Readers Write: Calling for an Open Discussion of Mass-Marketed Pornography

"Both women and men might understandably be afraid of confronting what pornography tells us about the cruelty of our culture, our own sexual socialization and the difficult struggles we face to create a world free of sexual violence. That fear is real, and all the more reason to confront the issue of pornography more openly." So concludes Robert Jensen in his article "A Call for an Open Discussion of Mass-Marketed Pornography," which has generated more than 400 comments of reader discussion. Jensen argues that we must go beyond our aversion to anything resembling censorship and take a serious look at the social harms of the porn industry.

Commenter igoeja countered Jensen on psychological grounds:

"The last time I reviewed the American Psychological Association (APA) abstracts for studies on pornography, as opposed to the feminist rhetoric that had I read in the early '80s, I found that pornography was essentially positive and correlated with the following:

• liberal attitudes
• a large reduction in sex crime, as when the Netherlands allowed pornography to be sold over the counter
• orgasm and sexual responsiveness in women

Men and women respond similarly to most forms of pornography, and dislike of pornography tended to occur in women that were victims of sexual abuse and/or raped. Pornography is a good thing, and if you dislike it, you need to examine society, not its expression.

Naryaquid responded, "You don't know what you are talking about. Twenty two years ago, feminists visited "adult bookstores" and found whole units devoted to "MUTILATION." Anyone who has studied the progression of porn since the '70s and '80s finds a MARKED increase in both physical and psychological brutality, example RAPE, TORTURE, MURDER. Women do NOT get aroused (unless they are very sick) by pictures of them being URINATED on, physically BRUTALIZED and very degraded, e.g., with terms like "SLUT" "Whore" etc., while being beaten and RAPED. You're either "playing innocent" or are in the dark about the recent (and not so recent) content of porn."

A lot of commenters followed up on this reaction, including jshubbub, who wrote: "I would suspect that most adult bookstores do not have whole units devoted to mutilation. I've been in a few said establishments over the course of my life and have yet to see anything like that. There certainly are fetishistic forms of pornography that deal with extremely distasteful (and often brutal) subject matter, but they are the exception and not the rule. I'm not saying that there aren't any problems to be addressed in pornography, but be careful about how broad a brush you're painting with. Most pornography is overtly consensual and at least provides the appearance of being pleasurable to all participants."

In another thread, schmoopy wanted Jensen to define the terms of argument more clearly:

The basic problem with having an "honest discussion" of this topic or any other is that both sides typically begin with the assumption that everyone knows exactly what they're talking about.

Reading this column, I have no problem with having an open and honest discussion of pornography, but what, exactly, is pornography? Does that include Playboy magazine and hardcore S/M and everything in between, or are we more concerned with the really hardcore stuff? In my part of the world, there are those that consider the SI swimsuit issue pornography and exploitative of women. Is this something to be included in the discussion? Are all pictures of naked ladies pornography? What about naked men?

Diplomacy is largely the art of compromise, and there can be no compromise if both sides are locked into their ways of thinking and unwilling to consider and be open to other ideas. This begins by being crystal clear about what you're saying and what you mean.

Zarquan followed up on schmoopy's post with the following:

When opinion ranges from regarding a Victoria's Secret catalog as soul-killing pornography on the one hand, to excusing depictions of people being involuntarily tortured and degraded on the other, it's hard to find common ground. I'm sure there is some -- maybe a even lot of -- truly horrible stuff out there. The evil stuff does not somehow slop over and contaminate everything else. I've heard plenty of vicious denunciations and hyperbole directed at innocuous material -- material that would be tame by even U.S. standards in the 1950s.

Something is not necessarily evil because you personally find it distasteful. And it's not morally neutral just because you happen to like it. Labeling all depictions of nudity or sexual behavior "pornography" makes it hard to deal with the issue, which, as I see it, is, "who is being harmed?" "Harm" can be subtle, and its existence becomes quite nebulous toward the edges. The deplorable trend toward coarseness in our culture is strong and seemingly growing stronger all the time. Of course there is a difference between what we have a right to do and what we actually ought to do. I don't see that shrill and extreme assertions -- at either end of the discussion -- help matters.

Commenter YogiBear wondered why Jensen was limiting his argument to pornography only, when television has the greater social power:

I think regular TV is more damaging than pornography. I mean, how many women do you know who imitate what women in porn do? One? None? But the way women act on TV, such as music videos? Every other teenaged girl in the country has a video on YouTube shaking her ass for the camera. And as long as they don't let a nipple show, the censors consider it kosher.

A very common response to Jensen's piece was that he didn't make any distinctions between "soft" and "hard" pornography. PT Alden aruges that we must take in the matter of degree:

There is definitely porn that exploits men, women, children and even animals. There is also porn that is clearly abusive, and at its extreme, homicidal, (i.e., "snuff" films.)

But there is porn where nobody gets hurt. I've known guys who did gay porn because they wanted to. They had fun and it made them feel good that they might bring someone pleasure. I've personally known people who have done spanking films because they enjoyed it and had no inhibitions about getting spanked on film.

There is abusive porn without a doubt, but not all porn is that way. Also, many people who bad-mouth porn are total hypocrites who use the stuff on a regular basis.

We need to protect people from abuse all around the world, which is likely impossible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work hard to reduce it as much as possible.

But I disagree with any argument that lumps all porn into a single category. Like most things in this world, it's a varied and complex topic. It cannot be fully defined by an article, a magazine, a single book or even a single conference.

Many other commenters found that Jensen's article was too "vague" or "superficial." Guy's comment is illustrative: