Copyright 1997 - 2008,
by Surly
There are many diverse and conflicting interpretations of erotic and pornographic literature and media; the difference being a very thin, very movable line. It is more often a personal matter. However, many feminists and Christian fundamentalists believe that any sexually explicit literature or film made for prurient interests is sexual objectification, degrading of the body and human relationships. Feminists, such as Andrea Dworkin, argue that any sexual portrayal of the human body, even without an intent to hurt or degrade, but for sexual stimulation is exploiting and debasing sexuality. They would say that any depiction of hard core sex is demeaning of human relationships because it focuses only on purely physical sex. I believe they are wrong. We might ask what's wrong with physical sex? Some hard core sex acts are depicted as loving and sharing enjoyment, and in real life they are.
The focus on pornography as a form of oppression and exploitation is valid. But to deny any positive role for pornography is just as blind as those who are real exploiters. It is true that pornography can be unreal, performance and competition oriented, exploitative and sexist, unfree and standardizing of sexual expression, physical beauty and prowess, or ridiculous, thus offering an unliberating stereotype. Perhaps the foregoing description should be called pornography to distinguish it from erotica. But this is not an accepted use and further muddies the waters of debate. This definition can be interpreted and lead to laws and censorship, clearly not a viable solution. And to deny any adult access to anything that will harm no one else is part of a paternal and patriarchal, authoritarian mentality. And the questions must be asked: Aside from legal interpretations, where do we draw the line between erotica and pornography, hard and soft core? Erotica is often defined as sexually suggestive, but having no depiction of actual sex acts. Is hard core depiction of sexual acts to be deemed pornography and therefore censored, even if portrayed in a positive, non-exploitative, non-oppressive light?
Another accusation of feminists is that pornography promotes violence against women and perhaps children. To an extent they are right, but only when the depiction is debasing of women or men and reinforces oppression and a negative view of sexuality. We live in a society that promotes violence and viewing images of violence as acceptable behavior with far worse consequences than the widespread availability of pornography could possibly cause. Much violence may arise out of sexual repression. Who among us will stand up for a healthy, responsible erotica as an antidote to violence?
There is no inherent reason that pornography must be degrading or enforce sex-role stereotyping. Much of is purely playful fantasy for adults. Certainly, much heterosexual pornography does exploit, depict and reflect our cultural gender stereotypes that often includes a put down of women. In many of these portrayals women appear inferior, used and abused. Sexual expression has not been freed. But in much gay pornography this bias does not exist, even in SM pornography, with its fantasy threat of dominance and submission. Most gay pornography reflects an acceptance of free and enjoyable sexual expression, thus giving the lie to the feminist theories. The guilt and exploitation that so often appears in hetero pornography is absent. There is a mutual and equal recognition of purely physical pleasure without any intent to hurt or degrade. Much of the higher quality erotic literature and film reflects this theme of mutual consent.
However, it is true that some erotic gay literature is exploitative, but part of it may only appear so. SM pornography reflects a dominant/submissive relationship which has been equated with oppression and playing out sex-role stereotypes, thus enforcing them. For the uninitiated, this appearance can be deceiving. SM role playing is voluntarily and consciously chosen behavior that has known consequences to the players, unlike the cultural sex-role stereotyping, although some of these sex-roles may be played out within the mutually understood rules of the game. But conscious playing out of sex-roles can be a way to liberation from them and not a reflection of unconscious emotions and/or lack of self-worth as the feminists accuse.
Because most gay pornography is male-oriented and we are acculturated in a patriarchal culture, there is a reflection of male behavior stereotypes. But these males are relating with males, thus on an equal basis. The sexual expression may be very strong, but that is only the natural masculine principle and does not exclude tender feelings and behaviors. By the very nature of the male body and its sexual functions, the sexual act will be masculine, even for a submissive partner. If feminists put down the male expression they are attempting to oppress men instead of addressing their own oppression and unconscious oppressive tendencies. Therefore, they embody a patriarchal principle as a defense mechanism. Too, there is a danger that women wish to oppress the masculine and patriarchal principles altogether, thus denying half of themselves. It is simply an opposite reaction not made in mental/emotional freedom. The separation of the feminist movement arose out of a need for self-exploration of the feminine aspect away from patriarchal influences, but also there was separation out of anger and fear. Now integration of the principles is needed.
This brings the discussion back to the feminist concern with physical sex acts. Are they afraid of the purely physical? We need to recognize that a one-time, purely physical, sexual experience can be joyful and express love and caring and doesn't need to incur guilt. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is mutual and voluntary, without intent to use or harm. This is the responsibility of sexual behavior. Certainly most of us would like to idealize every sexual encounter as having the potential for a deeper relationship. But the feminists imply that a relationship can only be developed over time and not through physical sex. Furthermore, the feminist implication suggests that there is no relationship in purely physical sex - an absurdity. Deep relationships have begun with physical sex and shallow relationships are maintained with and without it. Sex must be an important part of a lover relationship. Women are trained by our culture to value a lasting, multilevel relationship. On the other hand, men are taught to get as much purely physical sex as they can, with little emotional involvement. Women are right that sex can't be the sole basis for a deep relationship. So, as they have been taught, many women devalue the physical sex expression, just as men can deny tenderness, openness and involvement and exploring the personality of each other. So there are social/religious rules to keep hetero relationships together. All of these reflect our cultural beliefs, biases and stereotypes.
Most heterosexual men are just beginning to explore their feminine aspects and will need help from women, not accusations and denial. The biggest barrier to this self-exploration is fear of what is in the self - a fear that one will not be able to handle their deep emotions and will go out of control. This fear is a weakness.
Why don't socially progressive individuals and groups support pornography as an ethical erotic-aesthetic? Those who support free speech, including in that concept the right for adults to possess and communicate any information, even pornography, are still squeamish over erotica as a good in itself. Their support would seem to indicate that it is a protected vice. But is it? Should a healthy and unexploitative erotica be considered evil, unhealthy or criminal? A responsible, happy, healthy sexuality should be a high good. It is beneficial to those involved in it. It would seem to me that those who are opposed to the existence and communication of pornography are uncomfortable with sex, that they do not view expressions of sexuality as good and beneficial acts in themselves. To them, sex is unclean and only to be used for reproduction and only in marriage. The pleasure of the act is not and should not be important. I think this is an unhealthy attitude or belief bordering on the pathological. Whether one believes in a God who requires a specific sexual behavior or not, sexual attraction and the sex act is naturally pleasurable, that is the mechanism that drives sexual activities. How could this be dirty or wrong? Only a warped and injured mind could believe it so.
Obviously, the taboo against pornography is largely a religious one to preserve the concept of reproduction only in marriage, excluding all other sexual desire as inappropriate or wrong, thus eliminating the possibility of any outside stimulus. Once this belief is invalidated, interest in pornography becomes just another human activity subject to secular, broader ethical rules, particularly those against expolitation and abuse that are common to all human relationships.
There are no conclusive studies that prove that pornography is harmful. Even government initiated studies have found little to support the contention that pornography is harmful, even to children, who may not understand it and thus be disinterested, and therefore have concluded that there are no compelling reasons why society should restrict it. Those on the secular side of the debate that pornography is exploitative and demeaning to women only have a point in that some pornographic representations have these characteristics, but most of it does not. It is not inherent in erotica. But there are those who will make obscene interpretations out of the most innocent depictions of healthy sexuality. These individuals should avoid pornography, as is their right.
It is time for those of us who like erotica and pornography to stand up and be counted for promoting an ethical use. Too many of us are cowards when it comes to take this stand. We suffer from the vestiges of negative religious belief and the common acculturation that pornography is somehow socially detrimental or at least to be hidden, leading to hypocrisy. Yet the market for pornography is large and desire for it goes unabated. There must be a lot of guilty people who appreciate it. Sexual guilt associated with pornography feeds more guilt. It is this cycle of guilt and desire overcoming guilt that we must absolve.
With a little sense of levity, pornography can be viewed with humor, as the absurdity much of it is. Sometimes it appears as the utmost parody of itself and of sex stereotypes. But whatever it is, if pornography helps us to feel better about ourselves and enjoy ourselves can it be all bad? And there is the very human attribute to want to see positive and good or negative and bad in anything. It's up to the individual.