If you know of any decent (non-liberal) Latin American feminists, please let me know. I need to practice my Spanish and cleanse from my brain the fake, sadomasochistic “feminism” that one of my lecturers tried to shove down my throat today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Any pornography defenders who came across this article, would scoff at its title and tell me that all sex is pornographic, since pornography is just “videos of people having sex”. Meanwhile, those outside the sex industry may argue that they cannot possibly be having pornographic sex. Both views are wrong. The pornography industry claims to represent human sexuality, but it only represents one kind, the worst kind. There are better ways to experience sex, ones that promote positive values, like freedom, equality and compassion.
However, many people still imitate the sexuality promoted by pornography.This post will put forward criteria for determining how pornographic a sexual behaviour is, which can be applied to visual and textual depictions of sex, as well as to real life acts. It is thus relevant to those both inside and outside the sex industry.
Criterion 1: Equality vs. Power Dynamics
Sex acts
involving dominance and submission are less egalitarian and therefore more
pornographic. Those who are into BDSM openly brag about being either a
“dominant” or a “submissive” (some even call themselves “masters” and “slaves”),
but one can take on hierarchical roles during sex, without using such titles.
Physical aggression, verbal aggression and degradation are all methods of
dominance that are common throughout pornography and add to the pornographic
character of a sex act.
I label acts
as “physically aggressive” or “violent” if they involve deliberately inflicting
pain or bodily damage upon a human (or sufficiently human-like) being.
Restricting a person’s ability to move their body is also a form of physical
aggression. All other things being equal, a person who is injured, in pain or
restricted from moving is less powerful than an otherwise identical person who
is not experiencing such things. Thus violence almost always produces or
maintains power inequalities.
Definitions are never perfect, but my definition
of “violence” is more in line with the way the general public uses the term
than the definition used by pornography defenders. Self-proclaimed
“sex-positives” argue that “violence is subjective”. They believe that consent
alone determines whether behaviours should be seen as “real violence” or “kinky
sex”. Thus they make no moral distinction between touching someone gently on
the shoulder and whipping someone until they are covered in cuts and bruises.
In their view, both acts are equally “violent” (and ethically objectionable) if
the people on the receiving end do not give their explicit verbal consent and
equally acceptable if everyone involved does consent.
I find this
viewpoint absurd. Why label shoulder-touching as “violent” when it does not
involve any of the things people associate with violence? I am not necessarily
endorsing non-consensual shoulder-touching (such behaviour can create awkwardness),
but I do not view it as violent. On the other hand, propelling a hard or shape
object (such as a whip or knife) towards a sensitive body part at a rapid speed
is always violent, because such actions do cause pain and injury. These are real
physical phenomenon that can (at least in theory) be examined through empirical
studies.
Defenders of
pornography and pornographic sex also apply a relativistic approach to verbal
aggression (another common feature of pornography.) While no set of syllables is
inherently aggressive, words do have social meanings that cannot be changed by
individuals. Just because a person has their own non-insulting definitions for
words like “cunt”, “fag” or “nigger” does not mean they should use these words
to refer to people they encounter. While the meanings of words can change, such
changes require time and occur alongside larger cultural changes.
Like
physical aggression, verbal aggression creates power inequalities. It
diminishes a person’s sense of self worth and discourages them from resisting
their oppressor. Some people are more sensitive to verbal aggression than
others, but one cannot simply chose to not be harmed by it. The way in which
words are repeatedly used gives them emotional power, thus the liberal tactic
of attempting to feel empowered by words like “slut” and “whore”, has done
nothing to solve the self esteem issues often experienced by women.
As for the
degrading sex acts within pornography, sex liberals defend them by (you guessed
it) claiming that degradation is a matter of subjective opinion. They argue
that there is nothing inherently degrading about exposing sensitive body parts
(such as the face and mouth) to urine and faeces or making a person vomit, but
in what other context would such arguments be considered acceptable?
Those who
wish to highlight the horrors of slavery often point out that African slaves were
brought to the Americas in overcrowded, unsanitary boats. According to this article, the slaves "would basically be lying in their own and others' waste, blood and vomit". Modern
reactionaries may argue that such descriptions are exaggerated, but would they
dare suggest that such treatment may not be degrading and that some Africans
naturally like it? Any person who invoked relativism in such a situation would
be branded a racist and rightly so. Even if one sets aside feelings of disgust,
frequent exposure to faeces, urine and vomit causes diseases to spread (this is
probably why most humans are disgusted by such things). Whether such exposure
is inherently degrading or not, it is bad for human health and that is enough
of a reason to oppose it, within both sexual and non-sexual contexts.
I do not
wish to suggest that the violence and degradation experienced by those who play
a subordinate role within what I call “pornographic sex” is more or less severe
than what happened to African slaves. My intention is to show that pornography
defenders are inconsistent in their promotion of aggressive and degrading
activities. It is not anti-pornography activists who are biased against sex. Rather
pro-pornography activists are biased in favour of sex. They view sex as an
excuse to endorse things they would not otherwise endorse. I believe that sexual acts should be evaluated
by the same standards as other behaviours. The bedroom, like all other areas of
society, should be as free from power dynamics as possible, since power
dynamics are the very opposite of love, equality and liberty.
Criterion
2: Personality-based Love versus Shallow Attraction
By featuring
frequent shots of their butts, breasts, genitals and abdomens, both soft and
hard-core pornography place a great deal of emphasis on how people
(particularly women) look. Such images imply that these features are more
important than any inner trait a woman has. The only personality traits that
are celebrated in pornography are dominance and submissiveness, which are not
traits that those who favour equality between males and females should admire
(see criterion 1).
To love a person
is to celebrate the aspects of them that make them human. Inanimate objects can
be pretty and even sexy (meaning that they are capable of causing sexual arousal),
but only humans (and some animals) have thoughts, feelings and beliefs.
Thus, all other things being equal, sex acts that result from genuine feelings
of love (developed in response to the participants’ human qualities) are less
pornographic than sex acts inspired by either person’s prettiness or ability to
cause arousal.
Real love
develops when people interact (in a non-sexual manner) and thus get to know one
another. Since this usually takes time, most
sex acts which occur on the day that the two people involved meet or interact extensively
for the first time will fail this criterion (making them more pornographic.)
Yes casual sex enthusiasts, I am talking about you. My opposition to casual sex
will probably be controversial, even among “sex-negatives”. Note that I place
far less emphasis on this criterion than I do on the first one. The pro-casual
sex position is one I recognise as a legitimate radical feminist viewpoint. It
just isn’t one I agree with.
Bear in mind
that this list relates to depictions of sex as well as actual sexual
activities. Part of the reason I included this criterion is because I want to
see more films that show people learning about one another’s human traits,
before they fall in love and have sex. Far too many films feature romantic and sexual
encounters that occur between people who have done nothing but acknowledge each
other’s prettiness/sexiness. Such superficial relationships are hardly better
than casual sex. I am concerned that our culture’s obsession with physical
appearance harms women’s self esteem and makes it harder for both men and women
to form long-lasting, egalitarian relationships.
Criterion
3: Genuine Desire vs. Economics/Conformity
For a sex
act to be healthy and non-pornographic, participants must enter into it with the
intention of enjoying the act itself. In case this is not already clear, this
enjoyment does not need to be purely physical. Those who have sex with people
they love can experience emotional and, in some cases, intellectual enjoyment
from their sexual activities. If one does not have affection for their partner,
they should at least have positive feelings towards the sexual act. To pursue
sex as a means to some other aim (e.g. economic resources, popularity,
approval, self-esteem), like women in the sex industry do, is to increase the
pornographic character of one’s sex life.
Opponents of
the sex industry recognise that women who enter it often do so out of poverty
and desperation, but economic concerns also influence sexual activities which
occur outside the industry. Conservative men brag about how they provide money
and other resources to their wives (who in turn provide them with sexual and
domestic services), while mainstream culture promotes the gold-digger
stereotype, as well as the belief that men who buy things for women are
entitled to sex.Thus the view that women should trade sex for economic
resources is not limited to the sex industry.
Since
liberals believe that society hates sex, they will object to the idea that
social norms can motivate a sexual act. However, there are definitely sections
of society, such as colleges/universities, the sex industry and the
sex-positive movement itself, in which those who are willing to have sex receive
more praise than the unwilling. Those involved in these subcultures may engage
in sexual acts in order to prove that they are “sexually liberated”, rather
than prudish or conventional. Not all sex-positives intentionally insult people
who favour monogamous, egalitarian, “vanilla” sex, but being excluded from praise
can feel almost as bad as being insulted. Relationship partners can also use
praise (or the lack thereof) to obtain sexual favours.
Then there
are people who seek self-esteem boosts from sex. Their motivations are largely
internal, but have social origins. Males
in this category often wish to prove that they are “real men”, by “conquering” females,
while women sometimes have sex in order to prove to themselves that they are
sexually desirable. Women who do this often claim to be “doing it for
[themselves]”. While they are indeed acting out of self interest (which is not
necessarily a virtuous motive), they have blindly accepted the cultural notion
that a women’s value is determined by her prettiness/sexiness. Thus their
actions are in fact conformist.
Of course, there
are people who participate in sexual acts that I object too, without having
such unhealthy motivations. Though genuine desire makes a sexual activity less
pornographic, desire and consent are just one of the criteria that I use when
evaluating behaviours. A genuinely desired sex act that involves physical
violence, degradation or an obsession with physical appearance is still highly
pornographic. However, engaging in such sexual activities with those who do not
truly desire them is even worse. Thus consent matters, but not in the way
liberals think it does.
Conclusion
While I
acknowledge that sexual behaviours cannot be easily divided into two boxes, they
can nonetheless be evaluated according to the criteria I have presented. In
summary, dominance, submission, aggression, degradation, superficiality,
economic concerns and conformity increase the pornographic character of sexual
activities. Those who want a less pornographic sex life should omit these
elements and replace them with egalitarianism, respect, love, genuine romantic
desire and an emphasis on personality over prettiness. Those who call me a
totalitarian monster for making claims about how people should behave are free
to have a pornographic sex life. It’s not like I can stop them or anything.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this post, which is the first in a
series of three, is somewhat sex-centred, a later post will focus more on the
relationship part of “sexual relationship”. So stay tuned.
