Mackinnon vs. Strossen - on pornography

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Thank you very much for representing the anti-porn stance.

For the purposes of the discussion, H, did the OP fairly represent your stance along with Mackinnon and Dworkin?

And I would very much like to hear your take on any commonalities between anti-porn and pro-porn, as well as the introduction of internet porn on the industry, on more women producers, and on more demand of erotica online by women.

Thanks for entering the discussion.

Yes the OP is fair.

The commonalities between anti and pro is that we can both agree about things like sexual assault/rape and both agree we want it done away with including in the porn industry. And some pro porn feminists agree with anti porn feminists that the content of a lot of pornography is sexist against women. I believe with other pro porn feminists anything goes as long as it's "consensual" (I put that in quotes because I believe consent is up for discussion.)

I am sceptical about women pornographers this is because I believe women can be just as damaging to other women if they want to be, as my girl Lorde said "the masters tools will never dismantle the masters house."
And Dworkin said more brutally "a commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murder instead of the murdered."

There is a blog I'm looking forward to which will critique feminist labeled porn.

I also think the problems with pornography as an industry go beyond what the images look like as well.

What is sad about the Internet is 1) we have access to "revenge porn" and 2) pornographers can get away with a lot more, once it's out there it's out there. Pornographers are still making loads of money from porn actresses who have left and don't want unreleased content uploaded, but pornographers still have authority over their websites.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Thanks, found it on wikipedia. I'd link, but it's Pain on my phone.

I generally agree with those ordinances, especially where they address the subject of coercion, sexualized violence causing injury and the unauthorized use of such images being defined as defamation. I'm not sure we can define all sub / dom porn as a violation of civil rights. Some folks do enjoy humiliation and pain, and we shouldn't deny anyone the right to explore and even profit from those inclinations, even though they are more often than not caused by childhood sexual abuse.

I'm not sure about the trafficking ordinance. Seems to me that making the images is where we need to focus our efforts, and ensure everyone involved is consenting and protected from unsafe working conditions and exploitation.

I didn't want to link it because of the rule against providing a link without personal commentary. Do they have the full ordinance on wiki though? There is a website called no status quo which has the complete text.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yes the OP is fair.

The commonalities between anti and pro is that we can both agree about things like sexual assault/rape and both agree we want it done away with including in the porn industry. And some pro porn feminists agree with anti porn feminists that the content of a lot of pornography is sexist against women. I believe with other pro porn feminists anything goes as long as it's "consensual" (I put that in quotes because I believe consent is up for discussion.)

I am sceptical about women pornographers this is because I believe women can be just as damaging to other women if they want to be, as my girl Lorde said "the masters tools will never dismantle the masters house."
And Dworkin said more brutally "a commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murder instead of the murdered."

There is a blog I'm looking forward to which will critique feminist labeled porn.

I also think the problems with pornography as an industry go beyond what the images look like as well.

What is sad about the Internet is 1) we have access to "revenge porn" and 2) pornographers can get away with a lot more, once it's out there it's out there. Pornographers are still making loads of money from porn actresses who have left and don't want unreleased content uploaded, but pornographers still have authority over their websites.

This is a fair critique. Thanks.

 

[Alceste]

I didn't want to link it because of the rule against providing a link without personal commentary. Do they have the full ordinance on wiki though? There is a website called no status quo which has the complete text.

No, it was just a summary, but since we're discussing it, I think a link would be fine.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

No, it was just a summary, but since we're discussing it, I think a link would be fine.

Ok here it is:Complete Text of the Dworkin/MacKinnon Ordinance

The ordinance would allow porn actresses/actors to prosecute if they were coerced into porn
As well as victims of sexual abuse if a specific pornography had a part in their abuse.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

This is a fair critique. Thanks.

no problem. Also like to add that there have been women who have become famous from hardcore porn and gone on to direct hardcore pornography, so it doesn't make a difference to me if a woman is directing or a man.
I'm sure we have all heard Sasha Grey boast about beating women in porn.

 

[Alceste]

Ok here it is:Complete Text of the Dworkin/MacKinnon Ordinance

The ordinance would allow porn actresses/actors to prosecute if they were coerced into porn
As well as victims of sexual abuse if a specific pornography had a part in their abuse.

My God, are they not already allowed to sue if they are coerced into porn? What the hell!

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

My God, are they not already allowed to sue if they are coerced into porn? What the hell!

Probably but Dworkin and Mackinnon wanted it layed down in writing so everyone ruined by pornography has full rights and protection under the law. It's kind of like, murder was illegal but African Americans still got lynched and nothing was done about it. Sometimes special laws are needed.

 

[Penumbra]

For the purposes of this discussion, I'd like to point out the arguments made by both sides of the debate regarding the impact pornography has on society.

Catherine Mackinnon is perhaps best known along with Andrea Dworkin on her perspective regarding the use of violent imagery in mainstream pornography as well as its inherent objectification of women with its frequent viewing.

I put in Nadine Strossen on the subject of defending pornography, but we could easily offer Wendy McElroy's perspective on the social benefits pornography has, and that argues that women are sexual pursuers as well, and that censoring pornography does more harm to free speech than it does good.

Given that this is not a debate forum, but rather a discussion-only forum, I'd like to ask what the perspective is on:

1) How both arguments have impacted the social framework of how women are seen, how women see themselves, and how women see other people.
2) Is there a commonality between anti-porn and pro-porn stances? If so, what is it?
3) Since both feminists offered their arguments before the advent of internet porn, do you think their stances might have evolved?
4) Finally, has the issue of human trafficking become a bigger factor in each of their stances? How does it complicate or simplify their stances?

I've seen very little porn, but what I have seen has not been positive. It has mostly been objectifying and unrealistic in my view. I think idealization of female bodies is harmful, and the acts as depicted themselves tend to be rather dominating.

So in many ways, I'm anti-porn, in the sense that I have a negative view towards what I understand as common porn. But in theory, I don't have anything against respectful porn if there is such a thing, and from a socially liberal perspective my commitment to legalizing most things between consenting adults would trump any feelings I have towards the industry. I don't know if individual feminists have evolved their views, but I do think that some feminist views held by subsets of feminists should change based on newer information.

Human trafficking I think would be the one thing that most civilized people would agree is gravely wrong and that should be strongly opposed wherever possible.

It's also confusing when you're a hormone filled teenage boy. You fall in love with someone, want to have sex with them, and hate yourself for wanting to have sex with someone who, you are told, doesn't really want to have sex, actually loathes sex, but will only do it to please you. Twists your feelings seven ways to hell.

On the bright side, it paves the way for some kinky consensual sex later on in life.

^_^

 

[dust1n]

For the purposes of this discussion... snip...
I put in Nadine Strossen on the subject of defending pornography, but we could easily offer Wendy McElroy's perspective on the social benefits pornography has, and that argues that women are sexual pursuers as well

WHAT IS PORNOGRAPHY?

I propose a value-neutral definition: Pornography is the explicit artistic depiction of men and/or women as sexual beings. The modifier explicit excludes such gray areas as women's romance novels... my definition of pornography is "the explicit artistic depiction.

The differentia is "of men and/or women as sexual beings." This means that pornography is the genre of art or literature that focuses on the sexual nature of human beings. This does not mean pornography cannot present people as full well rounded human beings. But, in order for the piece of art to be part of the "genre" of pornography, it must explicitly emphasize their sexuality.

Two things are missing from my definition of pornography, which are generally found elsewhere. It is common to refer to pornography as "material intended to sexually arouse"; I have excluded the intention of the author or producer. I have also excluded the reaction of the reader or viewer.

In other words, I claim that The Tropic of Cancer is inherently pornographic, quite apart from Henry Miller's intentions. To put this in another way: What if Miller protested that he was doing a political commentary on fascism, not a piece of pornography? Would his intention somehow convert the book into a work of political science? By my definition, no. The Tropic of Cancer would be a work of pornography whether or not Miller had hoped to achieve something else.

Equally, what if a reader became tremendously aroused by Animal Farm and not at all by Miller's book? The reader's response would not alter the fact that Miller, not Orwell, is the one presenting pornography.

"Pornography is the explicit artistic depiction of men and/or women as sexual beings." This is not merely a working definition. It is a definition I propose as a new and neutral starting point for a more fruitful discussion of pornography.

IS PORNOGRAPHY GOOD OR BAD?

With a working definition in place, it is possible to move on to the next question, Is pornography good or bad? This question is usually asked in one of two manners:

1. Is the explicit depiction of sex, in general, a good or bad thing?

Opinions on this range widely. At one extreme are the Religious Right and the anti-porn feminists, who condemn any graphic expression of sexuality, including straightforward nudity. At another extreme are those people who view any sexual censorship as being far worse than pornography could ever be. Most people fall in the middle. They tend to judge pornography on a case-by-case basis.

2. Is a specific piece of pornography good or bad art?

This is an aesthetic question. It revolves around identifying the major themes being expressed and evaluating how well the themes have been executed.

Most pornography is bad art. Indeed, pornography probably contains less artistic value than any other genre of literature and art. The reason for this is simple. Whenever a genre is stigmatized (or criminalized), the best writers and minds tend to abandon it. Those authors-such as D. H. Lawrence or James Branch Cabell or Henry Miller-who persist in bringing their genius to bear are persecuted without mercy. No wonder the industry is dominated by those who rush to make a quick profit rather than a profound insight.

Nevertheless, I believe the quality of pornography is often maligned. Pornography tends to be judged by the worst examples within the genre. Anti-pornographers do not hold up copies of D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover or Erica Jong's Fear of Flying. They choose the most repulsive examples they can find and call them "representative." What other genre could withstand being judged by its poorest instances?

16 / WENDY McELROY

XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography

I agree with Elroy on these points. I don't think pornography be bad... necessarily.

INDIVIDUALIST FEMINISM: A TRUE DEFENSE OF PORNOGRAPHY

Individualist feminism provides the best defense of pornography because its ideology is the mirror image of radical feminism, from which the most effective attack on porn is coming. Individual feminism insists on the principle of self-ownership: a woman's body, a woman's right. It insists that women be free to choose, regardless of the content of their choices.

The key concept here is choice, which is present whenever a woman acts without physical coercion. Certainly, it is present whenever the woman herself says the actions are voluntary, because she is the only person truly capable of judging that claim. The peaceful choices of every woman must be respected; the voice of every woman should be heard.

This is a profoundly individualistic approach, which leaves little room for class analysis as presented by anti-porn feminists. Such feminists view individual rights and personal preferences as irritating bumps on the road to the greater good of class interest. To them, "the personal is political."

To individualist feminists, the personal is personal. There is a political door that closes to separate and protect individuals from society. People call this protection by different names: the Bill of Rights, self-ownership, individual rights, or natural law. In the shadow of this protection, individual women make decisions about matters that concern them and them alone. For example, they decide about sex.

This is not to say that one woman's sexual choices cannot have implications for another woman, or an impact upon her. Every action you take and every word you utter can impact upon another human being. Exhaling can have an impact, especially if you have a cold or some other contagious disease. The question is: At what point does another woman have a right to restrict your actions on the grounds of self-protection?

Individualist feminism answers: When, and only when, those actions involve physical force, threat of force, or fraud. In the absence of force, women should be free to make any and every sexual choice they wish.

Individualist feminism provides the best defense of pornography because its ideology is the mirror image of radical feminism, from which the most effective attack on porn is coming

I'm rather skeptical of "individualist" anything, which generally never accounts for communal problems and communal solutions.

This reflects in her list of arguments for why porn is good for women, in which all but one point is arguing for the good of women viewing porn, not working in it. The only one that does even address those working in the porn industry follows:

4. Legitimizing pornography would protect women 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." Leonore Tiefer, a professor of psychology has observed: "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." [9]...

Women, who were involved in pornography in the fifties, when it was illegal, tell horror stories of police raids in which they were made to lie naked and facedown, while police pressed guns against their heads. The purpose: to make them answer questions about friends and associates. By trying to drive pornography underground, anti-porn feminists are encouraging a return to such violence against women sex workers.


In March 1985, a representative of the U.S. Prostitutes Collective stood before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and pleaded with them not to pass an ordinance against pornography. She explained that the closure of such sex operations would force the women, who needed to eat and pay their bills, out into the streets as prostitutes. There, they would fall prey to pimps and police crackdowns. She explained: "Feminists who support the porn ordinance said they are not attacking prostitutes-yet the ordinance explicitly calls for enforcement of the prostitution laws. They can't have it both ways."


Pornography needs to be legitimized so that women sex workers can be protected by the legal system, not victimized. Keeping the industry visible is the best way to monitor how women within it are treated. It is the only way to bring public opinion to bear on abuses.

Now I know McElroy is an individualist anarchist and not a collectivist, so I'll try my best not to let me bias bleed over into me words, but I feel a little bit, like, the women who work in prostitution are completely disregarded in her argument; and I'm not sure how I am suppose to feel about the notion that poor regulation, public recognition, and glamorization are to be the solutions in which the individual is to address this.

I don't think anyone here is unfamiliar with the notion that money is in power. It's an old cliche but it's true. There are a lot of powers. Different manifestations, but same inherent concept. Money can be used to manipulate, and I feel bad for the many women and men who are misled by the guidance of money and which mostly appears to be high people boning in such ways that I can't really even imagine possible with the use of local anesthesia and at least alcohol.

So, saying this as someone who has easily got off to videos of porn stars who have later stated a kind of regret with their involvement the entire industry, I'm not quite satisfied the consumer's concern is what I had in mind, some of which I find legitimate via her arguments, and others haphazardly constructed.

 

[Alceste]

16 / WENDY McELROY

XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography

I agree with Elroy on these points. I don't think pornography be bad... necessarily.

Individualist feminism provides the best defense of pornography because its ideology is the mirror image of radical feminism, from which the most effective attack on porn is coming

I'm rather skeptical of "individualist" anything, which generally never accounts for communal problems and communal solutions.

This reflects in her list of arguments for why porn is good for women, in which all but one point is arguing for the good of women viewing porn, not working in it. The only one that does even address those working in the porn industry follows:



Now I know McElroy is an individualist anarchist and not a collectivist, so I'll try my best not to let me bias bleed over into me words, but I feel a little bit, like, the women who work in prostitution are completely disregarded in her argument; and I'm not sure how I am suppose to feel about the notion that poor regulation, public recognition, and glamorization are to be the solutions in which the individual is to address this.

I don't think anyone here is unfamiliar with the notion that money is in power. It's an old cliche but it's true. There are a lot of powers. Different manifestations, but same inherent concept. Money can be used to manipulate, and I feel bad for the many women and men who are misled by the guidance of money and which mostly appears to be high people boning in such ways that I can't really even imagine possible with the use of local anesthesia and at least alcohol.

So, saying this as someone who has easily got off to videos of porn stars who have later stated a kind of regret with their involvement the entire industry, I'm not quite satisfied the consumer's concern is what I had in mind, some of which I find legitimate via her arguments, and others haphazardly constructed.

I agree - sometimes individualists take a pretty rosy view of pornography and prostitution, as if it just boils down to consensual sex in exchange for money. It kind of glosses over exploitation, economic coercion, child abuse, violence, disease and human trafficking.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

"Anti-pornography feminists are actually undermining the safety of sex workers when they treat them as "indoctrinated women." Leonore Tiefer, a professor of psychology has observed: "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." [9]...

hahahaha! Because Dworkin (the main leader in the anti-pornography movement) rejected prostitutes!? No! In fact they would literally come up to her and tell her their stories. Dworkin was all about solidarity with these women because she was one of those women and knew exactly what it was like.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree - sometimes individualists take a pretty rosy view of pornography and prostitution, as if it just boils down to consensual sex in exchange for money. It kind of glosses over exploitation, economic coercion, child abuse, violence, disease and human trafficking.

^This.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I agree - sometimes individualists take a pretty rosy view of pornography and prostitution, as if it just boils down to consensual sex in exchange for money. It kind of glosses over exploitation, economic coercion, child abuse, violence, disease and human trafficking.

And then they have a cheek to talk about how we need to end rape culture.
Just no!

 

[Sunstone]

I propose a value-neutral definition: Pornography is the explicit artistic depiction of men and/or women as sexual beings. The modifier explicit excludes such gray areas as women's romance novels... my definition of pornography is "the explicit artistic depiction.

I think McElroy's definition is a start, but I'm not entirely happy with it. I would define pornography as a depiction of men and/or women that reduces them to mere sexual beings. My definition would not exclude at least some romance novels. That is, I think at least some romance novels constitute a form of pornography in so far as they reduce men to their sexuality.

Having said that, I think McElroy and I would be in broad agreement about what constitutes porn, for the most part.

 

[Alceste]

^This.

And then they have a cheek to talk about how we need to end rape culture.
Just no!

You know, I'd chalk it up to a lack of familiarity of what the sex trade is actually like. Specifically, the fact that a sex worker is never completely sure whether or not the client they've got is going to beat and / or murder them - and the fact that sometimes they will.

I don't blame people for avoiding the ugliness of life, but I've read a lot of memoirs. I mean, a LOT of memoirs. Not just ex-prostitutes, but the autobiographies of child soldiers, truth and reconciliation testimony from Chile, escaped FLDS wives, and whatever else crosses my path. I don't shy away from understanding the horrors people endure. I feel that it's necessary to have a complete picture if I want to have informed opinions on things.

I am pretty sure most people don't expose themselves to anything unpleasant. They sit comfortably back, speculate and philosophize based on their personal ideals and an optimistic picture of human nature. Certainly, in a perfect world, anybody could safely enter into an agreement to exchange sex for money with no harm done. There's nothing inherently wrong with that idea.

But ours is not a perfect world. Far from it. People are horrible. Truly, nightmarishly, unimaginably, sickeningly horrible. A prostitute can never know for certain whether the transaction is simply money for sex or a ploy to get him or her alone for a night of pain and horror that may culminate in their own death.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Referring to hateful/subordinate/racist/physically damaging images of women as "bad art" is so sad and pathetic I don't even know if I should laugh or cry.

 

[Sunstone]

Referring to hateful/subordinate/racist/physically damaging images of women as "bad art" is so sad and pathetic I don't even know if I should laugh or cry.

Actually, I see referring to something as "bad art" as pretty damning. But then, my family is full of artists, so perhaps that colors how I interpret the phrase.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Actually, I see referring to something as "bad art" as pretty damning. But then, my family is full of artists, so perhaps that colors how I interpret the phrase.

"Bad art" can be me walking into a modern art gallery, seeing a red dot on a canvas and saying, "that's bad art."

And what the hell is "bad art?"

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

You know, I'd chalk it up to a lack of familiarity of what the sex trade is actually like. Specifically, the fact that a sex worker is never completely sure whether or not the client they've got is going to beat and / or murder them - and the fact that sometimes they will.

I don't blame people for avoiding the ugliness of life, but I've read a lot of memoirs. I mean, a LOT of memoirs. Not just ex-prostitutes, but the autobiographies of child soldiers, truth and reconciliation testimony from Chile, escaped FLDS wives, and whatever else crosses my path. I don't shy away from understanding the horrors people endure. I feel that it's necessary to have a complete picture if I want to have informed opinions on things.

I am pretty sure most people don't expose themselves to anything unpleasant. They sit comfortably back, speculate and philosophize based on their personal ideals and an optimistic picture of human nature. Certainly, in a perfect world, anybody could safely enter into an agreement to exchange sex for money with no harm done. There's nothing inherently wrong with that idea.

But ours is not a perfect world. Far from it. People are horrible. Truly, nightmarishly, unimaginably, sickeningly horrible. A prostitute can never know for certain whether the transaction is simply money for sex or a ploy to get him or her alone for a night of pain and horror that may culminate in their own death.

Let's face it, men who buy prostitutes are a bunch of entitled woman hating sickos.
Let's read some of their reviews shall we?
the-invisible-men.tumblr.com