Exploitation and Objectification

[andrewducker]

I'm not sure that porn needs to be 'exploitational' of sexuality.  Any more than photos of sunset are exploitative of the sun.  People can be exploited, by being "forced" to do things they would never normally do, but I'm not sure that a concept can be exploited.

Now, objectification is a different matter - but not one I believe is inherently evil.  We objectify politicians every time we think of them as objects of politics rather than people.  We objectify salesmen when we forget that they have attributes separate to their selling powers.  We objectify all people when we view them as having only one purpose.  The problem comes when we objectify people who are not wanting to be seen in that way.  To sexually objectify a person who is deliberately displaying themselves for sexual reasons isn't a bad thing, in my view.  To sexually objectify a co-worker who is there to change the toner/do the accounting/design the aircraft is a completely different matter.

(originally posted in a comment thread elsewhere, thought it deserved a wider airing so more people could poke holes in it)

Comments

[blackmanxy.livejournal.com]

Let's see. If I will never meet a given person, never talk to them, never have any sort of give-and-take - in short, never be in a position where my perception of them matters in the least, then why should I worry about it? It's not even a matter of deliberate display; it doesn't make a damn bit of difference in the world if I "objectify" a woman walking down the street by noticing that she's attractive and not giving a thought to any of her other characteristics. As long as I can stop doing that and see her as a person the moment my interaction with her becomes more than casual observation. (Incidentally, I once got banned from a mailing list for expressing this opinion.)

However, the problem I think people are getting at is one of consistently thinking of a given type of person (say, the opposite sex) in a particular role and then carrying that role over into your perceptions of all people of that type. The problem isn't that Jenna Jameson is being objectified; the problem is that a regular watcher of pornography is objectifying all women (or at least all attractive women). I'm not wholly sure I can say this is wrong, either. I mean, I've seen a fair share of pornography in my time, but I don't regard my attractive female co-worker in the same way I regard the hundreds thousands of women I've seen naked on my computer screen. But that's me. And there are people who do show every indication that they can't separate the two.

But, coming back to the original point, is that something inherent to pornography or is that just people? A question not unlike whether or not Oliver Stone turns people into murderers, if you ask me.

Well ...

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

... I think there's a concept that "sex" is somehow uniquely special (more special than a sunset!) and (from a "christian" viewpoint) inherantly sinful outside of marriage (and even then they'd probably object if you watched a committed married couple participating in a caring, mutual, nuturing, potentially creative act).

Certainly the last pope claimed that looking on a woman with lust in your heart was tantamount to something very bad and wrong.

This "specialness" of sex would mean that it would be wrong to participate in it (as either an actual participant during the production of the porn, or as a viewer of the resultant images) as it is not part of that committed and loving relationship.

Then there's a second level of "specialness" that says that sex is about penetration, physical intimacy or power/domination. These three (not necessarily connected) mean that there is a powerful mental effect (or affect!) associated with sex and that putting it into a commercial arena and then having people pay to watch it is wrong, as it blurs the boundaries of what is "normal" and turns a special intimacy or agreed power transfer between two (or more) people into something that can be bought for money. It's selling dignity in exchange for voyeurism and sexual relief.

Of course once you accept that many people can have sex without love (and some without even knowing the name or sex of their "partner" (c.f. gloryholes etc.)) then that "special" protection for sex is diminished and you make some good points.

However (and this is another major problem), most porn is paid for by men (someone correct me if I'm wrong). And the societies we live in are unfairly balanced in terms of money and power towards men. This means there's a financial pressure/opportunity for women to do things for money/power/freedom (you can argue that there is a similar pressure on all of us to gain wealth and status by doing jobs that we don't necessarily enjoy, but it depends on whether you view sex as being qualatively different from, say, cleaning portable toilets)

And for every femdom porn (where the woman *really* has power rather than being given power/permission by the man) there is far more bondage/slavery/schoolgirl/bangbus/or just solo female where the woman is performing for the man's pleasure and often in some form of subservience. And while it can be enjoyable (for the man and hopefully for the women involved in the production) the sexual climax is such a powerful thing that showing a man pictures of subservient women while he achieves orgasm, there must be at least the suspicion of "programming" the man into certain unconscious attitudes/behaviours.

Not as well written as I'd have liked ...

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

... rereading my response there were more things I wanted to say, but it will do as a start.

And for those that want to deny that there's a subservience/diminishing of dignity of females, check out the names of the various internet porn sites. For all the ones that are fairly neutral (madthumbs.com, sexocean.com etc.) there are many many other ones that are about taking advantage, forcing someone to do something, rape, torture, or just "gag on my c*ck" type sites, and ones with "bitch", "slut", "whore" etc.

Now some people like being called names during sex, some even find it a turn-on, but that again is (I'd assert) the thrill of being "dirty", "sinful", "bad" or wanting to be degraded because they "know" it's wrong to enjoy sex, so being told they are bad and wrong makes them feel ok. Not everyone, but I'd think that that's a fairly believable theory. Anyone want to contradict me (not on an individual basis, but as a generalisation)

Re: Not as well written as I'd have liked ...

[andrewducker]

And for those that want to deny that there's a subservience/diminishing of dignity of females, check out the names of the various internet porn sites. For all the ones that are fairly neutral (madthumbs.com, sexocean.com etc.) there are many many other ones that are about taking advantage, forcing someone to do something, rape, torture, or just "gag on my c*ck" type sites, and ones with "bitch", "slut", "whore" etc.

I don't think anyone would deny that there is some porn that's all about the denigration of women. The question (to me) is whether (a) all porn is, (b) objectification is automatically denigrating and (c) having a fantasy in one part of your life leads to unwanted behaviour in another part of your life.

There seem to be any number of people on LJ who love tying people up and beating them in one part of their life, but wouldn't dream of doing it in another - but does this mean that it doesn't affect their behaviour on an unconcious level?

Re: Well ...

[andrewducker]

Agreed on the whole 'power' thing. Which is why I put 'forced' into the original post. I don't like the idea of women producing porn movies who don't want to, but have no other source of income. I'd like to think that there are always other jobs about, but I'm sure that sometimes there aren't, and that worries/depresses me. However, at least in socialist Europe/UK people don't have to choose between selling themselves sexually and starving to death.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid the whole thing sort of just passes me by. I really don't get what everybody (or a large majority at least) gets out of porn, so I don't have much to say on the topic. The last thing I need is anything to get me _more_ interested....

I think sex is just, well, sex (oh, and bloody good fun!) and anything people choose to do about it without harming anyone else (unless they want to be 'harmed' that is) is just fine with me.

But I have a really, really, hard, sharp and well-practiced division between 'reality' and 'fantasy' (and don't really do a great deal of the latter, preferring the former) - which, by observation, a lot of people don't - and therein lie the roots of some of the problems people have brought up (IMO).

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

Nope, doesn't need to be, it just mostly is, I think. And there's the rub with dealing with it legally.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Yep . WSS. What I said to Nuala already.

However re one comment above which i think particularly misses the point.. what (most or much or even some) porn says about sex, and women's role as sexual beings in particular, is a powerful meme which does infuse itself into society. Hence porn is an important and worrying issue for women (if not some or even all individual women) even if not "necessarily" exploitative.

[djtiresias.livejournal.com]

I don't worry about attitudes, I worry about actions. The act of filming porn is often harmful to the actors involved; this principal makes me have moral objectionsto porn.

To look at a coworker and want to fuck 'em but not actually care about them strikes me as perfectly normal.