XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography (8 page)

Consider the opening of
Only Words: "You
grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs. When you are older, your husband ties you to the bed and drips hot wax on your nipples ... and makes 30

you smile through it." [5] Ms. MacKinnon springboards from this scenario into a discussion and definition of porn.

In January/February 1994, Ms. magazine featured the issue of pornography. In an open discussion between a group of feminists, the following definitions were offered: "Pornography is the use of sex to intimidate and/or control women and children.... It has to do with depicting something that is violent and possibly life threatening for entertainment." -

Ntozake Shange

"I look at pornography as a system and practice of prostitution, as evidence of women's second class status. It is a central feature of patriarchal society." -Norma Ramos "Pornography is the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women that includes one of a series of scenarios, from women being dehumanized-turned into objects and commodities-through women showing pleasure in being raped, through the dismemberment in a way that makes the dismemberment sexual." -Andrea Dworkin [6]

Radical feminism's current definition of pornography is the logical outgrowth of its view of heterosexual sex, which was well expressed over a decade ago by Andrea Dworkin. Throughout her still-classic book
Pornography: Men Possessing Women,
Dworkin's diatribe on men and heterosexuality borders on hate mongering. "Men develop a strong loyalty to violence. Men must come to terms with violence because it is the prime component of male identity." (p. 51) "The immutable self of the male boils down to an utterly unselfconscious parasitism." (p. 13) "Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimized by it." (p. 53) "Men want women to be objects, controllable as objects are controllable." (p. 65) [7] Dworkin's 1988 book,
Letters from a War Zone,
continues this theme by presenting marriage as prostitution and romance as rape.

The bridge linking these two positions-the rejection of heterosexuality and the definition of pornography as violence was forged in 1983 with the proposed Minneapolis AntiPornography Ordinance. This remains the touchstone definition used by the antiporn forces. Because it was a watershed, I quote it in full:

(gg)
Pornography.
Pornography is a form of discrimination on the basis of sex. (1) Pornography is the sexually explicit subordination of women, graphically depicted, whether in pictures or in words, that also includes one or more of the following: (i) women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects, things or commodities; or (ii) women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation; or (iii) women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or

(iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or (v) women are presented in postures of sexual submission; [or sexual servility, including by inviting penetration] or

(vi) women's body parts-including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, and buttocks-are exhibited, such that women are reduced to those parts; or

(vii) women are presented as whores by nature; or (viii) women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or

(ix) women are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, abasement, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual. [8]

Several aspects of this definition cannot pass without comment. First, the set-up to this analysis of pornography baldly and stipulatively defines it as "discrimination based on sex" and the 31

"sexually explicit subordination of women." This is not a definition; it is a conclusion, and one that is offered without argument or evidence.

Next, the specific images that constitute pornography are described in extremely subjective and value-laden terms, such as "dehumanized," "humiliation," "degradation," and "whores by nature." What do these terms mean? Humiliation means something different to every single woman. And short of a woman's waving a handful of cash while having sex it is difficult to even imagine what the phrase "whore by nature" means.

Moreover, some of the images covered by the definition go far beyond what can reasonably be considered pornographic. For example, "women's body parts . . . are exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts." This description would include everything from blue jean commercials which zoom in on women's asses to cream ads which show perfectly manicured hands applying the lotion-the sort of advertisements that have appeared in Ms. magazine.

Although it is commonplace to criticize such ads for using sex to sell products, it is a real stretch to call them pornographic.

Further, although pornography is predefined as a form of violence against women, several clauses of this definition have nothing to do with such abuse. Instead, they deal with explicit sexual contente.g. women as sex objects who "invite penetration." This is more of an attack on heterosexual sex than it is on pornography. After all, if there isn't an "invitation to penetration,"

how can the man know that consent is present?

Other clauses merely refer to images that reflect specific erotic preferences, such as buttocks or breasts.

The ordinance's definition goes far beyond defining pornography, and well into mandating what is sexually correct to see, hear, and express.

PORNOGRAPHY VERSUS EROTICA

Words define the parameters of debate. They control thought itself. George Orwell described this process as NewSpeak in his book 1984, which described a totalitarian societal nightmare. The ultimate goal of NewSpeak was to construct a language such that it was impossible to utter an "incorrect" sentence.

Part of the antiporn attempt to control the debate has been the forced distinction they've drawn between pornography and erotica. Basically, pornography is nasty; erotica is healthy. What exactly constitutes erotica is never clearly expressed. It is merely described as life affirming, while pornography is decried as degrading.

In the book
Confronting Pornography,
Jill Ridington offers her dividing line between the two types of sexual expression:

"If the message is one that equates sex with domination, or with the infliction of pain, or one that denies sex as a means of human communication, the message is a pornographic one.... Erotica, in contrast, portrays mutual interaction." [9]

Is there a real distinction between pornography and erotica? And why does it matter?

Let me draw a parallel. A friend and I have a pleasant disagreement about whether there is a distinction between science fiction and fantasy. These two types of writing are often lumped together, with many books combining elements of both. Although the debate may be fruitless, it is good-natured and of no great consequence.

Not so with the current mania for distinguishing between erotica and pornography. The debate over where to draw the line between these two forms of literature is anything but good-natured.

When that line is drawn, those who fall on the wrong side of it may well be arrested and imprisoned by those who control the definitions.

32

The entire process resembles a scene from Lewis Carroll's
Alice in Wonderland:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

Humpty Dumpty was engaging in what has been called "stipulative definitions"-namely, the sort of definition which makes the word mean anything you want it to. For example, arbitrarily redefining pornography from common usage-"sex books and sex movies"-to the sexually correct meaning of "an act of rape."

Fortunately, some feminists, like Joanna Russ in
Magic Mommas, Trembling Sisters, Puritans
and Perverts,
are applying common sense rather than ideology to this distinction: "Until recently I assumed ... that àrt' is better than 'Pornography' just as èrotica' is one thing and `pornography' another; and just as èrotica' surpasses `pornography,' so àrt' surpasses èrotica.' I think we ought to be very suspicious of these distinctions insofar as they are put forward as moral distinctions. " [10]

With such a Wonderland of definitions floating about, it is prudent to take a step backward and ask, What constitutes a proper definition of anything?

DEFINING A DEFINITION

At the risk of sounding like an instructor of Logic 101, let me run the word
pornography
through a definitional process.

A good definition consists of two basic components:

The
definiendum.
This is the word or concept being defined. In the tentative definition "pornography is sexually explicit literature," the term
pornography is
the definiendum; The
definiens.
This is the defining part of the definition. In "pornography is sexually explicit literature," the phrase "sexually explicit literature" is the definiens.

The process of defining a word involves analyzing it in several ways: What is the
genus?
That is, what is the general class or category to which the word belongs? In
"pornography is sexually explicit literature
," the term
literature is
the genus. It is the wider category to which
pornography
belongs. Once the broad context for
pornography
has been established, the process of definition becomes a matter of narrowing things down. The next question becomes:

What is the
differentia?
That is, what distinguishes
pornogra
phy from all other forms of literature? What essential characteristics make pornography different from murder mysteries or historical novels?

Establishing the differentia means following certain rules, the most basic of which are: 1. The essential characteristics-or the common denominator found in all instances of the definiendum-cannot be too broad. Consider the definition "human beings are animals that walk on two legs." Since gorillas also walk on two legs, this differentia is too broad.

2. The essential characteristics should not be too narrow. Thus, "human beings are animals that negotiate contracts" is too narrow because it excludes those people who have never signed a contract.

To state these two principles in one sentence: The definition should apply to all possible cases, and only to those cases.

By these standards, definitions can be regarded as either true or false. Competing definitions can be evaluated as better or worse.

33

WHAT IS PORNOGRAPHY?

I propose a value-neutral definition:
Pornography
is
the explicit artistic depiction of men and/or
women as sexual beings.
The modifier
explicit
excludes such gray areas as women's romance novels. The modifier
artistic
distinguishes pornography from psychological analyses of sex, such as those found in Freudian textbooks. The term
depiction
includes a wide range of expression, including paintings, literature, and videos. Thus, the genus of my definition of pornography is "the explicit artistic depiction.

The differentia is "of men and/or women as sexual beings." This means that pornography is the genre of art or literature that focuses on the sexual nature of human beings. This does not mean pornography cannot present people as full well rounded human beings.
But,
in order for the piece of art to be part of the "genre" of pornography, it must explicitly emphasize their sexuality.

Two things are missing from my definition of
pornography,
which are generally found elsewhere. It is common to refer to pornography as "material intended to sexually arouse"; I have excluded the intention of the author or producer. I have also excluded the reaction of the reader or viewer.

In other words, I claim that
The Tropic of Cancer is
inherently pornographic, quite apart from Henry Miller's intentions. To put this in another way: What if Miller protested that he was doing a political commentary on fascism, not a piece of pornography? Would his intention somehow convert the book into a work of political science? By my definition, no.
The Tropic of Cancer
would be a work of pornography whether or not Miller had hoped to achieve something else.

Equally, what if a reader became tremendously aroused by
Animal Farm
and not at all by Miller's book? The reader's response would not alter the fact that Miller, not Orwell, is the one presenting pornography.

"Pornography is the explicit artistic depiction of men and/or women as sexual beings."
This is not merely a working definition. It is a definition I propose as a new and neutral starting point for a more fruitful discussion of pornography.

IS PORNOGRAPHY GOOD OR BAD?

With a working definition in place, it is possible to move on to the next question, Is pornography good or bad? This question is usually asked in one of two manners: 1. Is the explicit depiction of sex,
in general,
a good or bad thing?

Opinions on this range widely. At one extreme are the Religious Right and the antiporn feminists, who condemn any graphic expression of sexuality, including straightforward nudity.

At another extreme are those people who view any sexual censorship as being far worse than pornography could ever be. Most people fall in the middle. They tend to judge pornography on a case-by-case basis.

2. Is a
specific
piece of pornography good or bad art?

This is an aesthetic question. It revolves around identifying the major themes being expressed and evaluating how well the themes have been executed.