the feminist and the porn
| By FEM - Mar 27th, 2006 at 10:33 am EST |
To me, feminism is about personal choice. Yes, people should evaluate their choices but a choice is a choice. I cannot tell someone that their choice is "not really a choice" because false consciousness is dangerous territory (how is a feminist telling a stripper she doesn't really want to strip different from a conservative telling a businesswoman that she doesn't really want to work?) Ellis reveals, "anti-porn activists are managing to rationalize as feminism a single-issue movement divorced from any larger political context and rooted in conservative moral assumptions that are all the more dangerous for being unacknowledged".
To say that pornography is just about the immoral objectification of women and thus porn should be banned is intellectually irresponsible. First, we should discuss what is objectification and whether it is "bad". Willis reveals WAP (anti-porn activists) claim that the objectification of women in porn encourages violence against women as seen in the saying "pornography is the theory, rape is the practice". Willis responds that if porn was absent, this would not eliminate violence against women. She goes further to argue that the assumption that porn is about violence (not sex) is also deeply problematic. In order for anti-porn activists to claim porn is about violence, anti-porn activists have drawn a line between erotica and pornography. Similar to what Susie Bright posits, Willis responds "what turns me on is erotic, what turns you on is pornographic". This reinforces the charmed circle (Rubin). We separate out what is "bad" so that what we like might be considered "good". This is the way "moralists" throughout history have defended their own sexual desires--- but defining it as "okay" in comparison to the deviant "other". Seeing feminists do this is particularly disturbing. Also, objectification does not occur only when dealing with the sexual. Is whoring oneself to a corporation (as a non-sex worker) so different from whoring oneself as a sex worker? Again, the sexual work is deemed immoral while the other passes as reputable work. What a way to reinforce the sexual as negative.
Anti-porn activists (and even Willis to an extent) claim that pornography is for men. Good girls don't pose for porn and good girls don't look for porn. This not only reinforces the virgin/whore dichotomy, but also depicts the "normal" woman as non-sexual. Rather, the woman is a moral check against men's vices. This affirms that sex is a vice and only one apparent in men. Could these assumptions be part of the reason why more porn isn't targeted at women and thus why women are (according to Willis) less likely to view porn?
Willis reveals that the idea of banning pornography is even more problematic as it restricts the civil liberties which progressive (especially feminists) have fought for. Like Willis, I am disturbed that obscenity laws used to limit women from learning about their bodies could be used by feminists to restrict sexuality yet again.
Thus, I have taken on the label "sex-positive feminist" in my personal life. I have been criticized that these term implies that other feminists are "sex negative" but I do not see it like that. And while categories are problematic, they do help me state my views quickly without having to say "I'm pro-porn, prostitution, strippers, etc".
Michelle Stover (MS)
To say that pornography is just about the immoral objectification of women and thus porn should be banned is intellectually irresponsible. First, we should discuss what is objectification and whether it is "bad". Willis reveals WAP (anti-porn activists) claim that the objectification of women in porn encourages violence against women as seen in the saying "pornography is the theory, rape is the practice". Willis responds that if porn was absent, this would not eliminate violence against women. She goes further to argue that the assumption that porn is about violence (not sex) is also deeply problematic. In order for anti-porn activists to claim porn is about violence, anti-porn activists have drawn a line between erotica and pornography. Similar to what Susie Bright posits, Willis responds "what turns me on is erotic, what turns you on is pornographic". This reinforces the charmed circle (Rubin). We separate out what is "bad" so that what we like might be considered "good". This is the way "moralists" throughout history have defended their own sexual desires--- but defining it as "okay" in comparison to the deviant "other". Seeing feminists do this is particularly disturbing. Also, objectification does not occur only when dealing with the sexual. Is whoring oneself to a corporation (as a non-sex worker) so different from whoring oneself as a sex worker? Again, the sexual work is deemed immoral while the other passes as reputable work. What a way to reinforce the sexual as negative.
Anti-porn activists (and even Willis to an extent) claim that pornography is for men. Good girls don't pose for porn and good girls don't look for porn. This not only reinforces the virgin/whore dichotomy, but also depicts the "normal" woman as non-sexual. Rather, the woman is a moral check against men's vices. This affirms that sex is a vice and only one apparent in men. Could these assumptions be part of the reason why more porn isn't targeted at women and thus why women are (according to Willis) less likely to view porn?
Willis reveals that the idea of banning pornography is even more problematic as it restricts the civil liberties which progressive (especially feminists) have fought for. Like Willis, I am disturbed that obscenity laws used to limit women from learning about their bodies could be used by feminists to restrict sexuality yet again.
Thus, I have taken on the label "sex-positive feminist" in my personal life. I have been criticized that these term implies that other feminists are "sex negative" but I do not see it like that. And while categories are problematic, they do help me state my views quickly without having to say "I'm pro-porn, prostitution, strippers, etc".
Michelle Stover (MS)
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Those people who'd criticize you are wrong to do so. There is no "default" position for feminism with regard to sex, so "sex-positive" works as a label (If you must go by labels to define yourself, in other words, it's not a half bad one.) And frankly, there are plenty of "sex negative" feminists out there, some of them very well-known -- crazies like Dworkin and MacKinnon pop to mind.
More than just about choice, feminism is about opportunities. Without opportunities, choices are just talk, and they simply mean nothing.
The more opportunities we create for women, the less likely they'll be to part take in the porn industries, which makes the religious right very, happy, I am sure.
Again, this goes back to working together to create a better America.
See, I am not sure if women will be less likely to take part in the sex industry. Maybe there will just because more choices means more women diversifying in their career choice. But, I don't think the porn industry will necessarily be hit particuarly harder but, you know, its a hypothetical...