Sorry. This won’t be as kinky as the title suggests. This is just notes to keep around before I forget? This essay peaked my interest because my graphic novel fandom(loved Watchmen,V and samples of Miracleman here and there ), and dabbling in feminism (relatively easy with me being a ahem…gentleman gave some great insights on an issue that may make or break my resolve in the issue of women.
http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=1685
- At first glance, I thought this was some pseudo-intellectual legitimization of pornography. A latter glance shows that my worries are valid with claims such as “sexually progressive cultures gave us mathematics, literature, philosophy, civilization and the rest, while sexually restrictive cultures gave us the Dark Ages and the Holocaust.”
- I give Moore credit for differentiating between Feminist critiques of pornography and Fundamentalist Christian critiques
For one thing, it’s important to distinguish between the objections of the chanting feminists and those of placard-waving Christians, even when they’re part of the same picket line outside an adult video hire emporium. Feminist arguments, even those one may not agree with, are at least constructed on the principles of logic and therefore can be debated, having precepts that are falsifiable, that can be proven or disproved. Religious arguments against pornography, alternately, are based upon the idea of a disapproving super-being, proof of whose existence has thus far eluded us. This is not to say that God does not exist, nor that religious people aren’t entitled to their point of view, but is simply intended to point out that ideas predicated upon a specific deity’s existence are not rational ideas, and therefore have no place in rational discussion. I’m sorry, I don’t make the rules. That’s just the way it is, and we’d have to entirely change the meaning of the English language before we could make it otherwise.
Despite the rational basis of the feminist agenda, though, it had been served up, understandably, as confrontation, and high feelings on both sides meant that a sensible debate would never really be a possibility. The already-fragmented left became divided upon grounds of gender with both camps in their entrenched and stalemated positions, men insisting that the issue was completely one of civil liberties, women insisting it was one of sexual politics. Both sides were right, of course, but by then were not speaking to each other so that the debate remained in deadlock.
Attitudes towards pornography had not just brought about a schism in the liberal ranks, though, but had pretty much split feminism itself down the middle. Many women and some men who still believed that women had a way to go before social equality was reached became reluctant to describe themselves as feminists because of the censorious and illiberal connotations that the term had taken on. Rejecting feminism’s dogma on pornography, some women made an effort to reclaim the genre in pro-sexual publications such as On Our Backs, its title borrowed impishly from hard-line feminist mag Off Our Backs. Elsewhere were the first stirrings of the erstwhile network that would later call itself Feminists Against Censorship.
Despite the rational basis of the feminist agenda, though, it had been served up, understandably, as confrontation, and high feelings on both sides meant that a sensible debate would never really be a possibility. The already-fragmented left became divided upon grounds of gender with both camps in their entrenched and stalemated positions, men insisting that the issue was completely one of civil liberties, women insisting it was one of sexual politics. Both sides were right, of course, but by then were not speaking to each other so that the debate remained in deadlock.
Attitudes towards pornography had not just brought about a schism in the liberal ranks, though, but had pretty much split feminism itself down the middle. Many women and some men who still believed that women had a way to go before social equality was reached became reluctant to describe themselves as feminists because of the censorious and illiberal connotations that the term had taken on. Rejecting feminism’s dogma on pornography, some women made an effort to reclaim the genre in pro-sexual publications such as On Our Backs, its title borrowed impishly from hard-line feminist mag Off Our Backs. Elsewhere were the first stirrings of the erstwhile network that would later call itself Feminists Against Censorship.
- Moore bringing up the suggestion of “good” pornography reeks of evasion at first glance, but throwing around a couple lucrative names suggests a hint legitimacy to the idea… If in fact those named acknowledge this fishy idea of “good” pornography. (Note:investigate)
...I suggest the only choice we genuinely have is between good pornography and bad pornography(traces of false dilemma in this claim -SR). This obviously begs a bunch of questions, the first being as to how we differentiate between the two. Just for the purposes of argument let us define ‘good’ porn, like good Judge Clayton Horn, as that which is of noticeable social benefit, with ‘bad’ porn as its opposite, that which is noticeably to our social detriment. Of course, this raises a much bigger question, namely, does ‘good’ porn even exist? If not, could it conceivably exist at some point in the future, and what would it look like if it did?
To answer this, we could do far worse than refer back to those few dissenting female voices that were raised, back when the feminist debate upon pornography was at its hottest and perhaps its most intelligent. Taking some inspiration from Simone de Beauvoir’s influential essay “Must We Burn Sade”?, the wonderful and greatly-missed Angela Carter muses on porn in her book The Sadeian Woman, finally suggesting that there might be some form of pornography yet undiscovered, glorious and liberating, unencumbered by the inequalities of sex and sexuality that dogged it in the past. Even porn’s most uncompromising and vociferous feminist critic, Andrea Dworkin, has conceded that benign pornography might be conceivable, even if she considered such a thing highly unlikely. Given that we don’t want ‘bad pornography’ and can’t have ‘no pornography’, it’s in this mere suggestion of the possibility of ‘good’ pornography that the one ray of light in an intractable debate resides.
The question still remains, however, as to how pornography might have a beneficial influence upon society, exactly? If we can’t imagine such a situation, then how would we recognise it if it should arise? Even if we accept along with Andrea Dworkin, Angela Carter, Kathy Acker and Simone de Beauvoir that our hypothetical ‘good’ porn is possible, that doesn’t help us much unless we have a clear idea of just what good, what benefit, pornography of the right kind might work within our culture.
To answer this, we could do far worse than refer back to those few dissenting female voices that were raised, back when the feminist debate upon pornography was at its hottest and perhaps its most intelligent. Taking some inspiration from Simone de Beauvoir’s influential essay “Must We Burn Sade”?, the wonderful and greatly-missed Angela Carter muses on porn in her book The Sadeian Woman, finally suggesting that there might be some form of pornography yet undiscovered, glorious and liberating, unencumbered by the inequalities of sex and sexuality that dogged it in the past. Even porn’s most uncompromising and vociferous feminist critic, Andrea Dworkin, has conceded that benign pornography might be conceivable, even if she considered such a thing highly unlikely. Given that we don’t want ‘bad pornography’ and can’t have ‘no pornography’, it’s in this mere suggestion of the possibility of ‘good’ pornography that the one ray of light in an intractable debate resides.
The question still remains, however, as to how pornography might have a beneficial influence upon society, exactly? If we can’t imagine such a situation, then how would we recognise it if it should arise? Even if we accept along with Andrea Dworkin, Angela Carter, Kathy Acker and Simone de Beauvoir that our hypothetical ‘good’ porn is possible, that doesn’t help us much unless we have a clear idea of just what good, what benefit, pornography of the right kind might work within our culture.
- I am disappointed that misogyny as the driving institution of current society, past society and pornography doesn’t come up. The “sexually progressive cultures” mentioned were most likely male-centered and wildly oppressive. Does the rape of Europeans, Semites, etc. by Pagan Imperial Romans factor in to the sexual liberty of the era?
(will update later)