Well, at least the glasses work...

Well, at least the glasses work…

POOOORN!

Now that I have your attention, let’s talk about porn.

Porn or “teh pronz” is a controversial topic for a number of reasons. Some people think it’s just wrong. Other people think it’s awesome.

So…how did you acquire this “expertise”? Actually, don’t answer that.

One of the most potent arguments against pornography is espoused by feminist thinkers, like the great Germaine Greer, who believe that it demeans women and projects an image of sexuality that is definitely false and is probably harmful.

I think that they’ve got a serious point. But I also think that we can’t ban pornography.

Because if we did we would be engaging in sexism, against women.

First off, “porn” can be broadly defined as depictions of a sexual nature where the primary use of the depiction is for sexual arousal, rather than art, self-expression and so on.

Naturally this definition is horribly flawed. There is so much variation within porn that trying to pin it down into any one definition always falls flat.

Rule 34: “If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions.”

Definitions change radically from country to country. For example, in Australia  any picture of a naked woman with a cup size of A or less could potentially be banned, because it might be perceived as child pornography.

This ruling has pissed off both feminists (who claim, quite correctly, that the government is saying that small breasted ladies aren’t “real women”) and the Internet, who launched “Operation Titstorm“.

The point made by the Australian feminists is a salient one. The idea that female sexuality, or any sexuality for that matter, can be legislated by tired old men in government is deeply offensive to both women and feminists, including me.

I’m serious by the way: I am a feminist.¬† If they still handed out cards for being a feminist I would totally carry one.

And to anyone who thinks men can’t be feminists: Congratulations! You’ve internalised patriarchy.

This is one of the big ways in which women have been oppressed over the centuries. They weren’t allowed to have control of their own sexuality. Their sex lives were dictated to them from birth by old men in political office, judges’ robes or pulpits.

The problem with the “ban prons” group is that their attempts actually come down to the same thing: trying to force women to abide by sexual norms that they think are necessary, but the women don’t.

The argument goes like this:
Person A: Being in porn is bad for you.
Person P: But I like being in porn. It’s good money.
A: But there are other ways to make money. You could be a doctor, a businesswoman, an astronaut. You could do anything you want.
P: But what I want is to be in porn, at least for a while.
A: But it’s so degrading! Not just the sex but also so much porn shows women being dominated by men.
P: Well…actually…I kinda like that too.
A: Oh my god! That’s disgusting! You have completely internalised patriarchy! You are oppressing yourself! This is the best reason yet to ban all pornography.
P: Wait. So you’re saying that because my chosen sexuality is abhorrent to you this gives you the right to force me into a sexuality that feels wrong for me, and is determined by you, simply because some academics (who’ve never met me) think I might have internalised patriarchy?
A: (uncomfortable pause)…you know… you are very articulate for a porn star.
P: Thanks, I studied Liberation Theology and Reverse Cowgirl at Cambridge.

Do not want!

(Continued on Page 2)

Related Posts: