Pornography can't be seen as inherently offensive to women

Carol Adams' presentation, "The Sexual Politics of Meat," left me with a bad taste in my mouth. She, like many liberals, assumed without pause that the audience viewing her presentation would agree with her that pornography and prostitution are inherently oppressive toward women. She assumed that we would all agree that women who engage in either are willingly colluding with the patriarchy in their own "sexualization" (a favorite word of Adams) and victimization. I am tired of this assumption. I don't understand how nudity, stripping, explicitly sexual pictures, and even hardcore pornographic films and videos can possibly be inherently sexist or oppressive. I concede that there are porn films and magazines with sexist aspects in them, but how could the category of "pornography" automatically demean women?

Webster's defines the term pornography as: 1) the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2) material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement 3) the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction. None of these definitions resonate with misogyny or even suggest that pornography is defined by the "male gaze".

Pornography is a way to describe sexual material which we find socially unacceptable. Look to the nineteenth century and you'll find books and photos which by today's standards seem "artistic" and mildly humorous but not offensive. Contemporary pornography may be unpalatable or filled with images which don't actually attain their goal of arousing "sexual excitement." This may be especially true for women watching porn which is created mainly for a male audience, but how does that make it a tool which is by definition used to subjugate women? The "objective" statistics created by anti-porn feminists in the 1970s linking porn consumption to rape and suggesting that "snuff" movies (films which were supposed to show real women getting raped and murdered) were in abundant supply through the American porn industry have both been seriously questioned and debunked during the last 20 years, yet porn is still defined as the ultimate evil against women in many people's minds.

Taking off her clothes or having sex for money doesn't reduce a woman to the physical function of her body and leave her without agency anymore than starring in a major motion picture which prizes dominant notions of physical attractiveness makes a woman helpless and victimized. The difference between "Sleeping in Seattle" and "Debbie Does Dallas" is not just in the quality of filmmaking, but the fact that one depicts sex in an explicit way. In a society deeply afraid of talking openly about sex, it makes sense that sexual images and speech is easily targeted as oppressive. Anti-porn feminists would be much better off trying to create more of what they consider positive images of women's sexuality, rather than indicting the entire industry and trying to pass laws which limit our ability to freely discuss and watch sexually explicit material.

Carol Adams should take the advice she gave to me when she answered my question after her talk. I asked what she would say to a woman who worked in the sex industry and didn't feel coerced or oppressed. She said it was a question of epistemology versus ontology. I was speaking about ontology while she and other anti-porn feminists like her are speaking about epistemology. In my view the "epistemology" of the situation reveals that if women are commodified in the porn industry, so is anyone in any role in the capitalist economy. It relies on commodification in one form or another. Women who work in the sex industry have not sold-out or bought into their oppression any more than any woman working for any corporation based on profit.

The difference is that women in the sex industry's sins are sexual. And therefore are punishable with the label of "colluding with the oppressor." In fact Adams told me in the same response that women didn't deserve the term "sex worker." I wonder why not, if by definition their work is sexual? Would she rather they be called "whores"- the term which people who have sought to control women's expression of sexuality have depended on for thousands of years? Would she rather us despise and ridicule women in the sex industry just like those on the conservative right ridicule and disdain women who take control of their own sexuality?

Nudity and being sexual for money doesn't equal powerlessness. Since Adams' answer to my questions were so unsatisfying, I tried to image other arguments she could make. She could argue it's the contemporary context of pornographic images which makes these activities oppressive and negative for women. She could suggest that because pornography is mostly consumed by men means that it's a preserve of the "male gaze," but this ignores the fact that women often do watch porn and even get off on it just like men. Perhaps these women are socialized to find explicit sex a turn-on. But aren't our sexual responses socialized by our culture anyway? So in Adams theory women who enjoy porn are bad because they haven't been socialized correctly? Would the more appropriate socialization be to masturbate to "Sleeping in Seattle"? What about the women directors and writers involved in the porn industry? Are their sexual responses so co-opted that their work represents and is tailored for the "male gaze"?

Or perhaps Adams could argue that it's a particularly "male" characteristic to get turned on by naked women in explicit situations or poses? This is a pretty scary suggestion also. Number one, it ignores lesbian pornography which is directed at women (while maybe some would call explicit lesbian sex erotic rather than pornographic: try to get the larger public to accept that definition and see how it holds up). Number two, it ignores gay male pornography by suggesting that pornography as a category is oppressive to women. How can all porn be oppressive to women, when women aren't even in some pornography? It also suggests that men have an essential drive to dominate and oppress women. Not a very kind generalization to make about all men. This automatically ascribes them to the oppressor role because of their gender. It sort of feels like the same thing that happens when women are ascribed to the weak and passive role because of their gender.

Sexuality and sex are crucial parts of our lives. It seems to me that the feminist movement is all about fighting for control over our own bodies. One of those controls includes expressing our sexuality in any way we chose including ways which don't fit into codes of puritanical morality and which may not appeal to everyone. Pornography is not inherently oppressive to women, and those women who choose to be involved in, create, and enjoy it should not be questioned by those who find it offensive.

-Allana Sleeth is a college senior