Mike's Rants

In Defense of Pornography

Let's start by sweeping away any doubt about where I stand on pornography: I like porno. I've watched porno, and I continue to watch porno. I'm not yet on a first name basis with the guys down at the local adult video store, but I'm getting there. Moreover, Rebecca and I are one of those couples that will watch porno together (until we start getting excited enough to make some pornographic moves of our own).

Now, it's not easy in this society to stand up in public and proudly state that one is a consumer of pornography. Some will smirk and assume that I'm a loser because they associate pornography with lonely middle-aged men for whom the porno is their entertainment while they spank the monkey in solitude (see Jackin World for more about the tradition of masturbation). Others will become uncomfortable and refuse to either agree with me or condemn me (which means that they watch it too, but they don't want anyone to know). Still others (mostly the religious folks) will unleash a sermon about the evils of pornography, generalizing about the entire genre based on its worst elements, quoting the Bible, and warning of Hellfire and brimstone.

I would therefore like to submit, for your viewing, a list of common arguments in favour of banning pornography and/or shunning those who watch it, as well as my remarks on the irrationality of those arguments. Note that in virtually every argument, one can fashion an effective rebuttal by simply applying the same "logic" to mainstream television and movies:

"Pornography exploits children". Obviously, this assumes that all porno is child porno, which is a totally unreasonable generalization. I've seen a lot of porno, but I've never seen child porno. Snuff films exploit death; does this somehow mean that we should ban action movies?
"Pornography degrades women". Again, this is an unreasonable generalization. It is unfortunately true that some porno depicts women as mere objects of sexual exploitation (although it should be noted that some porno also degrades men, particularly the sadomasochist porn in which a female "dominatrix" humiliates and abuses male "slaves"). However, one can't generalize about porno based on its worst examples, any more than one should generalize about mainstream films based on movies which glorify violence or promote and/or affirm racial stereotypes. If we should ban all pornography which depicts acts of sexual assault and domination, should we also ban all movies which glorify violence?
"When people view pornography, it is more likely that they will commit sexual assault." It is infuriating that this is almost always stated as a fact, even though there is no supporting evidence for this conclusion (even the shaky statistical correlations favoured by sociologists don't exist). We are reminded that most rape involves porno, but that proves nothing because porno is a multi-billion dollar business with many tens of millions of customers, the vast majority of whom are not rapists. In fact, there are numerous European countries in which both pornography and prostitution are widespread and legal, yet the incidence of rape is much lower than it is in America (in Germany, for example, explicit pornography and prostitution are both legal, yet it has less than one quarter of America's rate of sexual assault). Furthermore, even if we do accept these grossly unscientific claims of a causal relationship, this kind of reasoning is equally applicable to mainstream films which depict violence or promote or affirm racial and sexual stereotypes; should we ban them too?
"Pornography promotes a distorted, unrealistic view of sexuality". This is true, but mainstream films promote distorted, unrealistic views of every other aspect of life, don't they? There's nothing wrong with that, as long as everybody knows it. That, of course, leads to the fact that sex education must be liberated from the clutches of the asinine "family values" people, whose idea of family values is apparently to conceal information from their children, thus leaving them woefully unprepared for the sexual aspect of their adult life. Adolescents will see pornography sooner or later whether you like it or not, but if they've already been educated, then they'll know exactly how and where it's unrealistic, so it won't become their impromptu sex education teacher.
"People can grow addicted to pornography, to the point where that they won't go for an extended duration without watching it". The same could be said of mainstream television, or for that manner, anything which is particularly enjoyable. But an addiction is only unhealthy if it has destructive effects, and I reiterate that there is no evidence whatsoever for pornography's supposedly destructive effects. It is possible for someone to begin obsessing over it and spending too much time on it, but the same could be said of fanaticism about any other hobby or genre of entertainment, such as comic books, science fiction, or automobile restoration.
"People tend to get jaded by pornography, so that they need progressively more and more explicit material in order to induce arousal". This argument is based on experiments in which test subjects who watched pornography for extended periods required progressively more explicit material in order to maintain arousal. However, the same effect is also observed with many other forms of environmental stimuli such as violent movies or even smells and tastes; should we ban them all? It's part of our nature (the human brain is a pattern recognition machine, and it becomes bored with repetition so we tend to demand variety and escalation), and there is no rational reason to blame pornography for the fact that it is no exception to this phenomenon.
"Pornography erodes the traditional values of our grandparents". This is the standard right-wing religious fundamentalist moron argument. However, the "traditional values" of our grandparents were often abhorrent (for example, racism and religious intolerance, both of which were widely accepted in their era). Furthremore, pornography is not a new phenomenon; it dates back, in various forms, to virtually the dawn of recorded civilization (I've seen porn from the 1940s; it wasn't particularly exciting, but it was interesting from an historical perspective). Moreover, the consensus among psychologists is that sexual repression causes far more social damage than pornography, particularly with respect to its corrosive effect on marriages, in which sexual dissatisfaction often results directly from puritanical attitudes.
"Women in the porno industry are being beaten and raped." I'm sure this has happened. However, it is an extreme hasty generalization to assume that therefore, all pornography is based upon women who are beaten and raped. Moreover, we should remember that while abuses may exist, there are a lot of women in the porno industry who are well treated, and for whom it has been a highly lucrative career. Top-billed porno actresses make a lot of money for what they do, and they make even more money touring the country. No one is suggesting that people in the porno industry should be immune from prosecution if they beat and rape their actresses, since those actions would be criminal. However, generalizing about all pornography on the basis of its seediest producers and then using them as an excuse to punish the entire industry is completely illogical.

In the end, after all the hand-wringing and pseudoscientific psychobabble, the majority of anti-pornography arguments have a religious basis. As such, attempts to ban pornography represent an attempt to impose religious law upon the secular state and all of its citizens, regardless of their own religious beliefs. In other words, anti-pornography laws represent overt attempts to run democratic, secular nations like Christian theocracies. This can be seen in common arguments for and against pornography (for example, see the list of arguments for and against bans on pornography at debateinfo.com).

If you are curious about the social debate raging around the issue of pornography and censorship in our puritanical society, you might also want to check out the California State University Northridge psychology department's lists of arguments for and against banning pornography.

My personal take on the censorship issue is simple: censorship should be used to keep people from profiting from criminal actions, but not simply for the sake of suppressing explicit depictions of sex. For example, child porn must be censored because children are not competent to give consent, therefore purveyors of such material would be profiting from statutory rape. But if my wife and I want to watch "Gangbang Girl #14: a Day at the Construction Yard", in which every performer was a well paid, consenting adult, then no one is profiting from criminal actions, no children are being exploited, and nobody should stick his damned nose in our private business!

Problems with Porno

I defend our right to buy and rent pornography if we want to, but I do have one serious complaint about the porno industry: most porno is shit. The shelves of the average adult video store are full of unimaginative, poorly produced garbage which promotes arrested-adolescent ideas about how all women secretly want to be sexually dominated by rude, uncouth men. A lot of porno movies depict women who don't really appear to be enjoying themselves. But rather than proving the need to "crack down" on porno, this actually demonstrates the need to bring it out into the open. Pornography is not perceived as a mainstream product; since most consumers of pornography are males who keep it a secret from their wives or girlfriends, it is used not as a device for mutual entertainment, but as a release valve for sexual repression, frustration, or aggression.

If a man doesn't try to keep pornography secret from his wife, a lot of interesting things happen. First and foremost, he will be inclined to keep or rent only pornography which she would not find objectionable, thus giving more money to the people who produce good pornography and less money to the people who produce bad pornography. One might argue that he might start keeping "good" porn where his wife can see it and "bad" porn where she can't, but watching porno with your wife is far more enjoyable than watching it by yourself, so it's much more likely that he'll start learning what kinds of porno will turn his wife on.

If millions of couples learned to watch porno together, the purveyors of "raincoat porn" would find their income stream drying up, and their type of porn would disappear not because of censorship, but because the public simply used its buying power to push the industry in the right direction. Moreover, women might even find that they like it, particularly if they become a market force and push the shitty porn producers out of the limelight. But most importantly, it would be one less secret between couples, and you don't need a PhD in psychology to know that secrets between lovers are a relationship killer.

Unfortunately, the scenario I describe above is atypical. The majority of porno sales go to men who will watch it alone and in secret, and that's why a lot of it sucks. The Max Hardcore movies, for example, are downright awful; the women are treated badly, and Max himself is an asshole. Lots of other series are similarly bad, so it's not at all easy to find pornography that one can watch with a partner.

In Search of Better Porn!

Since a lot of pornography is shit, I would like to make a few suggestions to the porn producers of North America:

Enough with the female degradation already! That exploitative nonsense of calling the woman a whore and a bitch during sex is really offensive, as are those slapping, hair-pulling, and choking moves common to "raincoater" porno. Exploitative garbage such as Max Hardcore's shit movies merely give Bible thumping sexual puritans an excuse to make hasty generalizations about the entire porno industry.
There are three classes of porno: the raincoater sicko crap (see point #1 above), the mushy quasi-softcore porno which is meant for easily offended women (yawn), and hardcore but inoffensive porno. Decent porno isn't dull like the softcore stuff, it is watchable by men or women, it can be kinky or even raunchy but it doesn't engage in female degradation, the director knows how to use a camera, and the audio/video quality doesn't suck. For examples of decent porno, see the bigger-budget European porn, especially the films directed by Marc Dorcel.
Never spend more than 5 seconds at a time on a close-up of genitals during sex. We're trying to watch people having sex, not a damned anatomy lesson. There's a lot more to sex than genitals slapping against each other, but you wouldn't know that from a lot of the pornography out there.
Show us why the people are having sex! Silly fantasies about the naughty nurse or the female speeder who tries to convince a cop not to give her a ticket are cheesy, but they're still better than simply starting a sex scene with two naked people who are already going at it.
Get rid of all the goddamned ugly guys. In 80% of porno movies, the women are gorgeous but the men look like shit. This isn't a problem for guys who rent porno so they can jerk off in solitude, but it is a big problem for guys who want to watch with their wives or girlfriends. Ron Jeremy has his fans, but I'm willing to bet that none of them are women.
Please, please use decent music! Few things are more annoying in bad porno than the fucking 15 second music loop.
No more goddamned analingus! Not only is the very idea of tonguing somebody's asshole disgusting, but it is also medically unwise. There are a lot of bacteria in that part of your body, and porno has enough public relations problems without encouraging unhealthy behaviour. It's even worse when they switch roles; nobody wants to see a woman licking a man's hairy ass!
If you're trying to make a big-budget porno film, don't just make everything dark and gloomy! I know the "art house" set thinks of gloomy nihilism as a prerequisite for dramatic credibility, but if I wanted to see art house movies, I would watch art house movies (and after I watched enough art house movies, I'd probably slit my wrists so I wouldn't have to endure them any more). Sex is supposed to be fun, and movies about sex should also be fun. If you've got a big budget to work with, try to make a sex comedy or a raunchy romance, rather than a gloomy, dark movie about self-hating women and angry men.
Don't try to compete with Hollywood! People don't watch porno for the same reasons they watch regular movies, and even the most lavishly produced porno movie in history will never rise above the B-movie level. Even a light-hearted plot can kill a porno movie if it consumes too much of the film, so keep the plot to sex ratio low. That's why a lot of the better porn is of the "vignette" style, consisting of numerous short stories in which 1 minute of plot is followed by 20 minutes of sex. Just the way we'd like it to be in real life :)
Try to cut down on the mega-sluts. It's much sexier to see a nice girl who has to get cajoled and prodded and teased and begged into doing naughty things, as opposed to one of those "skank whore" types. Ask yourself what kind of girl you'd go after in real life. Would you really go after the skankiest, easiest slut in the whole place, or the sexy but demure girl?

So there you have it: my list of recommendations for improving porno. If you agree, great! Support decent porno by renting or buying it, because otherwise, the consumer base of porno will still be skewed toward the sicko raincoater crowd. If you know somebody who's in the porno business, even better! Try to talk them into improving the product. And if you are inclined to judge me harshly for the "immorality" of watching porno ... blow me. There is nothing immoral about decent porno (don't even think of quoting Bible passages to me), and I don't watch the raincoater sicko shit.

PS. See my Porn Reviews on CheerfulAtheist.Com.

Last changed: 2007/03/31

Continue to Amway = Wrong Way

Jump to: