Religious conservatives and fundamentalists frequently argue that pornography -- and almost any sexually explicit material -- degrades and undermines civilization. Even some liberals and progressives argue that pornography is necessarily degrading to women and complicit in their oppression. Defenders of sexually explicit material usually make their case on the basis of free speech and expression, or sometimes argue that such material is helpful to married couples. Some go much further, though, and argue that the presence of pornography is liberating and is thus a sign of a healthy, free society.
In 2004, the Sunday Times of London discussed an essay by Salman Rushdie in which he argued that in a repressive society, the presence of pornography serves both to sexually stimulate and to politically stimulate -- pornography is thus an act of political as well as sexual rebellion. In The East is Blue, Rushdie takes the position that Muslims now consume large amounts of pornography, despite attempts by governments and clerics to stem the tide, because of the extreme segregation of the sexes.
Superficially, at least, there might not appear to be any connection between pornography and politics, but the connections probably go deeper than most people realize. Restrictions on sexually explicit material amount to restrictions on depictions of different ways people can structure sexual and personal relationships. It becomes competition -- and very appealing competition at that -- to the traditional structures and relationships required by those in power.
It's not a coincidence that early freethinkers and feminists in America were also closely associated with the "Free Love" movement. Adherents of this civil libertarian philosophy rejected marriage as a form of slavery for women and argued that everyone needed to find ways to liberate themselves from oppressive traditions and demands placed on personal relationships by both the Church and the State. Contrary to the teachings of Church and State, Free Love advocates claimed that sex does not exist merely for the sake of reproduction; instead, it is also about pleasure and experimentation -- the sorts of messages conveyed implicitly or explicitly by pornography.
Free Love advocates also adopted a strong stance against the power of the state. Denying the authority of the state to regulate private sexual relationships in the form of marriage was merely the first step; many Free Love advocates were strong supporters of early anarchist movements which rejected the oppressive power of governments entirely. Both Free Love and political anarchism relied heavily on the philosophical belief in self-ownership, ensuring that the two would become closely associated.
In his essay, Rushdie writes:
Pornography exists everywhere, of course, but when it comes into societies in which it's difficult for young men and women to get together and do what young men and women often like doing, it satisfies a more general need. While doing so, it sometimes becomes a kind of standard-bearer for freedom, even civilisation... It may be that more permissive societies have less need for porn, and certainly they don`t need to turn blue movies into icons of revolution or peace ... If the restrictions on ordinary social, romantic and sexual relations that [less permissive] societies impose were to wither away, the need for pornography would very likely diminish, too ... If Western pornography is a symptom of Western decadence, then Eastern pornography is a side-effect of Eastern repressions. Pornography is almost always an effect, or a dramatic symptom of some non-pornographic social malaise. It is almost never a cause.
Rushdie's argument doesn't necessitate that pornography would, in every society and every time period, be a force for political, social, and religious liberation. Rushdie's argument is merely that this will be the case in at least some contexts: when church and/or state are repressive and seek to control sex, sexuality, marriage, and personal relationships, then pornography becomes not just a sexual release, but also a political one. Consuming pornography is like consuming politically subversive material because it means taking in ideas about sex or personal relationships which are contrary to those being imposed by Church and State.
Define porn
The more open a society is, the less a need for porn. That’s true, not only with pornography, but also with drugs. It’s one reason I vehemently oppose the War on Drugs (which is almost as bad as the War on Iraqi Sand Particles), since if you stop making it such a big issue, it goes away. Gee, I wish that would work with religion…
Pornography is certainly a big problem and a sin. However there is a far greater sin which I believe leads to death (spiritually)as in 1John 5:16 and ending at v21. The conventional churches dont seem to understand the word ‘in shape or form of ANYTHING’. If anyone wants to know what it is that I am referring to Look up Exodus 20:4 and find out. read it and read it again and again…until you undrstand it, because this sin LEADS TO DEATH and not pornography.
charlie
When images of nudity and sexual activity are everywhere they will no longer shock, offend, or stimulate anyone. A bared breast will be no more worthy of notice or comment than a bared ear (and don’t forget that womens ears had to be kept covered in the 17th century, due to them being “sexual organs”)
Pornography should be non-profit if possible. The profit motif leads to all sorts of abuses in its manufacture.
Taboos are a very hard thing for a society to deal with. “Everyone does it but nobody admits it”. Obviously, usage of pornography is very high but almost no one would openly admit to using it. How freely we can discuss topics like this is a measure of our growth. It’s foolish to condemn this part of our behavior without open discussion.
It is the same with masturbation. Lots of people do it but very few talk about it. I’m sure there are the rare people that never do it but my question is -why not?
Surely it’s obvious that we bring ourselves to everything we do. If one sees nudity and sexuality (not necessarily the same thing) as terrible, disgusting, and debasing, that is what one has brought to it.
I, on the other hand, enjoy some “pornography,” and I’m a woman. While I don’t enjoy “porn” in which a woman is treated as a substitute hand, I do enjoy “porn” in which the participants enjoy each other.
Of course, it could be that, from a christian perspective, there just isn’t enough “god” in “porn.” After all, that does seem to be their solution for everything.
Imagine Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha and all the other big guns of religion, ogling porn. If they would not – why not?
The definition of porn is missing from this analysis. If the porn involves images of two adults engaged in mutually satisfying sexual explorations that is one thing. But when it involves coercion and the degradation of one or more of the participants then that is an abuse of power rather than merely sexual pleasuring. Depictions of rape and pedophilia, for example, must surely transgress the moral codes of all who are truly human.
James Joyce thought education was pornographic in The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. I wonder why?
…and don’t forget that womens ears had to be kept covered in the 17th century, due to them being “sexual organs” — Sean
Aural sex?
Aural sex – now THAT’S funny!!
…and don’t forget that womens ears had to be kept covered in the 17th century, due to them being “sexual organs” — Sean
One advantage: she would be sure to hear it if her husband was coming.
Coming? Or, “coming”?
The trouble with porn is the money and it’s addictive pleasure-center properties. Rich Republican-filth make a bundle off porn.
And Democrats never did?
Rushdie’s argument reminds me of an article by Orwell in the 1930s of why Soldiers in a dictatorship march funny (goose-step). He said that in a free country they would be laughed at, so with every step they prove the unfreedom of their state. Porn, like Marijuana, is bad for individuals only, it has no capability to harm THE FELLOW CITIZEN OF ONE WHO TAKES IT. As this is the only philosophically sound basis for law, porn and Marijuana should be legal.
Todd Kendall of Clemson University did a thorough study on links between rape and the availability of pornography. The study can readily be found.
http://www.toddkendall.net/internetcrime.pdf
In complete contradiction to what the far right claim, where internet porn is readily available, the rates of rape went down over a ten year period, while in places where porn was difficult to access (usually due to poor internet connections, not site blocking), the number of reported rapes increased. And it also showed that the content of porn did not incite people to rape.
In a related study from Australia (which I can’t find a cite for) studied the professions and numbers of child molesters. The highest rates were amongst religious people, and the lowest – actually none – were those in the sex industry, prostitution or porn.
All this suggests to me that those who are prudish about sexual practices or try to avoid it are the most likely to become pent up and violent or capable of rape or molestation, while those who regularly get their rocks off relieve themselves of any urges or temptation.
.
The correlation between porn and rape in that study surprises me as we have always been told that rape is not a sexual act, but an act of violence.
And, I agree with the need for a definition of “porn”. Acts of beastiality or child molestation are certainly different that visuals of “normal” sexual activity. But I agree that it is a First Amendment right of freedom of speech. To each his own between two consenting adults.
Beastiality?
“To each his own between two consenting adults.”
Or three…four…six…
Does this mean that gay porn is OK, since no women are degraded or even depicted? What about bestiality? Sexual encounters with devices? Cartoons? Literature? Isn’t it all just an attempt at mind control? “Believe MY way or die!”
What about watching two houseflies getting it on?
Are they Spanish flys?
Pornography doesn’t usually show consenting adults having a loving relationship. Rather, it shows exploitation, usually of women, but sometimes of gay men or even children. It usually shows women as subservient to men, and often shows them being tortured, humiliated, raped, or even murdered for men’s pleasure. How can anyone call such stuff liberating?