Questions regarding violence in porn normally focus on any consequences suffered by performers during production. What, if anything, is the effect on consumers who choose to watch violent and/or degrading pornography?
The radical libertarian view is that people aren’t affected by the media they consume. Advocates point toward the preponderance of violent material in Japan, and the majority of studies (all I know of) fail to make a robust connection between porn and crime. The imagined confluence of porn and rape, long supported by the far right and radical feminists, hinges on an assumed lust = passion = aggression = violence connection that’s never been proved.
The counter argument runs that media influence on behavior is almost total. Gay teachers create gay pupils and GTA: San Andreas encourages cop-killing and car-jacking. Advocates point at rapists who collect porn and analyze killer’s record collections for violent lyrics. For all its appeal, on both the far left and extreme right, the argument falls flat when the media consumption of the majority is compared to the media consumption of the criminal minority – on aggregate no differences are seen.
That would be the end of the debate, and is for many pornographers, were it not for the voice of money. The advertising industry continually demonstrates an ability to affect attitudes and behavior. American politicians view TV ads as the key to motivating voters and given enough time, a society itself can be changed by well targeted propaganda (counter to a tradition of arranged marriages, Japan has adopted the diamond as an essential token of romantic love in response to a 40 year – and counting – ad campaign by DeBeers)
If the global advertising industry isn’t a total sham and media does affect thinking, do pornographers have a responsibility to consider the societal impact of the material they produce? If Hollywood can sell us simulated images of crime, safe in the knowledge we’re not going to behave as its characters do, should pornographers have the same liberty as mainstream filmmakers to simulate whatever they want to, however taboo it may be (rape, murder, pedophilia etc.)? If not, why not?
Popularity: 41% [?]
I think part of the reason Hollywood filmmakers feel free to simulate violence and disturbing themes is that most people are given a firm grounding in reality and ethics and taught that appropriate behavior reality and fantasy (any form of storytelling media) are different.
The other reason is why I chose the phrase “storytelling media;” generally the goal of a mainstream movie is to tell some kind of story (or sell tickets so people can watch Vin Diesel’s ass and see things go boom).
I think if parents grew up educating their kids that porn is about sexual fantasy, not reality, porn producers could comfortably take a similar stance. As it is we still see people arguing that porn (a product illegal to sell to minors) has a responsibility to sexually educate minors in respectful, realistic behavior.
It seems like a lot of people instinctively feel that reinforcing an idea with an orgasm can lead to seeing it in a different, more pleasurable light. Basic conditioning. This is entirely possible, but from personal experimentation I think the effect would be pretty weak if the latent tendencies weren’t already there – and if they were, something else with artistic merit might bring them out just as easily.
I guess that’s a vote for behaving ethically without taking inappropriate responsibility, but instead educating the public on porn’s purpose and that porn sex is fantasy sex – it’s not better sex or the sex anyone is “supposed” to have. Basic stuff, yeah, but it’s still news to a lot of people.
I wouldn’t go as far as to suggest that somebody who watches, let’s say, one of the offerings on Waterbondage will go around tying people up and dunking them. Something needs to be a little fucked up in an person’s head for him to start using porn as guidance. (Not to say it can’t possibly happen, because there are enough wackjobs around, but if it did, I don’t think the porn-makers should all be departing on an organised guilt-trip.)
On the other hand, I believe the Pornographic Noosphere has certain influence over what becomes acceptable or expected in your lay porn consumer’s sex life. That’s to say, if certain acts are de rigeur in porn, perhaps this raises the expectations the consumer has of their sex partner.
“Everybody shaves, why won’t you?” “Doesn’t, like, *everybody* have anal sex these days?”
Things like that.
Didn’t mean to get so off-topic there. Okay… I think if porn is going to touch on taboo topics it should do so in a responsible way: in the context of a story, or in a less plot-oriented scene that leaves no doubt that the disturbing aspects are fantasy and that everyone’s okay. Lorelei’s forcefantasies.com homegrown site does that very well – she has outtakes, campy shoots mixed in with more intense ones, and a very personal approach.
Sam,
love your blog and the way you blog.
However, i don’t think the tag “radical libertarian” applies to the premise “people aren’t affected by the media they consume.”
The libertarian view would be that even if people are affected by the media they consume, it is there right to consume it as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
quadszilla – thanks for the compliment and point taken. ‘it does not infringe the rights of others’ isn’t true if media affects behavior as a result. In that case you could rights could be infringed by simply viewing content.
“I think if parents grew up educating their kids that porn is about sexual fantasy, not reality, ”
There is a world of difference between the pretend violence in mainstream movies and the actual sex in pornography.
Real versus fantasy… My real life is many folks fantasy and they want it to be their real life as well. Now my content is very different than the extreme sites and emphasizes education, experience, trust and communication among other things, but it is not a lifestyle I would encourage people to enter blindly. It has consequences.
And like Tony said porn is about actual sex and mainstream movies are not. Not sure that we can try to model the porn industry after Hollywood.
Seska – I’m not sure porn’s fantasy when it’s so WYSIWYG (I’m not sure of Tony’s angle so I’ll leave his comment alone).
I’m not suggesting modeling porn on Hollywood but I think it’s fair to draw parallels – there’s a great deal of similarity along with the obvious differences.
If we claim porn is so different, aren’t we responsible for building our own model. If we have – shouldn’t we be ashamed of the result?
Hypothetical:
A woman becomes pregnant while on a porn set.
She decided to bear and raise the child.
Her scene-partner’s paternity is established by DNA testing.
My layman’s understanding of the law leads me to believe that her scene partner is legal obligated to support the child.
If not legal, does the producer have any ethical or moral obligation to this child?
Tony – that’s happened more than once but most memorably as the result of a gang-bang with a father that was impossible to identify.
My view is that pregnancy is a well understood potential side effect of unprotected sex and has nothing to do with abuse. I’d say no, unless the woman was somehow tricked into unprotected sex or denied a chance to use contraception.
Hypothetical:
A pregnant woman on a porn set.
She has consented to a ‘rough’ sex scene.
Rough treatment causes her to miscarry.
If not legal, does this producer have any ethical or moral obligation to this woman?
The majority of mainstream porn (that which lies within the boundaries – no snuff, kiddie etc) has never been proven to cause adverse affects on society. I don’t remember the name of the inquiry, but it’s mentioned in ‘Inside Deep Throat’, where a federal inquiry was undertaken, but largely ignored and in that federal inquiry there was nothing definitive in regard to pornography having a destructive effect on society in general.
I find it odd that people can watch Robocop in a theatre, and not be able to watch an adult movie.
Anastasia – “If porn was going to destroy society, it would have been over a long time ago.”
That’s true, I’ve noticed that certain countries operate on certain words. The United States (government and it’s representatives0 is fond of using ‘Obscenity’.
It’s stupid really, considering that the Kama Sutra existed before today’s ‘modern’ nations existed to use words like obscenity in inquiries and legal proceedings in relation to pornography.
Just because doing something effects ones behavior does not necessarily mean it infringes on the “rights” of anyone else.
If you smoke a joint, it will effect your behavior but does not infringe on my rights. (unless you believe that as a citizen, I have an inalliable right to not encounter anyone who is high.)
quadzilla – I see your point but if the sale of your weed takes place on my block it might infringe my liberty in all manner of ways. The effects of individual action extend further than the horizon.