From: liz@ai.mit.edu (Liz A. Highleyman)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Porn
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:57:41
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: ravenna.ai.mit.edu


Since porn seems to be an issue on soc.bi these days, I thought
I'd post the following, which is an article I wrote for the
anarchist press.  I used to be pretty unabashedly pro-porn
(I still like a lot of it!), but I've come to see where some
of arguments of the `other side' come from.

-Liz


------------------------

Pornography: The Controversy Continues
by Liz A. Highleyman

The pornography issue has produced considerable dissension within the
{Love and Rage} network and among radical people in general.  The
controversy is not new.  In the 1980s pornography was a divisive issue
within the women's movement; intelligent and thoughtful people were
involved on both sides of the ``sex wars.''  Many try to portray the
controversy as one of anti-sexism versus anti-censorship, but this
does not do justice to the complexity of the issue.  (For background,
see ``Caught Looking,'' [Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force, Real
Comet Press, Seattle, 1988], a collection of anti-censorship and
pro-porn articles by Kate Ellis, Ann Snitow, Pat Califia, and others;
and ``Take Back the Night: Women on Pornography,'' [editor Laura
Lederer, Wm.Morrow & Co., New York, 1980], an anthology of anti-porn
essays by Robin Morgan, Audre Lord, Andrea Dworkin and others.)

The anti-censorship argument is too simplistic.  The U.S.
constitution was written by privileged white men who did not give much
consideration to the concerns of women (among others).  Does the first
amendment deserve more respect than other laws because it's old?  If
people feel that the legal system harms them, they have the right to
try to change it, which is what anti-pornography proponents (as well
as those against harassment and ``hate speech'') are doing.  If
anarchists believe that freedom of expression is a good thing, we need
better reasons than ``the law says so.''  Those anarchists who want to
abolish pornography usually want to do so by direct action, not laws,
so the legal issue is somewhat moot anyway.

Even if there is agreement in principle on the value of free speech,
that does mean a paper like {Love and Rage} is obligated to provide a
forum for anything anyone wants to say.  It is not anarchist news that
some guys like to look at porn, and there is no obligation to devote
space to such a discussion.  There are positions other than anti-porn
and pro-porn.  As with abortion, some think it's evil, some think it's
good, and some think it should be available even if they would not
choose it themselves.  Most opposition to the anti-pornographers seems
to be ``pro-choice'' rather than pro-porn.

The common anti-pornography argument equating pornography (even gay
male pornography and pornography produced by women for women) with
sexism and violence against women is also too simplistic.  A lot of
pornography is sexist because our society is sexist; society is not
sexist because of pornography.  Societies where pornography is more
widely available are sometimes less sexist and violent, and vice
versa.  If the concern of anti-pornographers is violence against
women, why is there so much emphasis on sexual images that are not
violent while virtually ignoring violent images that are not sexual?
``Friday the 13th'' and similar fare is available to any kid with a
few bucks and its influence is far more pervasive than that of
clandestine pornographic material.  When I got involved in the ``sex
wars'' about ten years ago, I explored what kinds of pornography were
out there.  In sex shops, bookstores, and video outlets in the US and
Europe I've come across little of the type of material that
anti-pornographers say is typical (violent rape scenes, tying and
cutting up women), and no material that depicts torture or murder.
Most porn depicts naked people of varied number and gender performing
intercourse and oral sex.

In his piece ``Porn in Flames,'' Richard Blake argued that sex does not
deserve to be given a special ``sacred'' position.  This is true.
Humans are not reflex machines.  Our sexuality and desires are
socially influenced like all other parts of our culture, and they
deserve to be seriously examined by politically aware people, not
placed in a position above criticism.  It is not true, though, that
those who are not against pornography have failed to examine the
political issues surrounding gender and sexuality.  The fact is that
many people who have made this examination come to very different
conclusions.  The anti-pornography movement tends to make sex
``sacred'' in another way, by focusing on pornography instead of
regarding it as just one aspect of sexism in our culture, and by
seeing sexual exploitation as different from and somehow worse than
other kinds of exploitation.

Another argument against pornography is that pornography objectifies
and degrades women.  This is hard to deal with because
``objectification'' is an abstract buzzword that means different
things to different people.  In the broadest sense, all
representations are objectifying, not just sexual representations; it
is natural to sometimes focus attention on specific aspects rather
than a whole person.  It is wrong to regard women (or anyone) solely
as a tool for sexual gratification, but valuing someone for their
sexuality is not more degrading than valuing someone for, say, their
intellect or their strength.  It is not inherently sexist to find
people attractive and sexually desirable.  Within the queer community
there is often an undercurrent of sexual desire in people's
interactions, but that in no way leads them to think of each other as
less than equal or to not value each other as friends, comrades, and
co-workers.

Queer anarchists are in an interesting position in the porn debate.
Many gay men, bisexuals, and lesbians consider themsleves feminists
and have no love for the patriarchal system.  They also know from
experience that when the forces of sexual repression come down, it is
images of minority sexuality (such as same-gender sexuality,
transgendered sexuality and s/m sexuality) that are most quickly and
forcefully attacked.  This past February, Canada passed
anti-obscenity legislation based on the MacKinnon/Dworkin definition
of pornography as material which is degrading to women.  The first
charge brought under this law was, predictably, against ``Bad
Attitude,'' a self-published sex magazine by and for lesbians; this
was followed in August by a raid on a gay bookstore and the seizure of
sexually explicit material for gay men.  Many lesbians resent being
told that sexual images produced by and for women are male-identified
(after all, if women being sexual with women is not woman-identified,
then what is!?).  Gay men resent being told they are adopting
traditional degraded ``feminine'' or degrading ``masculine'' roles in
their sexual interactions.  Another group that often has little
sympathy for the anti-porn movement is sex workers, who have been
branded as either brainwashed victims or agents of oppression.  Sex
workers are not well-represented within the Love and Rage
network, but they have been a large and vocal presence at many
anarchist gatherings and events.  Many anarchists have found sex work
to be a way to make decent money while staying independent of bosses.
Sex work is not necessarily more exploitive than the grind labor that
other people do simply because it involves sex.

The porn issue also has a class element.  Many people make the
distinction between good ``erotica'' and bad ``pornography'' as if the
two are easily and obviously separable.  Historically, those
depictions of sexuality that are enjoyed by the powers-that-be are
considered erotica or art, while those favored by the masses are
branded as porn or smut.  There is often little difference in sexual
content between, say, Robert Mapplethorpe photographs or non-rated art
films, and standard sex shop magazines and videos.  The latter are
often ``tacky'' and cheaply produced, and they are unlikely to appear
in a museum, but they are no more dangerous or oppressive.

Sex is a powerful and painful issue for many people, especially for
women in our society.  For those who have been sexually abused, sex
is often not beautiful or joyous.  Those who want to abolish
pornography generally feel a genuine sense of outrage and desire for
justice, and are not merely power-mongers who don't want people to
have any fun.  Some of the more extreme anti-pornographers might be
characterized as ``anti-sex'' (or at least anti-heterosex), but this
not a fair characterization of the majority of the anti-porn movement.
If we want to get beyond the current point in the porn discussion, we
must move beyond name-calling and acknowledge the righteous fear and
anger that people have about abusive sexuality.

Similarly, those whose sexual expression has been repressed by the
church, the state, and the family have been hurt in different ways.
The forces of authority work hard to deprive us of this natural part
of our humanity, and many of us have little tolerance for
anti-pornographers who for all intents and purposes often sound like
more moralizers trying to limit sexual freedom.  Many progressive
people are pro-pornography or pro-choice on porn not because they are
sexist and hate women, but because they do not believe that porn
causes the harm that anti-pornographers claim, and because they
believe that repression of sexual expression is itself unhealthy and
politically dangerous.

It will be difficult to reconcile the pornography controversy.  The
issue is so painful for so many people that we often have the urge to
avoid it.  Some issues are not resolvable on the basis of a political
principle such as anti-sexism -- sometimes shared principles lead
people to different conclusions.  In the mid-1980s, many women's
groups fell apart in the heat of the ``sex wars.''  Those that did not
were usually already in close ideological agreement on the issue
(which is not the case witin the {Love and Rage} network or the
anarchist movement as a whole).  Other groups came to the conclusion
that they would agree to disagree on pornography so that they could
work together on the many pressing issues on which they did agree.  

As our reproductive rights are threatened, state repression increases,
``family values'' are used as a weapon, and economic survival becomes
more tenuous, there is no shortage of issues that anarchists and other
progressive people can agree on.  In the area of sexuality, many of us
can agree on the need to educate children about sex and sexuality in a
healthy and comprehensive way so they are not forced to furtively get
their information from the one-sided portrayals of pornography.  Since
the typical pornographic representations of sexuality are so narrow
and incomplete, we can make expanded and alternative images of sex and
sexuality available, images that convey our own values of equality,
mutuality, and consensuality.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Liz A. Highleyman                     MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
liz@ai.mit.edu                        Cambridge, MA  02139
---------------------------------------------------------------------