Monday, September 13, 2010

Is porn ethical??

So, this week its my turn to do the tute presentation, and I got the article "The Ethics Of Porn On The Internet" by Kath Albury. I thought I'd start my discussion with a clip from YouTube that seemed pertinent to the topic, its just a bit of fun, its from a musical called Avenue Q, which is hilarious. The first 4 or so minutes of the clip is the bit I'm showing- this was the best quality one I could find. Enjoy :) The Internet is for Porn... just a warning, don't watch this around people who might be offended, and if you're watching it in a library, wear some headphones hehe

On to more serious matters!

In her article, Albury highlights the pro's and con's, shall we say, of Porn on the internet. I found her distinction between ethics and morals particularly helpful and insightful. Her classification of "moral" sex within the Judeo-Christian view, and her subsequent description of porn and the way that it contradicts every notion of morality according to this ideal was important I think. She says "Pornography depicts non-reproductive sex acts, performed for profit between two or more unmarried, and not necessarily heterosexual, partners. Not only do these images depict immoral sex- they incite masturbation, which may in itself be an immoral act."

My first question for the class: Is this a fair judgment of the morality of porn? Do you think that porn would be viewed differently in countries where a Judeo-Christian ideology is not the prevailing ideology- perhaps in a country that is predominantly Muslim?

Albury also discusses the feminist views of pornography a few times. Her first description of it "[porn] is part of a general social tendency for men to view women as sexualised objects, who are only valued for their ability to service men - physically and emotionally." creates a fascinating tension in her dialogue with her statement a few paragraphs later where she says "pornography has, until recently, been the only form of media where women have been seen to experience strong sexual desire and sexual pleasure." This dialogue of women being used, manipulated and objectified in the porn industry, whilst being liberated and allowed sexual freedom and control over their own bodies in the porn industry, creates a bit of confusion for the reader, as well as the public at large, I would say. There seems to be this juxtaposition of women's roles; on one hand women are being used and objectified, and on the other hand it puts them in a position of power, allowing them to have control over their sexual expression in the same way some men have had in history. I say some, because there are always exceptions to the rule, like gay men being able to express themselves publicly (which has only moved into the realms of social acceptability relatively recently in the big scheme of things) etc.

Next question: Do you think pornography liberates women and their freedom of sexual expression, or do you think it is more accurately seen as women being forced into men's sexual desires?

Albury discusses the communities surrounding the amateur porn industry quite extensively. I found the idea of them quite fascinating. It seems it has moved the sharing and viewing of porn out from under the bed (so to speak) and into the open. I was amazed by the fact that these people create friendships and discuss personal details of their lives (outside of sex) on there. And that the producers of the sites go out of their way to answer questions, put up useful links (other than links to other porn websites) and provide chat rooms and forums for these people to meet on was also pretty impressive.It makes the whole online porn industry seem a lot more human than we are lead to believe. That idea of human-ness and normal-ness in an industry that is plagued by so many preconceived ideas leads me to my next question.

Question 3: Albury puts it well when she quotes one of the websites "600 000 visitors every day can't be wrong". Is porn actually a very normal part of life, that we all pretend isn't happening? Or is it really the taboo topic that only a sparse minority choose to view?

Alas, I feel as if my post is getting excessively long, but I will just make a few more points.

Albury talks about socially acceptable sexual practices. She looks at the way that within the professional porn industry, all the women are late teens to early twenties, taut, toned and devoid of body hair. It does seem to be socially unacceptable to lust after hairy women, fat women and men, old women and men etc, but clearly, there are people who do, because websites specialising in those types of porn exist. It is argued so often that porn promotes a very limited perspective on sexual practice, but really, the amateur porn industry is allowing so many different people the chance to get their own preferences out there- if not themselves as well. Why must we view it all with such distaste? Perhaps this is societies way of screaming out that they feel like their sexual preferences and their sexuality is being repressed and that they want it to be more out there and out in the open.

A few closing questions:
Should we allow ourselves to make judgements on the acceptability of other peoples sexual preferences and practices? How far is too far with unusual choices? If we draw a line somewhere, then aren't we still discriminating? But, having said that, hairy women are one thing, but child pornography is a whole other matter. I can be open minded, but only to an extent. Unfortunately, I realise that where my open mindedness reaches its limit at child pornography, perhaps some other people reach theirs at amputees, or fat women and men, or any porn altogether. So, where do we draw the line? Or, alternatively, do we need to draw a line at all?

Is the trading of porn for money wrong? In what ways is it ok/not ok? Photographers sell pictures of nature, and people all the time, it has been argued that sex is just another part of life that deserves to be photographed and shared- what do you think?

There is so much more to say on this, but I think I should leave it there for now. See you all on Wednesday!

7 comments:

  1. Hi Jen, great presentation today!

    Just with respect to your second question, about whether internet pornography liberates or objectifies women. I thought the point you made in the tutorial, that pornography is considered to be an inherent objectification of women, even though women actively participate in the sexual acts and seem to enjoy it, was very interesting. The counter-argument that I would have liked to make in the tutorial, but didn't have time to do so, was that it is not pornographic sex as an whole that is anti-feminist, but rather the specific sexual acts that pornography utilises and normalises. For example, it is commonplace for amateur porn websites to have a "cum shots" category, whereby men ejaculate on their female sexual partner's face. This act seems, to me, to connote a clear picture of men as the dominant sexual partner and the women as the subject of their desires. That particular act is all about the man experiencing sexual pleasure as a result of degrading his partner and does not present any enjoyment for the women involved - in fact, it is demeaning and humiliating.

    (This is part 1, part 2 coming... It wouldn't let me post it all at once!)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would also like to provide further insight into the "pornification of culture" that we touched upon in class. Not long ago I read an article about a rape case in NSW. There was a big furore in the news about the jury returning from their deliberation with a question for the judge: "Can somebody be raped if they are wearing skinny jeans?" i.e. because the victim was wearing skinny jeans, she may have assisted her alleged rapist with removing her pants and, therefore, she gave implied consent. DON'T GET ME STARTED on how awful that is, and what a narrow definition of rape they must have been subscribing to. (I mean, even if she did take off her own jeans, that doesn't mean that she consented to sex; she could have changed her mind; she could have been coerced or threatened into removing them; etc.)

    Nevertheless, what really concerned me about the case was the facts. This girl's accused rapist was her friend's ex-boyfriend. She claimed that she entered his bedroom with the intention of comforting him because of the recent break-up with her friend. They had sex. She claimed it was rape, he claimed that she had consented and that she was accusing him of rape because she didn't want to admit to betraying her friend.

    Medical evidence showed that she suffered severe trauma as a result of the violent anal sex they had engaged in. Now, this man was ultimately found not guilty of rape. I don't know what facts the jury took into consideration in order to reach that conclusion, but, for me, it seems that the pornification of our culture has reached such heights that people assume that a woman would consent to violent, injurious anal sex with a first-time sexual partner. Not only that, but that she would then go to such lengths to avoid hurting her friend's feelings as to falsely accuse him of rape, sharing intimate sexual details with strangers (rooms full of people) and lying under oath. Now, I know that people do make false allegations and there some who do engage in deviant sexual behaviour but, under the circumstances of the case (that I am aware of), it is inconceivable to me that this poor girl actively consented to this form and ferocity of sex. (I would also like to mention that she was tiny - 42kg- very easily overpowered.)

    This case, for me, highlights the flaw in the "choice" argument, whereby the normalisation of potentially dangerous pornographic sex can infiltrate through to mainstream society and subconsciously inform our ideas of what is normal and acceptable - ultimately causing harm to innocent victims who are subject to this behaviour with no recrimination for the perpetrator. I think that, even if my reading of this particular situation is incorrect, it reveals the potential for sexual fantasy to be confused with real-life, and the threat that confusion has upon our impressional society.

    I welcome any comment or critique on any of the points I have made! Please excuse my typos.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey guys,
    I have always been one to object to internet pornography, as i just didn't see the point, or the need for it. I believed it to be influencing our society in so many negative ways. Personally as a Chrstian, born in Zimbabwe, where internet access is difficult,I was unaware of the availability of pornography on the net, But after our discussion in the tutorial, and listening to some really good arguments, i decided to come home and check out a couple of sights. I found this article posted on the Sydney morning Herald website,called "Ethics of porn are in the eye of the beholder" written in 2007, where Kath Albury indicates some useful points. She is explaining the ethics of porn, to those who are feeling guilty about their personal consumption of internet porn. She writes "My suggestion to men who are worried about pornography is that they consider whether the images they choose are produced under ethical conditions. Does the web page or video suggest that sexually active women are stupid or naive? Does it imply that it's OK to trick or manipulate women into acts they don't want to perform, because, after all, they're "just dumb sluts"? Does the plot-line or image suggest a disregard for the performer's health and safety? Does it place performers at clear risk of sexually transmissible infections? Are condoms used? Does the company that produces the pornography subscribe to the guidelines of the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation (www.aim-med.org)? If consumers are not sure of the answers to these questions, they should ask for more information. If that is not forthcoming, they should exercise their rights to seek out explicit material that meets their ethical standards." (Albury, 2007, pp2) Although, pornography to some people- including me, may seem unreasonable, reading this article has changed a few of my views on the morality of porn, even though she quotes at the end of her article that "Those who believe that having sex for money is always wrong will not be swayed by these questions. Nor will those who believe that sex is inherently private, and voyeurs and exhibitionists are sick or misguided. My suggestions are directed at those who are not opposed to commercial sex, or public displays of explicit sexuality per se, but are troubled by guilt, sexual shame or political concerns about the conditions under which explicit images are produced. There is plenty of amateur and commercial pornography produced by men and women who genuinely enjoy sex, and seek audiences who enjoy it, too."( Albury, 2007, pp2) I feel that from reading her article "The Ethics of Porn on the Net" in our course reader, as well as our discussion in the tutorial, plus your great blog post =) and this Sydney Morning Herald article, i have gained a clearer understanding of how porn could be seen differently. I do however still think that people have personal opinions according to what they believe, what religion they are, how they have grown up and that can be represented through the title of the article "ETHICS OF PORN ARE IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey guys,
    (i had to post several following each other, sorry for some reason it wouldn't allow me to post it all together)
    I have always been one to object to Internet pornography, as i just didn't see the point, or the need for it. I believed it to be influencing our society in so many negative ways. Personally as a Christian, born in Zimbabwe, where internet access is difficult, I was unaware of the availability of pornography on the net, But after our discussion in the tutorial, and listening to some really good arguments, i decided to come home and check out a couple of sights. I found this article posted on the Sydney morning Herald website, called "Ethics of porn are in the eye of the beholder" written in 2007, where Kath Albury indicates some useful points. She is explaining the ethics of porn, to those who are feeling guilty about their personal consumption of Internet porn.

    ReplyDelete
  6. She writes, "My suggestion to men who are worried about pornography is that they consider whether the images they choose are produced under ethical conditions. Does the web page or video suggest that sexually active women are stupid or naive? Does it imply that it's OK to trick or manipulate women into acts they don't want to perform, because, after all, they're "just dumb sluts"? Does the plot-line or image suggest a disregard for the performer's health and safety? Does it place performers at clear risk of sexually transmissible infections? Are condoms used? Does the company that produces the pornography subscribe to the guidelines of the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation (www.aim-med.org)? If consumers are not sure of the answers to these questions, they should ask for more information. If that is not forthcoming, they should exercise their rights to seek out explicit material that meets their ethical standards." (Albury, 2007, pp2) Although, pornography to some people- including me, may seem unreasonable, reading this article has changed a few of my views on the morality of porn, even though she quotes at the end of her article that "Those who believe that having sex for money is always wrong will not be swayed by these questions. Nor will those who believe that sex is inherently private, and voyeurs and exhibitionists are sick or misguided. My suggestions are directed at those who are not opposed to commercial sex, or public displays of explicit sexuality per se, but are troubled by guilt, sexual shame or political concerns about the conditions under which explicit images are produced. There is plenty of amateur and commercial pornography produced by men and women who genuinely enjoy sex, and seek audiences who enjoy it, too."(Albury, 2007, pp2)

    ReplyDelete
  7. ) I feel that from reading her article "The Ethics of Porn on the Net" in our course reader, as well as our discussion in the tutorial, plus your great blog post =) and this Sydney Morning Herald article, i have gained a clearer understanding of how porn could be seen differently. I do however still think that people have personal opinions according to what they believe, what religion they are, how they have grown up and that can be represented through the title of the article "ETHICS OF PORN ARE IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER"

    ReplyDelete