn’t want to publish it that’s fine with me. I’m grateful that she gives me as much of a voice as she does. I don’t think we disagree much on underlying problems, but do dramatically on solutions.
I never said attempting to eliminate pornography is mutually exclusive with proper sex education, Ryl. You however suggested it was a copout. I’ve never seen someone who advocates for the elimination of pornography also advocating comprehensive sex education (I’m happy to be proven wrong). My over riding point is that advocating for the elimination of pornography is all well and good, but it doesn’t help the young people who are growing up now. The government dramatically improving sex education in schools, including pornography literacy, would go a long way to improving young people’s relationships today. I’m mean it is absolutely awful that large numbers of men, and even a lot of women, don’t know where the clitoris is. If even basic biology is currently being lost, how much could be gained by teaching relationship skills?
I’m curious how you foresee pornography being eliminated. I have to say, I see no realistic way to eliminate it. You’re talking about material that, I would say, the majority of Australians don’t have an in principle problem with (myself included). Changing that perception will be a very hard, nigh impossible. There is a huge amount of feminist thought supporting, even encouraging, pornography, for instance. The Federal government will not outright ban it. Although that’s not within the realms of impossibility, so lets, for the sake of argument, assume that was done. The Internet means there would still be pornography being encountered. There is no technological solution to this. All technological solutions suffer from under and over blocking issues. That is they falsely flag things like breast cancer awareness and other medical information, while leaving lots of pornography unblocked. It isn’t a question of lack of will, it’s just a very hard technological problem to solve. It’s also largely pointless, as circumvention is relatively straightforward and legitimate business interest makes it impossible to completely eliminate (VPNs for example). What punishment would there be for accessing pornography? Fines, jail? Do you really think it would be possible to convince a majority of Australians that is justified in circumstances were it is provable that everyone involved is a consenting adult? Will couples not be allowed to film themselves for their own enjoyment? It should also be noted that the MacKinnon designed censorship in Canada were immediately used to suppress lesbian voices. Additionally, support for anti-pornography feminism has dramatically declined from where it was in the 70s and 80s, as that breed of feminism became more about privileged middle class women, rather than about the problems of people of colour and the poor.
The pornographic industry is hardly a multibillion dollar industry. More pornographic studios shut down in the US last year than ever before. DVD sales are well down on previous years. Internet piracy has taken a huge chunk out of pornographic revenues, so much show that less movies are being made. As a result, performing rates are also depressed. The US depression has meant there is far less money being spent on non-essentials, like pornography, as well. If you own a decent pornographic company, you can make a decent living, but you certainly can’t retire a millionaire. Not anymore. (Although, that’s not to say that the remaining companies aren’t adapting or that the entire industry is in any danger of shutting down soon, especially when you consider the growth in non-US and amateur pornography.)
I also disagree that education is a case of ‘pathologising each individual person’. The point is to equip people with a toolbox to understand and deconstruct what they view. In the same way that it is necessary to teach children about the difference between make-believe and reality. In the same way they need to understand and tolerate different religions. In the same way they need to understand that violence is not an acceptable solution to problems.
Great article Caroline Norma! And Arved: read Gail Dines Pornland (available in Oz from Spinifex Press). That might change your view on how big the pornography industry is. I also agree with Jennifer Drew’s seat belt arguments. People were hurling abuse and ‘censorship’ when seat belts were introduced which is totally forgotten today. We all put our seat belts on. And smoking: although smoking has not been eliminated, the Quit Smoking Campaign has been very successful. A Quit Porn Campaign will be successful too. Pornography harms all parties. It’s truly not worth defending…
I agree with Ryl re quite porn: I’ve been working on writing up a Quit Porn Manifesto recently (soon to be published). There’s an early version on the Spinifex website from last year: http://www.spinifexpress.com.au/Blog/page=3/
(15 June 2010)
Arved: I think some of your points sound really good. It’s true that turning a blind eye to pornography and pretending it isn’t there is not a great strategy for educating children. It would appear that children are being exposed to porn quite early and quite frequently, especially via the internet. So in that sense, teaching them how to think critically about it is a good idea. I didn’t get any idea, however, from your response, that this would include harsh facts like the ones Caroline mention. The ‘preparation, lubrication and negotiation’ you mention are nice words to describe what is often quite barbaric. Women need to be on painkillers for a lot of what happens in pornography scenes…that would be the preparation, and the lubrication I guess. I’m not sure about negotiation either. If you read the testimonies of women who are no longer in the pornography industry, you will see that many of the ‘negotiations’ aren’t entered into freely. Would this education include educating children about why women (and men?) enter the pornography industry and what happens to them afterwards?
Gordon: Your point four is a tired and largely invalid excuse. ‘Men are visual’ is a very handy way of explaining away the objectification of women for men’s sexual pleasure. I know plenty of women who are visually aroused. More importantly, even if men are visual (they probably are! Just like women!), why do the images that apparently arouse them have to be so nasty? As a heterosexual ‘visual’ woman, I don’t get my kicks from watching men gag or choke or have their faces drenched in cum. There are plenty of ways to get ‘visually’ aroused without watching images of women being brutalised.
And I don’t think Caroline said anywhere, or even implied, that ‘all men are bastards’. That is a cheap shot and points to the holes in your argument, rather than in hers.
Emma
You say that “women need to be on painkillers for a lot of what happens in pornography scenes”, I’m wondering where you got that information from. Back in July 2010, Ms Magazine interviewed Gail Dines about her new book “Pornland”. Dines made similar claims and the interviewer was rather sceptical of the claims, and contacted a couple of performers. One porn performer, Beth Brigham said; “there’s no emotional trauma from a sex act that you’re prepared for. If you know in advance what you’re going to be doing, you are ready. If I have a day where I’m doing seven penetrations, I know what to do to insure that my body remains healthy. Sex acts don’t happen by accident in porn and you know how to deal with them in advance”. Another comment from another porn star named April Flores; “There is no doubt porn is a very physical job. However, it is also a very individualized profession. Each performer is responsible for their own physical health. A performer always has the choice of not doing something they are not comfortable with. All of my peers are doing work they feel proud of and that enhances and expands on their own sexuality. Gail Dines thinks all performers are victims and this couldn’t be further from the truth”. Gee I don’t know Emma, the performers seem to be saying the exact opposite to what you are.
As for what Caroline wrote in her article about men; “… pornography imposes on them through their husbands’ and boyfriends’ expectations in the bedroom, and they must put up with an overall lowered status in a society where men think that ejaculating on a woman’s face is an acceptable and normal activity”, well that implies that men are stupid beasts who are unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, are unable to negotiate during sexual encounters or understand their partners needs and desires. Caroline’s comment may not qualify as “men are all bastards”, however it’s certainly not very complementary towards the male sex. As for your vivid description of porn and your assertion that porn contains “images that apparently arouse them have to be so nasty” and men get aroused by “watching images of women being brutalised”, you’re telling us that ALL men watch this kind of porn? That all porn is like this? Somehow I don’t think so. Strange how no one has made mention of porn made for lesbians or heterosexual women (such as Candida Royalle’s stuff) supposedly brutalises women. Isn’t porn all the same thing Emma?
Emma, Mills&Boon novellas are full of examples of conceptual objectification of men. Should we call for a Quit Romantic Literature campaign? No? It certainly has the potential to cause harm. For example, readers might get carried away in the romatic scenarios played out on such books and perhaps be more open to the idea of an illict affair, etc, etc.
Is objectification of women or men implicitly wrong? if so, please explain why? really explain the implicit harm in objectification. please.
Why is it so hard for some poeple to accept that women and men (and homosexuals and bisexuals and any other division of human beings that I can think of) might be turned on by different parts of the psycho-sexual spectrum?
You prudishly ask: “why do the images that apparently arouse them have to be so nasty?”
This question clearly indicates that you don’t “get” this type of sexual experience. For others, men and women (unlike yourself) “nasty” may be a turn on. As a man who has been gaged and choked more than his fair share (and very much enjoyed it) , I can see that you have a limited perspective on where I am coming from.
I agree that simply saying “men are more visual” is highly reductionist. I guess I was using it more as shorthand for (some)men may have different erotic stimuli to (some other)women. Another statement along the same lines would be: some people are attracted to the opposite sex, some are attracted to the same sex.; or some people like to be suffocated during climax, some don’t. Furthermore, “all men are bastards” is shorthand for Caroline’s insidious implications that men cannot separate pop culture media influences from their day to day interactions with fellow human beings because they are somehow inept to see the potential for harm or don’t care if harm occurs. Bastards.