Wednesday, November 2, 2011

in the news: when porn does us good and more women watch it

Highlights from last month that deserve special attention, in particular as they pertain to women:

Anna Arrowsmith
Firstly, the Guardian published an article titled Porn is good for society by Anna Arrowsmith, also known as feminist pornographer Anna Span. Excerpt:
Women's rights are far stronger in societies with liberal attitudes to sex – think of conservative countries such as Afghanistan, Yemen or China, and the place of women there. And yet, anti-porn campaigners neglect such issues entirely. A recent study by the US department of justice compared the four states that had highest broadband access and found there was a 27% decrease in rape and attempted rape, and the four with the lowest had a 53% increase over the same period. With broadband being key to watching porn online, these figures are food for thought for those who believe access to porn is bad news.

Secondly, the extensive international research project on women's and men's everyday uses of porn has released a preliminary report available in PDF-format here. While 68.4% of the respondents were male and 31.6% were female, the research team found that younger women show a significantly larger interest in porn than do older women, suggesting a wider generational shift that may over time reduce the overall differences between male and female interest in pornography (see graph).


Finally, a review essay by Dr. Ronald Weitzer debunking two recent anti-porn books, was featured by ethicist Dr. Leslie Cannold

Gail Dines
Since I position myself against anti-porn activist Gail Dines in my forthcoming book, I found Dr. Weitzer's critique of her book,  Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality (2010), the most interesting. Reflecting Dines' apocalyptic view of all porn as dangerous with far-reaching negative effects on society, her book is, as Weitzer points out, evidence-thin with grand generalizations. Writes Weitzer quoting Dines,
Dines imagines that there is a distinct category of "porn sex." Porn sex is "debased, dehumanized, formulaic, and generic" (p.x). It differs from proper sex, which she defines as involving "empathy, tenderness, caring, affection" and "love, respect, or connection to another human being" (pp. xxiv, xi).

This juxtaposition makes me smile because what Dines describes as "proper sex" actually describes what a lot of porn shows today, especially the re-visioned and transformed porn by women I look at in my work. It also highlights just how blind Dines is to the growing diversity of porn, which in addition to porn by women also includes alt porn, amateur porn, feminist porn (not necessarily by women), lesbian porn, gay male porn, queer porn, genderqueer and transgender porn, and more.

As I have argued, I do not question that porn affects us, which is Dines' greatest concern. But the great thing about porn affecting us is that it can actually have a positive effect on us. Re-visioned porn proves my point. Re-visioned and transformed porn can change the way we think about and practice sex in positive ways, just as porn up until now has affected the way we picture and practice sex in negative ways.

(The other book Weitzer reviews in his essay is Everyday Pornography, edited by Karen Boyle (2010). The review essay is available in PDF-format here.)
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...