Pornography and advertising: spot the difference?
Posted on Thursday 20 December, 2007
Filed Under Society
The radical left is divided in its attitudes to pornography, as it is to so much else. The debate essentially polarises people into one of two mutually exclusive positions.
Some feminist opinion sees the commodification of sexuality as undesirable, considering it intrinsically degrading to all women, especially participants, and to those men who view it. Porn is the theory, rape is the practice. You’ve hear the slogan.
The libertarian left strongly believes that all expressions of consensual adult sexual behaviour should remain unregulated.
Whether or not one actually approves of porno, the latter argument surely has to win the day. Pornography is clearly not the cause of women’s oppression, which long predates the invention of the printing press. Sexism is rooted in wider inequalities of wealth and power.
Women’s oppression dates back thousands of years, and is premised on the rise of class society, private property, and the family as an institution of social and economic control.
It’s also worth noting that the very definition of what constitutes porn can shift dramatically within relatively short periods of time. Historian Mark Garnett makes the point well in his new book, From Anger to Apathy: the British Experience since 1975. Full review to follow.
In a chapter examining how attitudes to sex have altered over the last 30 years, Garnett points out that the whimsical 2003 film Calender Girls – based on the true story of small town Women’s Institute members stripping off for the camera to raise money for charity – was given a certificate allowing anyone over 12 to watch it. Yet the actual content, and the extent of the nudity, was just as explicit as many X-rated movies of the seventies.
What really has changed is the sexualisation of popular culture. With mainstream pornography, everybody involved – from the models to the publishers to the consumers – knows what the deal is, and consciously opts in. Walk down the High Street, and you simply don’t get any choice about what you see.
In an age where ice cream sales are routinely promoted by symbolised oral sex, there is no opt-out from 24/7 bombardment by erotica, on magazine covers and billboards and in music videos.
Even Daddy’s Little Princesses – aged four and seven – were moved to snigger by an advertisement for The Sun newspaper on the side of a bus, which featured a page three girl with 20p coins strategically covering her boobs. We used to call those organs thruppeny bits when I was smutty schoolboy, but I suppose we have to take inflation into account.
Because of its sheer extent, and because of the non-availabilty of avoidance, the ubiquity of meretricious consumerism is infinitely more corrosive than any amount of tit and bum DVDs can ever be.
[Hat top: this post inspired by debates on A Very Public Sociologist and Splintered Sunrise.]
<<Go back
Comments
70 Responses to “Pornography and advertising: spot the difference?”
“And why’s an image of two people having sex, seen by others for their own pleasure, endemically “degrading” and to be “politically opposed”?”
Endemically? Because coercion is endemic. More generally, because it commodifies social relations, because it’s alienating. It defines those under the camera by a sexuality that may not even be theirs, but one that suits the demand of the market.
Inherently is a different question. But seems a pretty academic one at this point. I don’t see the pornography industry somehow reforming itself into a feminist organisation that produces “Better Porn (TM)” (just as I don’t see any other capitalist industry becoming revolutionary), nor do I see how such an organisation would be sustainable.
But as I’m sure you’d want to press the point, I would probably say that pornography per se is inherently exploitative, because I happen to think it’s the result of want creation. But again, that way relies rather heavily on a semantic debate over what pornography actually.
That’s my present thinking on your question, anyway. I don’t claim to have any new insight for you about *why* some have political disagreements with pornography – I’m just suggesting that the result of that disagreement need not be outright censorship.
Silly semantics over “endemically” versus “inherently” taken aside (I don’t buy the peculiar abstract point about “co-ercion” – of what, where? – being endemic, and I don’t do po-mo so let’s shelve the meta-discussion about the words), I still think you’re missing the point. All industries, as you correctly acknowledge, are exploitative, yet our solution to every other exploitative industrial situation is to empower those who work within those industries to emancipate themselves. Hence unions, strikes etc. Why then in the case of one industry alone we are supposed to act like a bunch of leftie Savonarolas and call for the purging of the impure, is beyond me. It really is.
I also think it’s a little disingenuous to set this up as a debate between “supporters” and “opponents” of porn. It’s far more of a question of what is to be done to support those who work in, and are exploited by, the sex industry. And the reality is that (even tangentially, for basically well-motivated reasons) buying into the right’s demonisation of the industry in which they work, and therefore inevitably of those workers themselves, does them no good at all.
It’s the same with any industry – if it’s illegal, if those who work in it are lacerated in the press, and if public opinion is whipped up against it by a peculiar combination of right-wing social conservatives and left wingers who should know better, then the conditions of workers in that industry collapse. That’s the logic of supporting a puritan line on this issue.
And here’s just a quick plug for my own previous contribution on this issue
The point is that by saying that sex is a private concern for the individuals concerned we deny the state the right to legislate.
That simply doesn’t stand up, Mike. On that logic we’d have all told the gay rights movement to shut up and keep its practices in the bedroom.
The reality is that all gains for oppressed groups in the past (you name it – workers, womens’ rights, anti-racist struggles) have been won in the public sphere. Could you seriously see the feminist movement arguing that abortion is a “private concern” or the anti-racist movement arguing that equality under the law is a “matter for the individuals concerned? I know what we’d say if they did…
“I still think you’re missing the point”
Um, given that you seem to reckon that I’m all for making pornography illegal, can I ask that you reread my last paragraph?
I’m not saying we should treat pornography as some special case. I’m saying we should treat it as we do any other political message we disagree with, and I’m saying we should relate to those who work in the industry the same way we relate to workers in any industry.
So… other than on an abstract point about sexual imagery, who do you think you’re disagreeing with here? Sorry, may be have a Sunday morning thicko moment here.
Sure VP it is true that gains for oppressed groups have been won in the public sphere. But winning the right to express one’s sexuality as ne chooses does not mean that the sexual act is therefore a public act! Rather by struggling in the public (political) sphere it was asserted that the right to free sexual expression was a matter of personal autonomy and is not in the public shere t be regulated by bodies authorative in that sphere such as the state.
Similarly abortion rights must be fought for collectively but are a matter of personal (private) autonomy and cannot be exercised collectively (publically). It is the decision of the woman alone and not a matter of public debate as to whether the right to an abortion is exercised.
Judging by some of the comments above, I think the Mary Whitehouse Brigade need to get with the times on this one.
There is nothing inherently degrading, exploitative, or de-valuing of human emotions about two consenting adults having sex. Nor is there anything inherently degrading, exploitative, or de-valuing of human emotions about consenting adults watching other consenting adults have sex.
The dilemma is that most pornography obviously does not transcend the problems and capabilities of the deeply sexist, patriarchal society in which it exists. Sexist pornography arises both as a result of that society’s dominant sexual ideology and also plays a role in reproducing it. But as with all media texts, the influence of that pornography on the viewer will depend upon whether he or she has access to alternative knowledge/discourses about sex, gender, power etc.
So, for example, settling down with your partner to watch some filthy porno to (ahem) get the ball rolling can be done in full knowledge that aspects of what you’re watching is deeply flawed; and those flaws might be seen by the horny couple in question as an unfortunate but bearable price worth paying for the shared thrill of watching a sexual act take place.
Which is why I think what socialists should campaign for are:
1. greater awareness of what sexism/patriarchy are and how they work, so that those who watch sexist pornography are less likely to have their prejudices reaffirmed by doing so.
2. better pornography (as suggested by janine), which can be enjoyed by men and women alike, eroding the standard representation of women as squealing, big-boobed fuck puppets with no purpose in life other than to please men in the bedroom.
To clarify what I’ve written above: I think the former would lead to the latter if done effectively.
Mike says: “Porn is an industry that thrives on the alienation of individuals from their own sexuality and as such those working in that industry are exploited as workers every bit as much as any factory hand or till jockey in a supermarket. With the difference that they sell not simply their labour power, as analysed by Marx, but the illusion of intimacy that has been integral to the modern understanding of sexuality.”
Mike says: “As for YouPorn I leave viewing animals rutting to those, such as yourself, who would reduce human beings to the status of mere animals.”
:
Mike says: “In other words those who argue sexual relations lie within the public sphere open the door to reactionary legislation designed to discriminate against specific groups on the basis of their sexual orientation. Those of us who argue that sex is a private matter reject such state regulation in the name of personal autonomy.”
Mike says: “In other words if you use porn do so behind closed doors least your actions offend others.”
Mike says: “Reading this thread I confess that the visions I have been experiencing of members and allies of the AWL engaging in public displays of their sexual athleticism are becoming disturbing!”
Mike says: “As for Janines post I find it amazing that she reduces my argument to the proposition that we should keep quiet about sex. For the record my argument is that we should ‘flaunt’ our sexualities but only in the context of it being a part of what constitutes selfhood or identity. I might suggest that Janine ’seems’ to be arguing for socialists to sponsor public displays of sexual atleticism. But that would be stupid…”
So, people in the porn industry are exploited not just for selling their labour power but for a particular and peculiar further exploitation of their “intimacy”; people on YouPorn are equivalent to rutting animals; sex should be a private matter; Mike is happy to share his sexual fantasies about members of the AWL but one should only discuss sexuality in the context of “selfhood” or “identity”. Or am I failing to read you again?
For the record I think it reveals your basic prurient moralism on the subject of porn and eroticism that you are so determined to paint some participants in this discussion as somehow determined to themselves engage in public sexual acts when we are having a broad political discussion about sexuality and pornography/erotica.
About twenty-five years ago, I was living in a small Italian Southern town in which the only cinema showed porno flicks. One day I went ot see what it was all about. To be honest, it was a typical Continental romantic comedy with fellatio, cunninglingus and penetration added. The penetration shots were especially interesting in their scientific precision and I have often wondered howd they filmed them, as they seemed to be back-lighted and a very clear view of the penis going and in and out of the labia. Anyway, in spirit, it was closer to the pornography that one finds in antiquity. Charming, joyful etc. The tv stations in those days always finished their evening transmissions with strip-teases. I don’t know if it is still the same in Italy, time always moves on. Anyway, it was a world away from teh Anglo-American porn I have seen where the actors are so often drugged up to get them to perform and they look as if they are beating each other up rather than participating in a ‘loving’ act. Does anyone know whether sado-maschicism and bondage are as big on the Continent as athey are in the Anglo-American/Germanic scene? As far as advertising goes, I belonged to a group nearly thirty years ago that campaigned against sexist advertising, that we are going backwards is a source of great annoyance. Women aren’t even portrayed as ‘homemakers’ nowadays, just reduced to bums and tits. I get especially cross when I see nurses or schoolgirls depicted in nano-short skirts and breasts spilling out of shirts. As I said, the only justification I can see for porn is that it keeps actual violent sexual assault down, but I expect that varies from each user.
Kate wrote “Or am I failing to read you again?”
Yes you are and revealing your rather prudish lack of a sense of humour too. Yawn.
Sure VP it is true that gains for oppressed groups have been won in the public sphere. But winning the right to express one’s sexuality as ne chooses does not mean that the sexual act is therefore a public act! Rather by struggling in the public (political) sphere it was asserted that the right to free sexual expression was a matter of personal autonomy and is not in the public shere t be regulated by bodies authorative in that sphere such as the state.
No, you’re still getting two things mixed up here. Personal autonomy is not the same as keeping something out of the public sphere, anymore than the public sphere is the same as the state. The whole point of the politics of sexual expression, is to give people the right to express their sexuality, not in an ooh-er vicar fashion behind closed curtains, but in an open and honest fashion. And those rights are won in the public sphere, just as all rights are won in that arena.
Mike, you know it *could* be that if people misunderstand you it’s because you haven’t made yourself very clear. Reading this thread I’m pretty much at a loss to follow your main point.
It appears to be that porn is alienated/ing because of capitalism, but nothing different is possible (in the sphere of erotic imagery), either under capitalism or after it because erotic imagery by its nature expresses alienated sexuality. But you’re not in favour of censorship (or any other kind of legal intervention in porn?) because its use is a private matter, and that it’s by asserting its privateness that you guarantee keeping the state out.
In Roman society, for instance, there were very public displays of what seem to us pornographic images, eg in people’s houses. Hindu art includes images which by modern western standards are pornographic.
It seems to me likely that there is something in human nature which entails that many people enjoy looking at images of sex. If that’s true, it seems likely that such images which are not sexist (or less so) would be possible. And since enormous numbers of people use porn, it seems to me it’s worth socialists having more to say about it than just ‘it’s bad’, or ‘it’s capitalism’ or ‘it’s private’.
I do beg your pardon, Mike. I should have realised that you were a joke.
“who do you think you’re disagreeing with here?”
VP, I’ve been thinking about how to respond to this question, and, to be honest, I’m not sure. I apologise if you feel I’m playing games, but really, I’m not trying to champion any particular true feminist viewpoint on this subject, I’m still getting to know how the arguments play out.
So at the moment, I’m intending to stay on the sidelines and just question what I see as bad arguments, irrespective of whether or not I agree with the conclusion.
In the above case, I was querying whether
“he doesn’t like it so it must be wrong” and “I think that for the left to take a stance against freedom of sexual expression, is not really a left-wing stance at all.” were necessarily accurate summaries of the objections.
Yes, Clive “porn is alienated/ing because of capitalism” and ‘erotic’ imagery’ will be co-opted by bourgeois society due to its increasing weight on the psyche that means even our innermost thoughts are seen as a market resource. And yes “erotic imagery by its nature expresses alienated sexuality” in the context of class sciety. No I’m “not in favour of censorship” of any kind excepting the cercion of minors ad animals “because its use is a private matter, and that it’s by asserting its privateness” I believe the state out can be compelled to keep its beak out.
Clive went on to write “In Roman society, for instance, there were very public displays of what seem to us pornographic images, eg in people’s houses. Hindu art includes images which by modern western standards are pornographic.” All of which is true but these were pre-modern societies in which alienation was not so deep and the sex act was not viewed as something outside the public sphere. Indeed the very differentiation we make between the public and private was but poorly developed in such pre-modern societies dominated by either the tributary mode of production. Personally I would not want to see a retreat to such a conception of sciety that denies personal autonomy in the name of a tyrannical collectivity. Not even the state capitalist Stalinist societies degenerated that far.
Clive again “It seems to me likely that there is something in human nature which entails that many people enjoy looking at images of sex. If that’s true, it seems likely that such images which are not sexist (or less so) would be possible. And since enormous numbers of people use porn, it seems to me it’s worth socialists having more to say about it than just ‘it’s bad’, or ‘it’s capitalism’ or ‘it’s private’.” To which I can only ask who said porn is bad? Not me for certain. My views have not been expressed on that topic. What I do assert is that sexual relations are private and that porn will tend to further alienate our sexuality from us and that it cannot but mirror the dominant attitudes twards sex in this deeply reactionary society of theirs.
Surely if you think something is alienated or an expression of alienation in some sense you think it’s bad.
I’m not at all sure that Roman or Hindu attitudes to sex are because of a ‘tyrannical collectivity’. Couldn’t it just be that they were less screwed up about it?
You ask whether something that is alienated is ‘bad’. I very much doubt that such a question can be answered with a simple yes or no. Surely the point of capitalist production, that is to say alienated production, is not that it is ‘bad’ as such – for in fact it is ‘good’ insofar as it represents efficient production – but that it is production over which the direct producers have no control. That is to say it is both good and bad if we wish to use such terms.
As for pre-capitalist societies I would suggest that it is not sensible to simplistically claim that attitudes towards sex were more open because they were less ’screwed up’. After all these were societies in which the vast majority of people had little or no truly individual autonomy – indeed the concept as we know it only originates with Greece – being bound by patriarchal relations and ossifed caste arrangements. Better the personal autonomy of bourgeois society, in that it lays the foundations for a human society, rather than the tyranny associated with pre-modern collectivities.
Yes, I take those both as good points.