Q. WHAT'S WRONG WITH PORNOGRAPHY?


(In this article I am writing about hard core pornography (i.e.
depictions of interactive or penetrative sex). I cannot see the
point in reading 'soft' porn, as I find it even more mindless
and boring than hard core. Also, I think that if porn can be
dangerous, this danger is multiplied in soft porn. This is
because the sex act is implied but not admitted. Therefore the
same assumptions are in operation, but are hidden by the (very
British) hypocritical modesty of innuendo and vapid eroticism.
This can further enhance the goddess/whore dichotomy and
irrational anger at women for not bestowing their sexual
favours: the women depicted promise availability but do not
deliver).



	QUESTIONS LIKE THAT ABOVE PRESUPPOSE:


i) that 'pornography' is a single homogeneous entity

ii) that it has some kind of indwelling essence which we can
pass moral judgement on, as if morality were some kind of
absolute.


	The way I see it is that the definition 'pornography' rests to
a large extent on relative notions such as individual and
cultural bias i.e. what counts as pornographic varies between
different people and societies.

	In response to accusations such as "pornography is murder"1, I
do not feel that pornography, in and of itself, is automatically
anything at all. This point is expanded upon below.





Q.Does pornography lead to violence against women? 



	When hard core pornography was made freely and legally
available in Denmark, statistics show that rape incidents
declined. Personally, I place a fair amount of credence in the
idea that people who might take out their frustrations on other
people can, through pornography, act them out in fantasy,
theoretically involving only themselves and their imagination.2

	However, Andrea Dworkin published a booklet full of statistics
linking porn and sexual violence (which American publishing
monopolies who get massive revenue out of porn successfully
suppressed) and comments in her book Pornography: Men Possessing
Women that a story in Playboy where a woman gets raped on a pool
table was followed by 'copy-cat' rapes throughout America.

	I think the line of thought "Does porn cause rape" is futile as
no direct link can ultimately be proven. Most porn is pretty
boring stuff. The thrill seems to reside in the overcoming the
puritan taboos surrounding sex in our society. Many people have
argued that our society is founded on control and violence
(which seems to be the basis of 'government' judging by the
amount of times the police and army have been employed in
Britain's history to beat into submission all who dare disagree
with their Rulers - 'democratically elected' or not). In our
society, with its assumptions of women as weak, deferent,
giving, receptive etc. and men as strong, assertive and
righteous, the prevalent attitude of competition and dominance
(strong deservedly triumphing over weak) is most vividly
represented by male(s) deservedly triumphing (in argument,
fighting or sex) over women. 



	The original question now becomes, "Does buying/using
pornography support or subvert exploitative assumptions about
women?" I do not think we can answer this conclusively either.
For one person the act of seeing pictures of people fucking
could be intensely liberating and positive; for another it may
merely confirm an exploitative view of women (and maybe of
people generally). I view sex as a wondrous activity worthy of
celebration in pictures, as it always has been. 



Ideas to include:

-RAW's androphobia II



Macro/micro approach: 

   - Parallels to any most commodity purchases. These uphold the
system & often contribute to much suffering/death/ruthless
profiteering. i.e. Nestle, Haagen-Daz, General Electric,
Tobacco, most 3rd world products, new agers buying crystals
mined under great exploitation. Boycotting porn may be for/seen
by some as valid way of lessening sexual violence and
exploitation -why not include other boycotts - how do we
prioritise human misery?     - And if boycotting porn it would
seem consistent to also attack advertising, soap operas,
language etc. that upholds rather than challenges assumptions
about women. 

   - Porn as a symptom, not a cause. Censorship/some feminism as
counter productive/reactionary. (mass conformism, fem as
fascism- their interp of men right, ours of women wrong)

-There is a difference between fantasy & reality



Assumptions/positive aspects: 

	There is nothing inherently, absolutely or metaphysically
'wrong' in seeing people nude or semi nude or in seeing
depictions of people making love - indeed unavoidable in r
culture (continually present, explicit or implied, in TV, books,
women's + other mags, advertising, fine + popular art of most
varieties, songs, poems etc.). Indeed, it is usually a turn-on
and often pleasant. So what is objectionable about most
commercially available porn?




What I object to: 

	Porn made by corporations only in it for the money + people get
hurt/ripped off (can also be empowering i.e. personal power,
body awareness, posters sack yr boss, sell yr body in Soho).
Mass produced, low quality. Stereotypical notions not challenged
much. No equivalent for women. Also objectionable to people not
sharing above assumptions, into guilt, Catholicism etc. If you
object to sex per se you will of course object to porn.

-Can be addictive to the point of rejecting "real" women (men's
movement)

-can/must/does structure expectations (what of? women? sex?
fantasy life-which is part of reality)

-men are just as exploited as women in porn. A major difference
could be that women's pornographic exploitation corresponds to
their exploitation in everyday life, whereas men's is in
opposition to their relative position of power. Men can enjoy
the fantasy of objectification without having to live it every
day as it can be argued that many women do.

	Also, the vast majority of porn is targeted at men. Women do
not really have access to similar material designed for their
different needs & wants and so there is no balance. 



CONCLUSION?

	A single issue based campaign like that often aimed at porn
runs the risk of being called hypocritical, short sighted, naive
if it does not include a global awareness of the interrelated
nature of existance/actions. The Plains Indians once said they
could not harm the Earth for in doing so they would literally be
hurting themselves. A similar attitude on the behalf of
misogynists would show that what they hate/love too much about
women is what they cannot cope with in themselves. If I as a
male denigrate and deny the feminine in myself, I will do the
same to objects and people who remind me of the characteristics
I have repressed. For me this insight sheds light on why rapists
often ask their victim's forgiveness after the attack. In any
interaction/contact with the feminine - whether it be in
pictures, film, flesh or violence - I approach balance, and
therefore equilibrium/pleasure. The inability to connect
realistically with those feminine aspects of myself means that
when I encounter those aspects outside of myself (in thoughts,
pictures or flesh) they pose a threat to my sense of self and
need to be ruthlessly rendered harmless.

	Basically, I think that work on an issue like porn is most
effective or authentic if it is motivated by a deep exploration
of the particular individual involved. This is because if we are
not working on ourselves, how can we possibly expect to see
anything clearly? For me the way I relate to porn is a part of a
personal exploration into my attitude to myself, women, people
generally and ultimately all of my perceived (internal  +
external) reality. The kind of global awareness I am considering
here is frequently a component of magic, mysticism, religion and
green politics as well as of feminism. 

	For my part, and at this point in time/my development, I think
that it is possible that making porn can be liberating for those
involved in its production (although for the most part it quite
obviously isn't) and that it can viewed as a valid and powerful
means both of pleasure and of the way I relate to the feminine
in myself and others. This does not mean that I recommend it for
anyone else, it just means that I do not view porn as having
only one static meaning; that being "bad" (I am moved to
suspicion of the way in which political correctness agrees with
puritan/Xian morality/ purveyors of sexual guilt, hypocrisy +
sex negativity; + repressive, Vitorian/family values types here.
cf Dworkin's alliance with fundamentalists + right wingers). I
would like to end with Timothy Leary's dictum for the 1990's;
"Think for yourself and question authority"; be it the authority
of society, the media, me, political correctness, Timothy Leary,
feminism, machismo and especially your self.




FOOTNOTES:

1  This much quoted comment was made by Andrea Dworkin, who I
fully support, admire and agree with; within the parameters as
she defines them. I continue to feel that she represents but one
view point and that there are others which are equally "true"
within their own particular frame of reference.

2  Jung's theory of the 'universal unconscious' and the common
definition of magick as the use of will and imagination to bring
about concrete changes in external reality seem to imply that
violent sex fantasies are not confined to the individual but
contribute to the content of a fund of imagery which we can all
have access to, and which can effect us all, and therefore so
called external reality, by being a part of our shared
unconscious life.