The Discourse on the Ban of Pornography - Essay Example

The Dis on the Ban of Pornography Introduction Pornography is not a homogeneous genre of art. It is even not a single type of commodity. Different people differently use it for different purposes. The use value of pornographic materials as commodities is not necessarily sexual. Except some types of hard core pornography, they are not for the sole purpose of sexual consumption. It could be classified on the basis of its content, representations and significations. It means that there is no pornography, but only pornographies such as homosexual pornography, heterosexual pornography and child pornography etc. Pornography is a controversial issue in many spheres, be it of law or morality. As the world became more globlized with the development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), the reach of pornography too has increased. Pornographic materials, at present, are freely available in both developed and developing countries. Along with the world wide spread of pornography, the debate on the legal validity and social acceptability of pornography has intensified. The present study aims to assess the arguments and concerns on the phenomenon of pornography. It would examine the strengths, weaknesses and influences of liberalism, feminism and moral perspectives on the discourses on pornography. Many a theorist has come up with compelling arguments supporting the ban of pornography from varying and often antagonistic standpoints. The paper would examine the merits and demerits of the arguments in favor of banning pornography from the standpoint of its internal theoretical validity. The Great Pornography Debate The pornography debate itself is started with the invention of mass production, distribution and consumption of pornography. As the effects of pornography spread across the social sections, it was natural for such a debate on pornography to materialize. There were strange combinations and alliances on both side of the spectrum. Curiously, most of the feminists in 1960s even were ready to align with ultra conservatives for the cause of banning pornography. On the other hand, liberals aligned with the new leftists to support the spread of pornography in the name of freedom of expression. The pornography debate is enriched by various currents of liberalism, feminism and conservatism. However, neither liberalism nor feminism or conservatism has a single standpoint on the issue of banning pornography. The liberal and feminist positions concerning the legitimacy of pornography are essentially heterogeneous and articulated from multiple standpoints. The liberal idea of feminism is based on the conception of liberty and free speech by John Stuart Mill. Esfahani-Smith delineating the position of John Stuart Mill on freedom expression that “if all of mankind with the exception of one individual holds the same opinion, mankind should not silence that one man”(Esfahani-Smith, 2004, p.180). Mill asserted that even a matter contained abusive elements it should not be banned as it catalyses the debates and push forward humanity’s quest for truth. Liberal position that supports pornography is based on the belief that everyone has the right to decide what they need to be exposed to. Liberty and censorship are the key issues involved in the liberal analysis of pornography. On the other hand, the moralist position supports the banning of pornography based on the protection of community values. Here, the argument is that pornography is an attack on public morality and it puts harm on social consciousness. Feminist concern on pornography, from a radically different viewpoint, emphasizes on the issues of gender inequality and sexual abuse. It also sees that the worldview of women is not adequately represented in the present legal system. Furthermore, the impact of pornography on women and their sense of dignity and security are overlooked by the jurisprudence. What feminists are against is the political message of pornography. It not only legitimizes the oppressive ideology of women’s subjugation but also extends the reproduction of it. Pornography is just one another tool for the objectification and commodification of women. The problem with liberalism while examining the legality of pornography arises from the simple fact that it does not adequately pay attention to the social stratifications. Society is not consisted of hypothetically equal citizens as liberalism contends. In reality, women throughout the world are oppressed and exploited by patriarchy. When liberals negate the need for banning pornography, they in a way are supporting the spread of the patriarchal content of pornography. Furthermore, the liberal idea of free speech or freedom of expression is an abstract concept that needs to be tuned in according to the demands of the social situation. For instance, in the era of mass communication, how children could be prevented from viewing pornographic content, if the free airing of pornography is permitted. The gendered nature of pornography is not yet adequately discussed within the liberal tradition. Liberal notion of pornography is limited to the issues related to freedom and censorship. The emergent sexual politics and the rising demand for sexual equality are well hidden under the garb of freedom of pornography. Sexual harassment law in the Australian penal code considers the exhibition of pornography would law to the making of an environment which is compatible for sexual violence. All sexual explicit materials are not necessarily pornographic. In the same way, all pornographic materials are not obscene.Many people have noted that there is a causal link between pornography and sexual violence and other types of violence. However, no solid data from any given country has proved this assertion. People who have closely worked with sexual crime perpetrators are of the view that they are not at least “motivated by the pornography when they involved in the concerned crime” (Donald, 1989, p.42). There could never be a consistent and all encompassing definition of pornography. People tend to define pornography in accordance with their tastes, upbringing and attitudes. According to the First Amendment of American constitution, “libellous speech, slanderous speech, and obscene speech are among those unprotected forms of expression” (Esfahani-Smith, 2004, p.181). However, there can no way be sure of the means of determining the content of a pornographic material contains such aspects from neutral standpoints. Pornographic videos could divest longstanding consequences on the viewer’s psyche. Walters points out, quoting Dr Patricia Edgar, Director of the Australian Childrens Television Foundation, that “video violence can have a disinhibiting effect on certain personality types” (Walters, 1992, p.4). The video have the capacity to show that sexual violence is not only a normal act but also socially acceptable. In other words, the pornographic products and its legal availability in the open market have legitimising role and thereby, reinforces sexual violence. It is important to note that children could easily be influenced by the kind of violence depicted in pornographic videos and start replicating it into the real life. The reinforcement for the demand to ban pornography is occurred in the recent years for a number of (il)legitimate reasons. Walters (1992) has noted that Australia has much more sex related crimes than the countries of Europe and which are close to the crime rates of The United States and Canada. Australia has been identified as a high risk country for sex related crimes but it is not simply because of pornography. In 1988, It was recommended to disallow the the X-rated videos which depicts sexual violence. The issue is that most of the pornographic content is characterized by the exhibition of sexual violence, especially the acts of sadism. Therefore, the arguments which are favoring the ban of products that combine sex and sadism are strong. The television violence has a strong influence over the boys who are committing sexual crimes. According to the studies on sexual behavior, sex offenders generally reported sexually repressive family back grounds, immature and inadequate sexual histories and rigid, conservative attitudes towards sexuality. Compared with other groups they had lesser exposure to sexual experiences in their adolescence. For Walters, watching pornography “desensitizes the viewers” and socially unacceptable practices acquire legitimacy in a protracted manner (1992, p.6). The U.S commission report pointed out that adult sex offenders seemed to catch up with other categories, but did not use pornography more frequently than others, and sex offenders did not differ significantly from other adults in their reported arousal or reported likelihood of engaging in sexual behavior during or following exposure to pornography. It is clear that these studies only depended on the subjects own reports and not the experience with and reactions to aggressive pornography. These short comings were overcome by researchers in late 1970’s who applying modern sexology laboratory techniques. Also, they were able to measure erectile responses converted rapists and normal persons who were watching, listening to, or reading depictions of sexual activities including consenting and coercive sex .The first result seemed very promising, while normal persons showed greater arousal to scenes mutually consenting sex than they did to similar scenes involving coerced sex, rapists appeared to be equally aroused by the consensual and coerced scenes. Pornography could be classified as violent and non-violent. However, it is not enough because sexual violence is often implicit in the pornographic materials. It is fact that “the anti-social effects of any pornography were the most pronounced in individuals who already possessed a certain sexual aggressivity” (Walters, 1992, p.4). Esfahani-Smith asserts that “MacKinnon’s argument that pornography induces disorder in society is false as it ignores that disorder and crime are caused by people and criminals, not by pornographic forms of expression. Therefore, anti-pornography legislation is unconstitutional and violates the dictates of the First Amendment’s notion of freedom of speech and expression” (Esfahani-Smith, 2004, p.190). Pornography is an issue of extreme complexities. Contemplating on the issue, numerous commissions and committees have produced hundreds of research papers and reports that go thousands of pages. Some researchers tried in vain to scrutinize the issue also. Pornography is no way a good practice or artistic form that humanity is looking for. In any form, it should not be encouraged or appreciated. Therefore, pornography should be listed in the listed crimes that needs punishment , in some cases it must be severe. Segal argues that “in the 1970s feminists had not, however, sought legal restrictions on pornography, nor seen it as in any way uniquely symbolic of male dominance – the virgin bride, the happy housewife, the sexy secretary, were all equally abhorrent. With the state and judiciary so comprehensively controlled by men, obscenity laws were known in any case to have always served to suppress the work, if not jail the organisers, of those fighting for womens own control of their fertility and sexuality” (Segal, 1993, p.95). Additionally, she pointed out that “it was the popular writing of Robin Morgan and Susan Brownmiller in the USA in the mid-1970s which first made a definitive connection between pornography and male violence” (Segal, 1993, p.95-96). Some strands of feminism have a role in equating men’s sexuality with male violence and pornography is seen as a symbol of the rigid link between the male sexuality and male violence. From this point of view, pornography is views as not only a tool for depicting violence on women but also, “in itself, violence against women” (Segal, 1993, p. 96). Dworkin indicates that pornography is not only the leading to all forms of female oppression but also penetrating forms of violence and brutality on women (Dworkin, 1981, p.19). For Dworkin and Mackinnon, pornography is nothing but “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words” (Dworkin, 1981, p.35). Here, the problem is that pornography is seen as the source of women’s exploitation and oppression. It does not hold true in reality. The truth is that “mens cultural contempt for and sexualization of women long pre-dated the growth of commercial pornography, both stemming from rather than uniquely determining the relative powerlessness of women as a sex” (Segal, 1993, p. 96). Historically speaking, pornography is just a new form or expression of women’s subjugation. Moreover, “narrowing the focus on womens subordination to the explicitly sexual downplays the sexism and misogyny at work within all our most respectable social institutions and practices, whether judicial, legal, familial, occupational, religious, scientific or cultural” (Segal, 1993, p. 96). Williams argues that pornography should not simply be rejected as it is done by the earlier feminists but its content must by ‘analyzed for revealing the sexism in it’ (Williams, 1990, p. 96). This is the point of departure of “new feminists from the feminists of tumultuous 1960s that they are ready to see the existence of pornography as a social reality” (Zillman and Byrant, 1989, p.36). Pornography certainly does have its own impacts and ill-effects in the society. However, the problems it creates could not be avoided just by eliminating pornography. The real problem is that women are subjugated in the real society and they need to be empowered to fight against the oppressive and exploitative acts. Also there is an argument that “the false and hypocritical victimization of them by anti-pornography feminists, whose campaigns they believe, if successful, would serve only to worsen their pay and working conditions, and increase the stigmatization of their work” (Segal, 1993, p. 99). After all, the ability of legal bodies to regulate the reach and content of pornographic materials too is questioned as we live in the era of World Wide Web. Zillman and Byrant argue that “despite efforts to censor pornography, the market for it demonstrates the appetite, or at least the indulgence, of a staggering number of people” (Zillman and Byrant, 1989, p. 343). Moreover, the courts cannot indulge in the regulation of sexually explicit materials unless it introduces an appropriate categorization of the pornographic content. Thonburgh and Lin point out the role of non-violent sexually explicit content in the making of the sexual attitudes and preferences of the youth. They are of the view that “media seem to have an effect on attitudes, although it is difficult to assess whether these attitudes are long lasting… the degree to which the media, compared with other sources experience in a young person’s life, are influential in shaping the choices of a young person makes” (Thonburgh and Lin, 2002, p.154). It all means that the demand to ban pornography is too banal. It is true that the pornographic content needs to be regulated in an appropriate manner. However, the complete ban of pornography could only be an illusion. Conclusion To conclude, it is possible to argue that pornography is not as monolithic as its opponents argue to be. The so called sexual content of pornographic products too is diverse and signifies many points which are not confined sexual crimes or violence. Pornography too is a type of art. As in any art, some versions of pornography too are vulgar or not socially acceptable, for example, child pornography. Most of the arguments pertinent to the ban of pornography do not sufficiently take account of the internal diversities and complexities of pornography as a genre of art. The arguments favouring the ban of pornography are by and large based on the idea that it (re)produces gendered inequality and reinforces violence on women. The liberal argument favoring the legalization of pornography is justified in terms of the classical liberal understanding of free speech. However, such view cannot take account of the larger social realities of inequality between the sexes and widespread violence on women. On the other hand, the feminist argument to ban pornography is based on the idea that pornography represents the subjugation of women and victimisation of the female artists. In addition, it is seen as producing harm on women as they become victims of crimes of men who are induced by pornography. The big question is whether the banning of pornography is possible or not than whether it is desirable or not. References Brest, P. and Vandenberg, A. (1987). “Politics, Feminism, and the Constitution: The Antipornography Movement in Minneapolis.” Stanford Law Review, 39(3) Donald A. D. (1989). The New Politics of Pornography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dworkin, A. (1981). Pornography: Men Possessing Women, New Yok. Womens Press. Esfahani-Smith, E. (2004). Pornography: A constitutional Defense. The Darmouth Law Journal: Vol. 4 : 2. Segal, L. (1993). False Promises- Anti-Pornography Feminism, Socialist Register. Vol.I. 4 Thornburgh, D. and Lin, H. (2002). Youth, Pornography and the Internet. New York. National Academic Press. Walters, S. (1992). Pornography and Regulation. Assessed on- 20/05/09, Available at: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/14/walters.html. Williams, L. (1990). Hard Core: Power, Pleasure and the ‘Frenzy of the Visible’. Pandora. Zillman, D. and Bryant, J (1989). Pornography: Research Advances & Policy Considerations. (Ed.). New Yok. Lawrence. Read More