Critically Assess The Argument That Pornography Is Harmful To Women.
Critically Assess The Argument That Pornography Is Harmful To Women.
Pornography, unlike any other media representation of sex and sexuality, has become within postmodern society a cultural category of significance (McNair1996: 1) The traditional imagery of seediness has been lost somewhat and replaced by a society that uses highly sexual imagery within the advertising industry, the music industry and also as a theme for many late night mainstream TV shows.
This shift in attitudes towards the use of sexual and erotic images in today's society raises certain questions that need to be answered. What is pornography and how is pornography defined? If pornography is harmful then who does it harm and in what way?
In order to fully explore the question is pornography harmful to women it is important to first define what pornography is and look closely at the different arguments around defining it.
Pornography is in the main understood as being photographs or video images of explicit sexual acts. So despite the fact that there are some differences of opinion on the definition of pornography most people would appear to agree that its content is sex. Although it has been claimed that 'what pornography is really about, ultimately, isn't sex but death. (Sontag 1982: 105) that said, to most commentators images to be defined, as pornographic not are clear. What constitutes the pornographic would, to some, include naked and masturbatory poses, usually of women, in top shelf men's magazines as well as depictions of simulated and actual sexual intercourse between couples and groups of all permutations not only photographed but also on video. (McNair 1996: 45). One definition of pornography is 'the presentation in verbal or visual signs of human sexual organs in a condition of stimulation.' (Peckham 1969: 47) Others would perhaps disagree with Peckham's definition here, as they would argue that the mere display of nudity or semi-nudity whether in a state of stimulation or not is pornographic. It is therefore often an individual decision as to what a person finds to be pornographic. This can be illustrated by the ongoing debate in Britain on whether or not to ban 'page 3 girls' from tabloid newspapers. These pictures are seen by some to be relatively innocent and non- pornographic whereas other people such as the MPs Claire Short and Dawn Primarola have tried, unsuccessfully to have these images banned because they believe that they are pornographic.
McNair 1996 wrote that what makes the relatively less explicit representations of sexual activity pornographic is its intention to arouse. His argument here is that the depiction of a topless woman on a documentary about breast cancer is not pornographic because the intention of the programme maker is not to sexually arouse the audience. (McNair 1996: 46) Whereas images of topless women in national newspapers are intended to have the effect of stimulating the viewer in some way so can therefore be regarded, even in a small way as being pornographic. In an effort to define pornography further McNair went on to define pornography in terms of its manifest content, in other words its explicit nature. Its intention to arouse and its effects, that is the harms, which it inflicts on society. (Ibid: 57) This can then mean that pornography can be described in terms of four categories; aesthetic, moral, legal and political.
McNair's four categories can be defined this way. In an aesthetic category, pornography is the type of explicit sexual image that would not be described as art. That is according to the definition of art in literature, photography, cinema or any other medium where there could be a clash between art and pornography (ibid). To illustrate this difference a comparison could be made between the work of American sex film producer John Stagliano and perhaps some of the films made by Ken Russell. Stagliano's work is regarded as pornography by any definition. The work of Russell, however , is part of the art of cinema his work has been acknowledged by his peers as art and he has been awarded credible artistic honours such as the Oscar for his work despite the fact that he has shown some fairly explicit sexual material within the films he has made. It could be argued here that McNair is saying that pornography serves only to stimulate on the level of physical sexuality whereas art has intellectual properties and works on an elite cultural level that pornography does not.
McNair talked about pornography as having also a legal category. In Britain the Obscene Publications Act 1959 attempts to define obscenity. This definition can be read as being slightly ambiguous and provides a confusing and not strictly accurate synonym between pornography and obscenity. "The ordinary meaning of obscene is filthy, lewd, or disgusting. In law, the meaning in some respects is narrower, in other respects possibly wider. "The 1959 Act, s. 1(1), provides the test of obscenity: 'For the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
McNair talked about pornography as having also a legal category. In Britain the Obscene Publications Act 1959 attempts to define obscenity. This definition can be read as being slightly ambiguous and provides a confusing and not strictly accurate synonym between pornography and obscenity. "The ordinary meaning of obscene is filthy, lewd, or disgusting. In law, the meaning in some respects is narrower, in other respects possibly wider. "The 1959 Act, s. 1(1), provides the test of obscenity: 'For the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.'
The two most interesting categories as defined by McNair are the moral and political categories that he described. Much more debate surrounds the morality of a society that comodifies sex by means of pornography. Dominant hetero-normative paradigms of western culture have created values within religion and family that view this commodification of sex as immoral because it transgresses any notions of familial procreative sex as the norm. Arguably the most debated of McNair's categories of pornography is the political category. Some feminists have seen pornography as a major tool in the patriarchal domination of women. To these feminists, then pornography is not merely a threat to family values but it goes deeper than that and is a threat to women as social and political beings.
In order to attempt to define pornography more specifically it is important to look at some of these feminist arguments. These feminist arguments can be placed into three categories; radical feminist, liberal feminist and socialist feminist. All three of these perceptions of pornography are important in developing the argument of whether or not pornography is harmful. Radical feminist writer Andrea Dworkin gave a particularly simplified definition of pornography when she referred to it as 'the graphic depiction of whores.' (Dworkin 1981: 4) Dworkin argued that in a system of patriarchy one of the ways men exercise power over women is through the sex act. The sex act she describes as ' an expression of energy, strength, ambition and assertion. Defined by men and experienced by women as a form of male sexual power, virility is a dimension of energy and self-realization (sic) forbidden to women.' (p 23). Therefore, Dworkin would argue that by engaging in sex a man is conquering a woman and using her as an object. This systematic oppression of women by men Dworkin argues is a removal of women's dignity as they struggle for control of their own bodies in a world of male domination. She therefore concludes that 'the metaphysics of male sexual domination is that women are whores.' (p 203). Pornography, in terms of Dworkin's argument, exists in order to serve men sexually. Within a framework of male sexual domination whores exist to serve men sexually therefore pornography is 'the graphic depiction of whores.' (op cit). The terms in which Dworkin speaks about pornography are fairly inflexible. She talks about sex relations between men and women as relations based on power and force; pornography therefore is another form of these power relations. By creating this argument she has forged a couplet between pornography and violence. Dworkin would then further argue that pornography does not cause violence against women, it is violence against women. She has stated that in pornography ' women are tied up, stretched, hanged, fucked, gang-banged, whipped, beaten, and begging for more,' (op cit p201) Other feminists have supported this argument, most notably Catherine MacKinnon who along with Dworkin was responsible for much anti-pornography campaigning in America in the 1970's through the pressure group Women Against Pornography (WAP). Dworkin's argument has been seen by some to be so powerful that her campaigns were successful in banning pornography in certain states in America in the 1970's and 1980's.
The Dworkin argument on pornography does appear to have some weaknesses. Her use of language to describe prostitutes and her connection of pornography to the 'graphic depiction of whores' (op cit) can be seen as a degrading and insulting description of prostitutes. Feminists such as Dworkin, it can be argued, should be working to remove stigma from prostitution not exploiting it for rhetorical gain (Rubin 1993: 43). Dworkin also argues that pornography is merely the exercise of male domination and oppression of women. There is no room in her argument for women to use, enjoy and experiment with pornography for their own pleasure. Embedded in this idea of pornography being a systematic method of abuse and oppression is a very narrow conception of human sexuality and a definite lack of awareness of sexual diversity. The insinuation that pornography is a form of, and also perhaps the catalyst for, violence against women is also weak. Both academic and governmental studies have shown that there is very little connection between sexual expression and aggression. The National Research Council's Panel on Understanding and Preventing Violence concluded in 1993: ' demonstrated empirical links between pornography and sex crimes in general are weak or absent' (cited in Strossen 1995: 251). Rubin concurs with this, she says that 'images of bondage, pain and humiliation are absent from the majority of pornography in terms of mediated violence more women are battered, raped and murdered on prime time television shows and Hollywood movies than in pornographic materials' (op cit p31).
What then about the claim that pornography is a tool used, by men, to oppress and exploit women. (Dworkin 1981: 208) In order to explore this claim fully it must first be established what exploitation is. Are women being exploited through pornography financially, sexually or in some other way? The argument that women are financially exploited by pornography is weak. Women working in the pornography industry are as financially exploited as any worker in any other industry. The very nature of capitalism is for the workers to sell their labour power to the capitalist (Marx 1995 edition: 203). Within this arrangement it is difficult for workers to receive their genuine worth from capitalists who buy their labour, as the capitalist has to make a profit in order to continue employing the labourers. Therefore, financial exploitation happens in the pornography industry as it does in all industries.
Are women then being exploited in the terms of Dworkin's argument sexually? There is a much more liberal-feminist argument that would suggest that women can take control of their lives by chosing to be involved in pornography not just to make money, although this is important for anybody wishing to create independence for themselves, but also as a way of expressing themselves sexually.
Examples of women who have created for themselves extremely lucrative careers in pornography, whilst using pornography as a tool for their own self-expression include Tuppy Owens and Jenna Jameson. Tuppy Owens has taken part in, produced and written extensively about pornography, whilst maintaining a feminist stance on many aspects of socio-sexual life. Owens herself said ' it never occurred to me that enjoyment and bringing other people pleasure would do anything other than inspire others to please and be pleased, and I was flabbergasted when I heard feminists accusing porno people of exploitation and abuse, of people thinking that desire, the spirit of sex was wrong. I have been more and more shocked at how these attitudes have been blocking pleasure. (Owens 1993: 121) It is difficult to see these as the words of a woman who has systematically been oppressed and exploited by men, and most importantly this is not a woman who has been harmed by her involvement in pornography, either as a porn actress or as a producer of pornography.
Seamus Heffernan journalist for an online magazine called The Random Truth conducted an interview with American actress Jenna Jameson. Although she is primarily famous for making many pornographic movies Jameson has become a well known celebrity within American mainstream entertainment, this is how Heffernan introduced his interview with her 'as an actress, Jenna Jameson has obtained star-power rivalling Julia Roberts or Gwyneth Paltrow. She chooses her male co-stars, has final say on what she will or will not do when the cameras are rolling, and earns more money than any of her peers. She is in total control of her life and often uses her work to act out her own fantasies.' (Heffernan 2001). This description of a woman able to command huge sums of money and dictate the exact terms and conditions of her employment is hardly representative of an exploited female sex worker employed only for the sexual gratification of men.
Compare this also to the countless numbers of 'page three girls' in Britain who used their topless modelling career to catapult themselves into highly paid media positions where they are regarded as well-respected celebrities within mainstream culture. These are all women that would argue against the theory that pornography is harmful, as they have made for themselves highly successful and lucrative careers in a situation where the market created for them this opportunity. Definitions of exploitation particularly within the Dworkin argument do not seem to fit within the framework of how these women control their lives.
Having addressed the radical feminist arguments of Andrea Dworkin and also having looked at much more liberal viewpoints such as that of Tuppy Owens the question can now be asked; where then does the harm in pornography lie? Elizabeth Wilson provides more of a socialist feminist argument when arguing about issues concerning pornography. Wilson states that 'Andrea Dworkin is wrong. It is not pornography itself that lies at the heart of women's oppression or indeed anyone's oppression.' (Wlison 1991: 67). Wilson goes on to argue that women's oppression and harm being done to women was happening long before commercialised pornography. She states that rape and sexual violence are not dependent on pornography (ibid) Wilson's argument is then that the censorship of pornography is more harmful to society than the pornography itself. She would argue that a free and democratic society is one where a diversity of views and behaviour is tolerated. It is important, therefore to recognise that in society there is a wide range of views on; politics, sexuality and many other issues. It would be dangerous then for those few people in power to decide that they know what is best for the people. Individuals can make up their own minds about their choice of reading and viewing material without legislators deciding this for them. The group Feminists Against Censorship (FAC) which Wilson represents believes that as feminists they have a responsibility to be critical of images they find sexist, racist or exploitative and to counter them in an effective way. Not by trying to get them banned but by initiating a much more wide-ranging debate about sex and by creating much more informed, tolerant and responsible attitudes to the expression of sexuality. An FAC leaflet published in 1989 stated. 'Women need open and safe communication about sexual matters, including the power relations of sex. We need a safe, legal working environment for sex workers, not repressive laws or an atmosphere of social stigma that empowers police and punters to brutalise them. We need sexually explicit material produced by and for women, freed from control of right-wingers and misogynists, whether they sit on the board of control or the board of censors. We need an analysis of violence that empowers women and protects them at the same time. We need a feminism willing to tackle issues of class and race and to deal with a variety of oppressions in the world not to reduce all oppressions to pornography.' (Wilson 1991: 15).
The views of women like Elizabeth Wilson and other women in FAC is that the use of pornography by feminists to highlight, and back up arguments supporting the theory pornography is responsible for oppression of women is misleading. This form of misleading argument particularly that of Andrea Dworkin is far more harmful to women than the pornography itself. Political protest has produced a number of anti-porn campaigns on both sides of the Atlantic supported by women from a wide range of political backgrounds. Many of these women believed that harm was being done to women by the production and use of these images and that this could be addressed by censorship. As Elizabeth Wilson herself stated 'these political campaigns failed to address fundamental divisions and disagreements as to what the interests of women are,' (Wilson 2000: 40) censorship then does not encourage this important discourse it does the opposite and creates a shield behind which vital discourse cannot take place.
In conclusion the question; Is pornography harmful to women? Can be answered in a variety of ways. the question must be posed what is the harm? Could it be physical harm? As some of the arguments here discussed there is no hard evidence to support the theory that pornography leads to male violence against women. The vast majority of mainstream pornography does not show images of women suffering violence so therefore it can be concluded that pornography does not cause women physical harm. Does pornography then cause women social harm? Has the oppression of women in work, family and other social relationships come about because of pornography? As Elizabeth Wilson stated these forms of oppression were happening long before commercialised pornography was freely available. 'Pornography as we know it - mass produced for a mass audience - is a recent invention. Women's oppression unfortunately came long before porn, (Wilson 1991: 67). On these issues it is difficult to see how pornography causes women harm. Pornography depicts acts that are sexual, and is about sexual difference; but it is much more than a discourse about sexual acts and sexual difference. Pornographic literature is part of a capitalist economic phenomenon. Pornography is therefore, the commodification of sex, sexual acts and sexuality. As a commodification just like any other commodity within capitalist society, it is open to both exploitation and the generation of harm to some people within that society. The economy of pornography is often dependent on other economic relations based on production and market demands. If publishing houses need to sell their titles and if TV companies need to sell their programmes then the knowledge that the popularity of images of sexual depiction will help them sell their product will force them to produce such material. It could be argued therefore that the only people being harmed or exploited in any way are those who view the imagery rather than those who produce and collaborate in the production of such imagery. Sex and sex acts constitute for most people a private act; pornography brings that private act into the public realm. The consumption of pornography therefore transgresses certain norms. The purchase and use of pornography may be considered deviant in a moral, sexual or sometimes legal way but it is difficult to see how pornography can be seen as harmful in particular to the women involved in the production of pornography or to women outside of the pornography industry in society generally.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Assiter. A & Carol. A
Bad Girls and Dirty Pictures - The Challenge to reclaim Feminism (Pluto Press 1993)
Bataille. G (ed)
The Story of the Eye. (London Penguin 1982)
Berkeley. K
Pornography & Difference (Indiana University Press 1995)
Dworkin. A
Pornography - Men Possessing Women. (The Women's Press Ltd 1981)
Heffernan. S
Interview With Jenna Jameson 16th December 2001. The Random Truth Online Magazine - www.truthinstuff.com/Random/jenna_jameson12_16_01.html
Marx. K
Capital. A New Abridgement Oxford University Press 1995
McNair. B
Mediated Sex - Pornography & Postmodern Culture (Arnold 1996)
Owens. T
Sex On My Mind. (In Assiter & Carol 1993)
Peckham. M
Art & Pornography: An Experiment in Explanation (New York Basic Books 1969)
Rubin. G
Misguided, Dangerous and Wrong: An Analysis of Anti-Pornography Politics. (In Assiter & Carol 1993)
Sontag. S
The Pornographic Imagination. (In Bataille, ed. 1982)
Strossen. N
Defending Pornography - Free Speech and the Fight for Women's Rights. (Abacus 1996)
Wilson. E & Rogerson. G
Pornography and Feminism the Case Against Censorship. Lawrence & Wishart 1991
Wilson. E
Women Who Censor: Overview. Index On Censorship #2 2000
Ian Wainwright CSS 321
