The past two nights I've watched two movies: The Price of Pleasure and The Constant Gardener. They were both pretty depressing but at the same time thought provoking. Here are some of my thoughts:
The price of pleasure was about pornography and it's impacts. The aim of the documentary was not to provide a bias or be preachy, but rather its aim is just to get people talking about it, something we usually do not do, no more than the "porn is bad" or "I like/watch porn." The movie included a lot of quotes from porn "users," producers, and actresses. It described a study done to analyze some of the top rented flicks - from the violence in it to racial content. I wouldn't have guessed this but about 90% of the films they analyzed had violent content. (Though I don't know their working definition of violence.) The movie included several porn clips as well, and nothing out of the ordinary, as far as I can tell. It was certainly interesting to see it removed from its normal context.
Seeing the clips out of context, it was even more clear how big a role male dominance is in the scenarios of standard porn. The movie pointed out that when sex is attached to these socially unacceptable (politically incorrect) ideas they can be extremely overt and we don't seem to care as much or at all. The male dominance is one facet, but race (gendered) is also a factor. Extremely over-sexualized black men, docile Asian women, demanding white men, etc., the standard racial stereotypes, but on steroids and very obviously tied to gender. These politically incorrect ideas are overlooked and more acceptable in porn. Why is that?
To me the most interesting phenomenon is how the concept of "normal" is completely altered by watching pornography. For many men*, porn (videos and magazines) is one of the first and perhaps only source for information on sex and relationships. (*I say men here because they are the overwhelming majority of porn consumers.) How then will they ever develop a frame of reference on sex outside of that? In other words, their views on sex are created by the world of porn, and these ideas are too often brought into the world of the bedroom. With no anchor on normality outside of porn, this fundamentally changes what will register as violence, or as rape, in a man's mind.
I do not blame the men who watch porn. Though I think there are healthy alternatives to using porn (like not using it), I find it hard to place blame on the individual men. How so? I think it has something to do with how the concept of normal is altered - it's not conscious. They're not thinking "I'd like to see violent porn and change my perception of violence and then act violently toward my significant other." Furthermore, demonizing or shaming men for doing this would tend to make them more resistant to change. So, though I do not think these individuals are to blame, I do think they are the ones who need to change. Once they realize that their views of sex and relationships are affected by porn, they should question that. It is their responsibility as a part of an intimate relationship to be aware of their ideas of sex and what they bring to that relationship.
And in a free market system where we are not allowed to blame a company for producing porn, I believe we shouldn't put the responsibility on them either, i.e. ask them to censor themselves. I do think it is the responsibility of individuals to have control over themselves. Men need to find a masculinity that is not derived from a dominance over women, and their free market demand should thus requisite less supply.
OH, and HERE'S the bibliography. (It's a PDF file from the Price of Pleasure website.) (There's a lot else at the website, including a trailer and interview w/ Noam Chomsky.)
Ok, well I've been rambling a bit more than I thought I would so I'll come back to the other movie another time. Let me know what you think.
I watched the whole film of their website. As someone who has been following the feminist porn wars for a few years, I view this film not as a nonjudgmental look at porn, but as propaganda for one side of an idealogical battle which pretty much ignores the existence of the other side.
ReplyDeleteI would be curious to see your reaction to some reviews from people who have less than positive opinions about the film.
I think Ernest Greene's four-part review is of particular interest since he was one of the porn producers interviewed in the film and he knows one of the porn actresses interviewed.
Here is the first part:
http://bppa.blogspot.com/2008/10/price-of-pleasure-deconstructed-part.html
You can find the other three from there if you wish to read them.
He has said that he is going to do a follow up post describing how the interview itself went, but he hasn't gotten around to it yet.
Personally, I don't know about the claims the film makes about how porn affects men's attitudes about sex. I am neither a man, nor have I seen a lot of porn other than the comic book series XXXenophile and a few very silly X-rated webcomics. However, I was talking about this to a fellow sociology major last night who is male and believes than some of the men he knows got the wrong idea about sex from watching porn before they ever had any, so maybe there is some merit to that argument.
I believe the solution to problems like this lies not in fighting against porn or keeping people from watching it (whether that means outlawing it or convincing them to give it up), but in creating a social environment where people can talk about sex freely and honestly. Frankly, I think the anti-porn movement is counter-productive when it comes to this goal.
Also, having seen Gail Dines' anti-porn slideshow (available on Google video, but not work safe) I believe that in her criticism of how porn is made she crosses a certain line between recognizing that no choice is made in a vacuum and completely dismissing the views of a certain segment of the population (actresses currently in the porn industry). She also manipulates the tendency of a lot of us to be grossed out by other people's sexual fetishes while pushing the view that what the actresses do cannot be meaningfully consented to.
You can google Renegade Evolution's rebuttal to Dines' presentation if you want an unedited female gonzo performer's perspective(just be warned that there is some nudity in the header currently). The longest quote from a porn actress who likes her job that the film contains is just three minutes of what, according to Ernest Greene, was a three-hour interview.
Also check out "The Price of Pleasure: Trinity's Take" over at "Let Them Eat Pro-SM Feminist Safe Spaces" for another critical view.
So basically what I'm saying is that there is a lot more to be said on both sides than even makes it into the movie, and after following these arguments for the last few years, I completely disagree with a lot of what the movie is saying. Porn may be giving a number of people messages about gender and sexuality that are less than great, but I think the focus should be on better sex education, not less porn use. If someone does find that porn is having a negative effect on the way they see women, maybe different porn could be a solution too.
In response to your conclusion:
ReplyDelete(*"I think the focus should be on better sex education, not less porn use. If someone does find that porn is having a negative effect on the way they see women, maybe different porn could be a solution too.")
I think there is an extreme lack of sex education in our society as well as an unwillingness to talk about sex in general (this includes porn). I'm not sure if different porn could be a solution - I think this may be related to *how* the porn is used, or if there is any good/acceptable porn out there...I'm really not sure about all of the options.
I'm interested to hear arguments against the movie (because I (I suppose ignorantly) thought it was pretty unbiased), and I'll check out the links you provided.
Thanks for your interesting comment!