An ambivalent apology for pornography: opposing, in part, fightthenewdrug.org

This response to the article Sex before kissing: how 15-year-old girls are dealing with porn addicted boys

The article offers many valid and disturbing points for discussion, so I thought I would use it to discuss sex negativity, adolescent sexuality, pornography and sex-work in general. Here's why things the strategy of "fighting pornography" is very misconceived and one of embracing pornography and gaining control over it may be better.

As a general observation, because what society considers to be intimate behavior has varied widely across region and time, I see no logical reason why placing ones lips on someone's mouth is categorically different from placing one's lips on someone's genitals. Granted, I am fully aware of the historical reasons why this is the case, but many persons can and do find oral sex less intimate than kissing, and it is conceivable that this social value could change without severe catastrophe.

 My second general observation is that anti-pornography activists invariably betray their theological underpinnings, even if argued from secular premises, by the heterosexist and uniform way in which they characterize pornography. Though a minority, gay male pornography is a huge part of pornography. It has similar but separate issues. So while I have sympathy for campaigns against coercion and forced sex-work, the image of the fallen/vulnerable girl that this website propagates is pernicious. It perpetuates the violence it is trying to fix. What is needed is to reinforce, again and again and again and again, principles of autonomy and consent. I also find polemics against pornography circular. The only way persons involved in pornography understand what they do as dehumanizing is if we keep suggesting that it is dehumanizing.

Adult sex workers, from pornography to individual sex exchange transactions, ought to be unionized, educated, tested, protected from violence, and fairly compensated for their labor. This is not a nihilistic view of sex; this is a realistic view of sex. It is one that recognizes that an individual has the right to dispose of her body as she sees fit, and the state should, as far as possible, remove coercion and barriers to safety when she does this. Canada already has stringent regulations about the importation of pornography and its manufacturer in Canada. The problem with making pornography [more] ethical is that it is impossible to police the Internet. I think regulating sex-work in the way proposed is the best policy option because monitoring and licensing sex-work in this way gives the state more ability to prosecute human trafficking. While we might like law for moral reasons, the state often achieves more social control through bureaucratic regulations. So I think we be better able to crack down on human trafficking, if the state had a more active role in the regulation, education, and promotion of sex work. Think of all the regulations we have around food and drugs. If you want to protect children from sex-work, this is the best shot.

First, I am against the premise of this website, because I don't think prohibiting or combating drugs/drug use works as a matter of social policy. Without question, many persons, myself included, have varying degrees of unhealthy dependency upon pornography because it helps release dopamine. virtually every human being exhibits some addictive behavior, particularly in adolescence. I live with a lot of chronic pain, and so my choices coping with that are food, alcohol, cannabis, narcotics, or pornography. Whatever combination I use, or the things I add, I will be dependent on something. Human beings are always dependent on dopamine responses. Calling pornography the new drug that we must fight is a rhetorical tactic, which I find distasteful because it further marginalizes persons who use substances. As I have said to many persons previously, and as with substances, we require an open and honest dialogue about how to use pornography in the context of sex positivity that gets rid of this Virgin Mary /fallen woman/naïve girl as victim melodrama. Undoubtedly, women are continual victims of sexual violence. I do not condone this. Instead, I demand responsible education, empowerment and more and better sexual activity for everyone, including teenagers within their age bracket. If you demystify something, you take away the power of taboo/intrigue, so I agree with education and harm reduction.

Second, given the historical record, I am deeply suspicious of neurological arguments used to enforce moral reasoning, as exactly the same ones were used against masturbation as such. Third, though we must protect children from sexual assault and harassment, "save the children" has always been the battle cry of those wishing to force their sexual morality on others — just something to keep in mind. Fourth, children and adolescents have the right to explore and develop their sexuality in a healthy and age-appropriate way. I think a big problem that causes the overuse of pornography among teenagers is that they experience a lot of sexual frustration, and are not given the proper techniques, tools, and lubricants to masturbate effectively. Because the images they receive are not healthy and unrealistic, vigorous masturbation (“jackhammering”) in pursuit of an explosive orgasm can cause damage to the genitals, dissatisfaction, erectile dysfunction, and problems with sexual performance. Very few persons, young or old, know how to pleasure themselves well, or the very many things that are out there to help them, if they want to have a good orgasm but finding a partner to do so is difficult or not desired.

There is still a lot of shame around this, so adolescents don't know how to cope with the hormone spikes around puberty. Growing up, my parents and I had an agreement about drinking: I could drink whatever I wanted of good-quality alcohol, so long as they controlled it and I was under their supervision. Because of this agreement, I would wager, I rarely ever drink, and when I do it is always controlled. Because I was gay, I did not have similar conversations and arrangements about sexuality/sexual material. Consequently, I hope that I would make good-quality sexual material available to my children, which was ethically produced and not violent, along with whatever else they wanted by way of accessories, if any, to explore their sexuality. Clearly, teenagers are going to go beyond these limits, and or not want to discuss this with their parents, but the key I think is understanding in order to maintain the possibility of open, nonjudgmental, factually based, and compassionate discussion. And if they were uncomfortable talking to me or my partner, I would try to connect them to another role model and or mental health care professional.

There are websites like make love not porn.com and XXXartfilms.com that attempt to reduce degrading images of sex and challenge the mythology surrounding pornography. But more deeply, I seriously doubt whether or not we can categorize behavior or image “X” as dehumanizing, without an eye to context. This is how the feminist anti-sex-anti-queer lobby succeeded in regulating gay male pornography with the 1993 obscenity test, still valid law, delineated in the case of Butler and reaffirmed in the case of little sisters books. Against all logic, and historical understanding, gay mens’ BDSM images are said to cause attitudinal harm to women. Pornography is often causally linked to a great number of social ills. In reality, however, it is an interdependent network of things, and we need a better strategy than calling pornography an epidemic or drug. Furthermore, even if pornography can be demonstrably proven to be in some instances dehumanizing, surely one of the joys of being human is the ability to renounce one’s humanity. Absolute humanity is a very heavy burden to carry, indeed, and it is not precisely clear to me what this concept entails

The strongest case against pornography is that we must never treat human beings, including ourselves, solely as a means and not agents in their own right. As essential as this fundamental norm of political life is, there are circumstances in which we do, in fact, use ourselves and others solely as instruments.

While this is not ideal, it may be healthier to accept this, than justify worse evils in the pursuit of moral purity. As soon as one has a standard of absolute humanity, one must figure the persons one treats “inhumanely” as themselves outside the category of human. If one is going to have a principled stand on the exploitation of labor stemming from some version of the Kantian categorical imperative, one cannot profit from contemporary capitalism. As such, I am always amused by the moral hypocrisy. Given the choice between being or having one of my relatives as a sex worker, as opposed to working for minimum wage for a multinational corporation, or far less if  I lived in the global South, and sex-work, I would choose sex-work without a moment’s thought or regret. 80% of pornography and sex-work in Canada is done indoors under relatively safe conditions. Sex-work of all types takes long hours, a lot of skill, and has many occupational hazards. Nevertheless, the hourly rate of pay ranges from 100 to over $1000. There is absolutely no logical reason to argue that the exchange of sexual services for money is inherently less demeaning than being a Walmart greeter, or that the consumption of pornography is any less unethical than buying from a multinational or consuming meat. This is why we must  situate discussions of pornography within larger debates about globalized capitalism and its attendant exploitation. I realize that many people have to shop at and work for places like Walmart. The point is to demean neither and recognize that everyone is implicated in very many forms of moral evil. Though often a vice, and not a necessity, pornography is not a particularly grave ethical problem. We ought to educate children to make more responsible consumer choices, so that they can do the same as adults.

In terms of pornography, wider rape culture, and women's rights, the conversation has to start very early and emphasize consent and egalitarianism. I think the broader question we have to ask is the role of violence in our culture. The only reason pornography is so violent and graphic is because our culture is violent. If we show more scenes of love on TV and fewer images of violence, love would begin to infuse our culture, thereby having an affect on sexual images. What we also need is more authentic nudity in television, movies and pornography to give us a realistic understanding of what the human body ought to look like and be able to do. Sometimes there is nothing more ridiculous than non-pornographic images of naked persons, and we should be aware of and comfortable with those images.

There are two theological biases of which we should be aware. First, Christianity historically and at present has deep discomfort with the fact that human beings are embodied creatures, who have vulnerability and produce many gross fluids. The irony of pornography is that while it claims to be about embodiment, it actually creates an apotheosis of the body, thereby allowing the viewer to transcend embodiment. We never see the porn star prematurely ejaculate for example, except in gonzo porn. The second theological bias we ought to consider, coming from a culture that is descended from the Protestant Reformation, is the Christian, and especially Protestant, bias against vision. The eyes are often imagined as the window to the soul. And the culture in which Christianity developed had a strong belief in the power of the evil eye. Images, more so than other stimuli, are thought to have an impact on the soul. This is partly why Luther was against icons and also why he wanted persons to focus on the spoken word. Christians historically have feared visual stimuli as particular occasions of possible sin. This is no doubt because men are more affected sexually by visual stimuli, but it seems hypocritical to not also condemn the volume of erotic fiction produced, simply because it does not involve images or actual persons.

To this day, much of the erotic enjoyment for me that comes from pornography gets back to behaving badly. I suspect if we work to have a more realistic picture of sex and sexuality, by removing the strange dynamic of transgression-experience of the sacred-hyper praise of sex, that occurs from both sex positive and sex negative persons, pornography with lose some of its appeal. Working against Christian prohibition has created this situation as much as nihilistic capitalism. Many contemporary conservatives make an idol out of sex within marriage, as though conjugal satisfaction and fidelity will bring heaven on earth. I don't see how this is categorically different from the secular humanists’ assertion that a good sex life is the root to transcendent happiness.

For the record, I find this article disturbing, and it is sad that children feel this way. Nevertheless, fighting pornography is not an effective strategy, and it would have morally unacceptable consequences. We are not experiencing a pornography epidemic, we are experiencing profound and rapid social change, and we need better strategies to help children in general adjust.