Benefits of pornography

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/DB/issues/98/12.03/
view.gever.html

Pornography helps women, society
BENEFITS: 'Dirty' media relieve sexual tensions, but subject to unjust law
by Mathew Gever

Repressing sexuality seems to be a hallmark of our country. Whether it's the impeachment of "Blow Job" Bill or slapping letters of approval on movies, this nation finds it necessary to control issues of carnal knowledge.

Pornography falls under this paradigm. There is a false idea in our society that controlling pornography is somehow beneficial to us. Pornography is an issue that serves as a scapegoat for the ills of society. It is one of the few, if not the only, issues where religious reactionaries and radical feminists agree. The religious right blames it for moral bankruptcy while the militant feminist division blames it for the continued subjugation of women.

Both these arguments warrant a closer examination.

The religious right takes a stance against pornography in hopes of enforcing good Christian values among people. What this means is that people should not be having sex, and that women belong back in the kitchen baking pies and knitting sweaters.

Then there are the radical feminists, who regard pornography as an endangerment to women. What they argue is that women cannot possibly consent to sex, since we live in a male-dominated society which renders consent impossible. This has led to action by this bloc to impede any production of pornography.

One example of this is a Minneapolis anti-porn ordinance issued in 1983. This ordinance stated that all women who worked in porn were coerced and could sue the producers and distributors, whether or not the woman was of age, was fully aware of what she was doing and had signed a release. This ordinance claimed that women were incapable of rendering decisions for themselves and needed the government to protect them. The ordinance even stated that "Children are incapable of consenting to engage in pornographic conduct, even absent physical coercion and therefore require special protection. By the same token, the physical and psychological well-being of women ought to be afforded comparable protection." (Wendy Mcelroy, "Banning Pornography Endangers Women", December 1997)

So this is what hundreds of years of feminism has brought us to - women are no smarter than children.

Some anti-porn crusaders also argue that pornography poses a physical threat to women. They claim that the viewing of pornography leads to violence against women. A number of problems exist with this argument. First, there is no real method to objectively measure the impact of pornography on a person's actions. Sexual responses are endemic to the individual and cannot be accurately measured by a laboratory setting.

Also, pornography can serve as a mitigating factor in sexual violence. It provides a healthy release for those with pent up sexual frustration. Who is going to sexually assault a person after they have just masturbated in their living room? Without this release, sexual frustration builds up and can easily manifest itself in the form of violence.

Research by the The National Research Council's Panel on Understanding and Preventing Violence has shown that there is no demonstrated link between pornography and violence against women. Also, research by Larry Baron and Murray Straus has shown that there is a negative correlation between pornography and gender violence. For example, look at Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both have strict anti-pornography laws, yet they still have high instances of violence against women. Compare that with countries such as Denmark and Germany - in both countries pornography is readily accessible, yet they have some of the lowest rates of violence against women. (http://www.carnell.com/feminism/pornography/porn001.html)

Some may blame this discrepancy on cultural differences. But remember, Denmark produced the Vikings - and we all know what Germany was capable of - so it is wrong to say that violence is not a part of their cultures.

To further illustrate this point, look at Medieval Europe. This was a period when rape was at its highest levels. Penthouse did not exist at this time. Neither did "Debbie Does Dallas." Yet violence against women persisted, since men did not have a safe place to release their sexual frustration.

In addition, blaming pornography diffuses responsibility away from the culprit. Anyone tried for sexual assault can blame pornography and say that he was not in control of his actions. Videotapes do not rape, people do, and responsibility should be assigned as such.

In fact, rather than harming women, pornography actually brings them a number of benefits. This is one of the few industries where women are paid more than men. Also, pornography allows for experimentation and breaks orthodox standards of sexuality. The idea of lying in the missionary position while counting the stars is flouted, and instead the enjoyment of sex is encouraged. Restricting pornography limits the choices that a woman has and invokes the repression of Victorian times.

This relates to another important point. Despite the common stereotype, the greatest number of people renting porn are couples. This is shown in the increase of "chick porn," which is pornography geared especially toward women. These media emphasize the female sexual experience and encourage couples to experiment. There is no violence or degradation, just people enjoying themselves.

Also, compare pornography to other things that are legally available, and see which is worse. For example, one can go to Blockbuster and rent "Faces of Death," yet one can not rent the original version of "Showgirls."

I see the logic: watching animals getting disemboweled is healthy, whereas watching people voluntarily having sex is not.

In fact, our anti-porn laws have gotten so ridiculous that a law now exists that prevents the simulation of child pornography. This means that if the people involved appear to be under 18, the act is a crime.

The actors involved could both be 35, but if they look underage, the act is a crime.

Who decides whether they appear to be underage? Generally it is the government, abiding by another subjective law that has no concrete basis, but rather it exists on ambiguous criteria.

And do not forget the issue of freedom of expression. Pornography involves consenting adults who so choose to be involved in this field. The First Amendment does not say anything about protecting what is morally proper, but rather the choice of the individual to express himself or herself in whatever legal manner he or she pleases. For some, pornography is this means of expression. If one is offended by porn, do not watch or look at it. There is no law saying you have to. Therefore, it is no one's business to regulate what a person decides to do with his or her own body.

Anti-porn crusaders do nothing more than degrade women. By pushing for legislation, these factions serve to promote the idea that women cannot make decisions for themselves and need the protection of the patriarchal state.