The "Problem" with Pornography?

BAH! I keep forgetting to blog my thoughts (I'm honestly not a blogger.)

The several sexions (sections) of the Gendered Media text we read for this week were ripe with entertainment and prospects for in-class discussion.

Several questions for consideration arise as I read though the "Sexy Media" section. As I read the "A Girl's Own Story" section in particular, I couldn't help but think of how the driving force of equality only perpetuates "the issue" of pornography. It is very interesting that Ross shows a timeline of pornographic acceptance: from sensual publications being straight up abhorrent, to a growing acceptance and availability culturally, to the blame game of male gaze and objectification, to the anticensorship argument, to the feminine answer to contemporary pornography in the form of feminized pornography.

As the text moves onward, Ross reveals unsurprising results of the feminine porn push. It turns out that (according to one study) women account for 40% of the adult Internet consumer market and that further studies are demonstrating that female porn use is leading to similar psychosocial problems exhibited in men.  What's weird here is that the more that we talk about porn and accommodating genders, the more we talk about problems and social norms; the more we talk about problems and social norms the more confused I get about any addiction, use, or misuse of pornography being a "problem."  It's hard to label what is problematic based on a socially normalized measuring stick. Furthermore, the "Sexy Media" section only nods its head at a greater issues of normalization: the division of gender into two constants. Yes, Ross mentions the complexity of venturing into the alternative sexualities in this discussion, but that's where things get ever the more confusing.

While driving along I-35 today, thinking about our class, I tried to conceptualize/realize/put-into-words that everything about humanness since humans have been suggests that gender was never meant to be so complex. (Keep in mind, this is an opinion/thought/argument.) Some might argue that this era is the era that "alternative sexualities" can finally be discussed without the socio-normative backlash of former times. I agree. It's a time when more things can be put on the table of discussion without anyone being sent to a faraway island for merely voicing their thoughts.  But, when it comes to gender I wonder how much the world and its media will truly be able to accommodate the ever-growing spectrum of gender. Right now, it's "Porn sites and the male consumer" and "Porn sites and the female consumer." Can it be segmented further? Will there be studies for the notches in between these two polar points?

What about in the marketing of clothing and consumer products? Will there be an era where department stores will no longer feature only men's clothing and women's clothing departments, but instead an array of newer, accommodating departments? Does there even need to be accommodating departments and clothing types, or am I just taking it too far? It's likely that anyone on the spectrum of gender can be satisfied with some kind of combination of items (or porn) from either side of the polarity. (Note: I've been careful not to to use the word "other" here, and instead opted for "accommodating" instead.)

I guess, what I'm trying to say with this stream of thought is that if the development of pornography—especially the recent feminized offerings—has led to more "problems," then maybe the solution wasn't accommodation to begin with? I know Ross's approach to this topic was just to examine the use of gender in media and that the Sexy Media section was just a glance into a more complex discussion, but it kinda seems our (increasingly sensualized) media and its connected outcomes are objectively testifying of a disintegration of not just the notion of normalization, but the notion of a collective stability that has sustained gendered humans for so long.

I like the discussion on gender. I'm undoubtedly a proponent of the aspects of feminism. But, before the  discussion of gender gets to fomented, it might be useful to define and examine some terms/concepts. Like what should be considered a "problem" if our social acceptances are established upon normative ideals. Also, is the answer to the problem of pornography more of it and in a multitude of accommodating forms? Or is there a value in accepting sex for what it is and talking about it a little more openly so it's not some kind of closet sensuality that's exciting to talk about because it's taboo—especially among youth?


In line with that last comment of mine is a couple of videos from the unabashed Cindy Gallop, founder of the website Make Love Not Porn (dot) TV. Her mission is to discuss pornography at its core values/problems, consider its target audience, and solve the (so-called) "problem" of pornography by being more open about the inherent awesomeness of sex without the disillusionment caused by pornography.


It's all interesting. At the end of the day, I'm still trying to work out my understanding of these two sections of reading and how they relate to today's media and reality. I can't say my feet are firmly planted in any one spot, but I'm openly analytical to whatever might come up in our upcoming classroom discussions.



Cindy Gallop: Make love, not porn (Adult content) 2009

TEDxYouth@SantaMonica - Cindy Gallop - Make Love, Not Porn 2011

"Make Love Not Porn" Website



Quotes I wan to keep track of:

"Porn for women, made by women can wreak havoc with the male-ordered control over women's bodies and indeed those of other, subordinated beings, providing an alternative if not replacement set of knowledges about our sexual selves" (68).

"Relations between women and men are fundamentally about power and control, a sadly negative understanding which leaves no room for romance or intimacy. It is also an avowedly heterosexual prescription which takes no account of alternative sexualities, perhaps because same-sex abuse and rape remain invisible since to make it count would significantly complicate the much simpler notion of superior-subordinate relations founded on sex-based difference" (71).