XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography (16 page)

woman who poses nude does so only because she has been indoctrinated by patriarchy, is to eliminate the possibility of her ever choosing anything.

In other words, if one choice is invalidated because of cultural influences, all choices are invalidated. Why? Because
all
choices are culturally influenced if only because the people making them have been shaped by experience. Every decision is made in the presence of cultural pressures. To invalidate a woman's choices is to deny her the one protection she has against an unhealthy culture: namely, the right to decide for herself.

Yet this is what radical feminists propose. And they do so under the guise of protecting psychologically damaged women. Pause for a moment. Think of what is being said.

Antiporn feminists want us to accept their sexual preferences as gospel. Presumably, their theories are based on solid fact and deep insight. Although they have been born and raised in the same patriarchal culture that has warped other women, radical feminists have somehow escaped unscathed. Just as they have escaped being damaged by the pornography they view. Somehow these women have scaled the pinnacle, from which they now look down and make pronouncements on the lifestyle of those beneath them.

Perhaps radical feminists are superwomen. Perhaps they are merely fanatics unwilling to respect any position other than their own.

If women's choices are to be trashed, why should radical feminists fare better than other women?

Are they the elite? If the choices of pornographic models are not to be taken seriously, radical feminists cannot claim respect for their choices either. If culture negates the free will of women, antiporn feminists are in the same boat as the rest of us.

Capitalism is a system of "economic coercion" that forces women into pornography
in order to make a living.

This is part and parcel of the accusation that pornography exploits women. Exploitation means getting something from someone in a manner that is hurtful, deceptive, or otherwise unfair.

This charge arises because pornography is a commercial activity. The antiporn argument runs: Because in general women are paid less than men and have fewer opportunities, they are forced to enter unsavory professions in order to make a living.

Radical feminists such as Catharine MacKinnon, who calls herself a "post-Marxist," erase the line most people draw between a voluntary exchange and a forced one: This is the line between consent and coercion. They reject a woman's right to contract.

Contracts are records of voluntary exchanges. Labor contracts are voluntary exchanges of work for wages. Most people enter labor contracts-that is, get a job-because they need money. But, to radical feminists, this is "economic coercion." Because they believe the free market
forces
people to take jobs, they view it as a form of violence.

When radical feminists deny the validity of porn contracts, they are not attacking pornography, so much as they are attacking contracts themselves. If they reject porn contracts because the woman needs money, then they are logically constrained to reject almost every other labor contract as well.

A question should be asked: Do antiporn feminists see any difference between offering a woman money for her services and putting a gun to her head to obtain the same thing?

Politically, their theory claims there is no difference.

People's alternatives are always limited. This is not an indictment of the free market. It is a statement about reality and human nature. Consent is the application of free will to whatever choices are possible to you at a given moment. One of those choices is pornography.

63

Antiporn feminists refuse to acknowledge the free will of women who make this choice.

Instead, they construct an elaborate theory to explain how the women have been exploited by capitalism.

Only by understanding the deep and unmovable antipathy that radical feminists harbor toward free exchange and traditional sex is it possible to sound the near bottomless depths of their hatred for pornography, which combines both.

Pornography is violence against women who consume it, and thereby re-enforce their
own oppression.

It is true that pornography repels many women; and this is an excellent reason for those women to avoid it. For others, however, pornography offers a wide range of pleasurable fantasies including sex with a stranger, sex for the fun of it, with another woman, as a dominatrix, with a group, or with someone who is otherwise inaccessible. The majority of women lead conventional monogamous lives. Pornography allows them to vicariously enjoy a cornucopia of sex, without having to bear the consequences of actually doing anything.

But what of pornography that depicts mock violence? Doesn't sadomasochism express and promote the subjugation of women? In her essay "The Art of Discipline," Susan Farr explains that the show of violence in sadomasochism cannot be judged by conventional standards. The behavior signifies something entirely different to those involved in it than it does to those on the outside. Farr explains that there is no one correct interpretation of the slaps and posturing that characterizes this form of sex play.

It is a purely personal response. And the personal is not political.

Pornography is violence against women, as a class, who must live in fear because of the
atmosphere of terror that it creates.

An assumption underlies this claim: namely, that women are not individuals, but members of a class with collective interests. Radical feminists claim to have discovered the correct collective class will of women. They have uncovered the sexually correct choice that every woman should make. They have also revealed the enemy: men as a class.

If men object to being lumped together as oppressors, they are ignored. They are seen as simply defending
their
collective class interests. If individual women object to being denied access to pornography, they are ignored. Obviously, such women have been psychologically damaged by patriarchy and no longer know their own minds. They no longer perceive their own class interest.

To radical feminists, individual freedom creates a natural disharmony of interests among women.

After all, if a woman can make her own sexual choice without infringing on the equal right of another woman to choose, then there are no collective interests -just individuals peacefully pursuing their own visions. Such a possibility would destroy the structure of class rights.

To condemn pornography, radical feminists must condemn the concept of individuality. They must deny that personal choices are personal.

This is the message behind phrases like the "collective rights" and "the class interests" of woman: The choices of individuals must be subordinated. The correct class choice must be enforced. And this correct choice can be discerned only by the politically enlightened, the politically elite. The arrogance of this attitude is astounding.

Denying sexual choice to women is an accusation commonly hurled at patriarchy. Now radical feminists are doing the same thing. They clothe their actions by claiming that wrong decisions are not real ones, but merely the reflection of patriarchy.

What is really being reflected is antiporn feminism's contempt for anyone-even women-who disagree.

64

SELF-CONTRADICTIONS WITHIN ANTIPORN FEMINISM

As vigorously as radical feminists attack pro-sex arguments, they seem strangely blind to flaws in their own position. It is difficult to imagine how any woman with intellectual honesty could miss the contradictions and inconsistencies of the antiporn position. These contradictions include:

· Radical feminists claim that pornography is a civil rights violation, and therefore not protected under the First Amendment. It is not political or social speech; it is an abuse of speech. Yet they also argue that pornography is one of the main expressions of patriarchy, which is a political system. The more they rail against pornography as a prop of patriarchy, the more it resembles precisely the type of political expression meant to be protected by the First Amendment.

· Radical feminists are committed to "validating" the experiences of women who have been silenced by patriarchy. They are determined to rediscover women's history, or "herstory," through which the voices of real women will finally be heard. Yet they vigorously dismiss the voices of women who choose to participate in pornography.

· Pornography-is said to be a bastion of patriarchy and, thus, the enemy of women's rights.

Conservatives, who are said to support patriarchy, also oppose women's rights. If both statements are true, why do conservatives crusade against pornography?

· On the other hand, pornography is anti-family in that it breaks the traditional ties between sex and motherhood, sex and marriage. Since radical feminists consider the family to be a building block of patriarchy, why aren't they pleased to see it under attack? How can pornography attack family values
and
support patriarchy at the same time?

· Antiporn feminism touts the natural power of women, but it seems to have political interest in women as "victims." Even powerful women, like porn producer Candida Royalle, who is also on the board of Feminists for Free Expression, are seen as pathetic pawns of men. Which is true: Are women powerful beings or are they natural victims?

· Censorship is used by those who have power against those who do not. By radical feminists' own standards, censorship will be used by men who control the state against women who do not. If the patriarchal state is
the
problem, how can it intervene on women's behalf? Nevertheless, radical feminists
must
use the state. They wish to force their code of conduct on others. They do not wish to persuade or educate, because it is unlikely that either of these peaceful tactics would completely eliminate pornography.

Only force can do this. Only the state can provide it.

· If pornography disappeared tomorrow, our culture would still be flooded with images of women that many would consider degrading and humiliating. To be consistent, radical feminists have to call for banning sexually incorrect TV, literature, art, and advertising.

The fact that they have been fairly quiet on this point may well be a matter of strategy.

Pornography is an easy target compared to the evening news.

· Radical feminists draw a distinction between pornography (which is anti-woman) and erotica (which is pro-woman). They glowingly describe what constitutes erotica. Yet, by their own standards, they can have no idea of what erotica would look like. By their own admission, it would be created by a postcapitalist, postpatriarchal society, which does not exist. Nor can they claim to know what women will want sexually once patriarchy has been swept away. Of course, this does not prevent radical feminists from describing in 65

detail how women would sexually react without patriarchy. They seem to have a vision of the future that is denied to the rest of us.

CRITIQUE OF ANTIPORNOGRAPHY RESEARCH

The methodology of the antipornography crusaders is as flawed as their ideology. Theories are paraded as fact.
Ad hominem
attacks take the place of arguments. Instead of blind studies or hard statistics, antiporn feminists give broad overview of how women have been portrayed in literature and art. Objectivity is either openly scorned as a "male characteristic" or simply ignored.

For example, the huge tome entitled
Sourcebook on Pornogra
phy purports to give a balanced overview of the issue, complete with chapters on "civil libertarians" and other advocates of sexual freedom. Nevertheless, Chapter One opens: "Pornography is an $8 billion a year business that legitimizes and encourages rape, torture, and degradation of women. It is created by filming real or simulated sexually explicit acts of sexual torture, abuse, degradation or terrorism against real people." [16]

Radical feminism is an ideology in search of supporting facts. And to their credit, antipornography feminists usually make no pretense of fairness.

An example of their open prejudice occurred at a purportedly "unbiased" conference on prostitution held in fall 1992 at the University of Michigan Law School, where Catharine MacKinnon teaches. All of the conference speakers opposed legalizing prostitution.

Nevertheless, the students who had organized the conference set up an exhibit which presented a range of views on prostitution-some favorable. The students were forced to dismantle the exhibit.

Dissenting views-even on the sidelines, even from the feminist organizers of the conference-were not to be permitted.

From the large pool of research and perspectives, radical feminists draw only upon those sources that support their conclusions. They are fond of validating the Reagan-sponsored Meese Commission Report, while totally ignoring the 1970 Presidential Commission on Pornography assembled by Nixon to condemn porn. This despite the fact that the 1970 Commission was far more thorough than the Meese Commission.

The 1970 Commission funded a survey of 2,486 adults and 769 young people to determine the extent to which pornography was damaging them. To the question, Would you please tell me what you think are the two or three most serious problems facing the country today? only two percent of respondents expressed a concern over pornography. Twenty-four percent said porn gave them "information about sex." Ten percent said it improved their sexual relations. Those who reported recent exposure to pornography tended to report positive effects. Moreover, the vast majority of experts consulted did not draw a connection between pornography and social harm.

The 1970 Commission also studied crime rates. It found that although sexual material became seven times more available between 1960 to 1969, sexual crimes by juveniles decreased during that period. Nevertheless-perhaps sensitive to the fact that their official
raison d'•tre
was to condemn porn-the Commission backed away from saying there was no connection between pornography and violence. It stated instead: