Kath Albury’s honours thesis on ‘heterosexuality and media in popular culture’ took an unexpected turn and ended up in the world of pornography. Within four years the reactions of her friends and academic colleagues had begun to change and the adult was being discussed as a legitimate topic. Her article discusses a number of issues which arise from the intersection of morality, ethics, pornography, and the internet.
While the article skimmed on a great deal, it had a couple of major themes that kept cropping up.
Albury’s research originated with popular media, and she straight away identifies porn as form of ‘popular ‘sex-media’’, on a continuum with more innocuous forms of media such as billboards, tv and magazines. To be honest, in 2003 I wasn’t paying a lot of attention to that sort of thing, but certainly within the last five years I’ve noticed marketing strategies changing, the increasing importance of the internet as a media outlet, and you could definitely make the argument that society (especially teen/youth society) is becoming increasingly sexualised. This all seems to make this an even hotter topic than it was when the article was written.
It becomes especially tangled when you factor in the frequently mentioned concerns over the ‘intrusiveness’ of pornography. Albury repeatedly notes that ‘some’ are concerned about the internet’s role in delivering porn straight into ones home. For example, when discussing the makeup of pornographic websites, she notes the relative ease and anonymity of access when compared to physical shops, which means that people are able to access adult content without the risk of being identified, and one assumes, shamed while entering an adult store – something that people find ‘invasive’. However, this is a view that Albury is careful not to put forward as her own.
For some, this anonymity would be a godsend – she mentions the embarrassment in trying to request something ‘unusual’, and actually entering a physical store may pose a challenge for the disabled. Albury discusses the ‘community’ aspects of pornography websites and how they can pose a safe place for those not considered conventionally (or pornographically) beautiful or those who have tastes that fall outside of the mainstream.
So without even discussing morals and ethics yet, we already have tensions between the idea that pornography is a form of popular media and the idea of pornography as invasive and intrusive, and between the latter and the sense of community, acceptance, and perhaps convenience that internet pornography can bring.
Towards the beginning of her article, Albury cites some reasons why people believe pornography is immoral, focussing largely on Christian/conservative and Marxist/radical feminist viewpoints. She cites four basic reasons why most people find pornography immoral, all of which I think are open for discussion. I found the last two particularly problematic – that pornography exploits women by representing them as being sexually active and available (I also found this one irritatingly dated), and that pornography represents a limited range of body types as sexually appealing. Towards the end of the article, Albury says that pornography is ‘clearly immoral’, and uses this to premise her discussion of ethics. I’m uncomfortable with this conclusion because it seems to me to be an unchallenged assumption that pornography is automatically immoral, without any discussion of the validity or application of the four reasons she cited. In fact, the small amount of discussion around the two aspects I found particularly problematic seem to work against this assumption. However, as she talks about morality as something imposed from without, perhaps this is a curly way of making her point? I found it particularly un-persuasive.
After concluding that pornography is clearly immoral, Albury discusses if it can still be ethical. I think it’s important to note here that she is specifically referring to amateur or ‘cottage industry’ pornography as opposed to ‘mainstream’ pornography here. Although she doesn’t clearly outline her reasons, there is the implication that discussing the ethics of ‘mainstream’ pornography would be a lot more difficult, and that amateur pornography occupies a different moral space. A lot of her article concerns amateur pornography, and it seems the internet has certainly favoured amateurs, but I found it disappointing she was unwilling to delve into the ethics vs morals of ‘mainstream’ pornography since I feel that people are much more likely to cite ‘mainstream’ porn in an argument about morals and ethics than ‘amateur’ porn. As a reader, one also needs to remain alert to Albury switching between discussions of amateur and ‘mainstream’ pornography.
Albury notes that for some, the terms ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ are interchangeable, although she seems to favour a different approach. She concludes that moralising judgments are imposed from the outside with no regard to context, while ethical judgments are personal, or community based. Morality allows to room for ones own system, and how ones behaviour fits or clashes with those beliefs. Moralising judgments are ‘all or nothing’ judgments, where as ethical judgments appear to be more complex negotiations with oneself and ones surroundings.
Some Questions
What do you think of the idea that porn, a billboard, and a woman’s magazine could all lie along the same continuum? Is that a comfortable idea? Do you think it is true?
What impact has the internet had on this continuum? Do you feel the internet has allowed these issues/forms of media into our homes and further into our lives? Do you think the internet has helped the spread of porn into every day culture?
Does representing women as sexually active necessarily exploit women?
One of the reasons people criticise the internet, particularly in the context of pornography, is that it allows ‘wierdos’ to meet ‘other wierdos’ and talk about things we find distasteful. Albury says porn is immoral because presents a limited range of body types as sexually appealing. Yet she also commends it, and especially the internet, for being more egalitarian for people with unusual tastes or bodies that are not ‘pornographically attractive’. Is this an issue you’ve considered before? How do you / how can we reconcile this?
The author allows that the average woman in porn is heavier than those in mainstream modelling, but the attributes she notes that typify them are things like fake breasts, fake tan, fake nails, Brazilians, toned bodies – and these are things which appear equally in mainstream media.
Are we really more worried that these images will turn men off ‘normal’ bodies? If so, why?
The author says ‘porn is clearly immoral.’ Do you find it so easy to come to such a clear cut judgment?
Do you think the terms ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ are interchangeable?
Some ideas for further reading:
In case you haven't been exposed to an academic discussion about pornography before, so I dug up a couple of links that might give some background information and/or further reading to those who are interested or a bit lost.
Andrea Dworkin was referenced a couple of times as a classic radical feminist with some big opinions on pornography. This site has an online library of her work so you can have a look at her style and what made her so confrontational. The ‘lie detector’ page is especially worth a look. Keep your wits about you with anything to do with Andrea Dworkin, even (especially?) this site as she tends to polarise people and nothing written about her is even vaguely impartial.
‘The Beauty Myth’ by Naomi Wolf
This book isn’t necessarily the origin of the idea but is a classic articulation of it.
For further reading on the ‘pornogrification’ of everyday life – Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.
An extract from the introduction on her website, and the googlebooks sample.
And just for something different, the Feminist Porn Awards
NB: While the page would probably not be considered NSFW, the page is part of an online adult store so use your judgment about accessing this at work or uni.
edit: added further reading
See you in a couple of hours...
No comments:
Post a Comment