Pornography By Melissa Tyndall After reading the radical feminist perspective about pornography, I too found myself strongly

disagreeing with the feminists biased opinions and misrepresentations of what pornography truly is. The argument is not whether or not pornography is degrading, but that the arguments and definitions of pornography biased. As the author of the article does, I think pornography needs a more neutral definition. I, being a woman, do not think that particular industry targets only women. I think that there is much more to that industry, and although the pornography industry is not the highest in merit, there is a better way of representing it truthfully. I did not agree that pornography is always based around women, nor is it a market that is specifically targeting an opportunity to demean women. I was interested, after reading a biased opinion of what pornography was from a hard-core feminist perspective, what the definition of pornography was is a less biased source such as a dictionary. The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary has an online location in which students and other web surfers may look up definitions to various words. The word pornography derives from the (circa 1864) Greek word pornographos which is an adjective that involves the writing or selling of material about prostitutes. The three definitions of pornography ever made mention of a particular gender, or whether or not or not one gender was subordinate to the other in these sexual acts. The first definition indicates that pornography is the portrayal of erotic conduct in pictures or writing that aim to cause sexual arousal. The second definition depicts "porn" as books and/or photographs that, once again, portray "erotic" conduct in pictures or writings that aim to cause sexual arousal. The third definition of pornography is the representation of acts in such a startling way that it invokes an almost immediate emotional reaction (Webster).

Another site defined pornography as "obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit." Once again, this definition fails to pinpoint a particular gender as being demeaned. In fact, the word "obscenity/obscene" is considered a legal term for anything in the society that has a tendency to poison the moral character of the public. I.E. if pornography is considered obscene material--it corrupts the public--meaning it poisons the moral character of both sexes equally (Info please). A third website I researched used the same etymology for the word "pornography" as the Webster-Merriam Dictionary. Their definition however, is that pornographic material is material that is "sexually explicit". The site also goes into the three basic things that are looked for when labeling something as explicit. First, is the degree of explicitness; second, is whether or not the material contains violence and/or aggression, and if the materials are degrading or demeaning to women in any way (Sexual Scientists). To say that pornography is demeaning to women is a biased statement that seems uneducated. As McElroy states in Everything You Know Is Wrong, a less biased definition can be established. A letter to an editor from Daniel Levine makes this point when he states, "I'm so sick of this female, pornographic persecution complex." However, in this article the man was very objective and almost angered by the fact that women are the only people who cry and protest that they are used for their physical and sexual qualities. The author of the letter admits that he thinks that pornography is degrading--but not just to women. The author defends that men are used by the pornography industry for their physical bodies and endurance--just as women are. He says that it "is a degrading profession. But only the close-minded feminist would fail to look at the flip side, which is that pornography is incredibly degrading toward men as well. The author continues by bringing up the fact that it is not always a man and a woman

that is depicted in pornography--and even if it is a couple composed of a man and a woman, no one can say that the man always enjoys himself and the woman is the victim. He says that although pornography is equally degrading to men and women, it is a rather harmless source of enlivening our fantasies, produced for an audience of all size, shape, ages, and sex (www.theherald.org). This goes hand in hand with the information I read in an aforementioned article by sexual scientists. While it is true that most pornography is believed to be marketed toward heterosexual men, in recent years it has been said that more explicit materials are beginning to be marketed toward heterosexual women. In addition, the article also brings up the fact that gay men, lesbians, and other groups of people have pornography that is specifically targeted towards them. Obviously, pornography that is mace specifically to be marketed to women or gay men is not going to demean women. Once again, the super feminist definition needs revamping (Sexual Scientists). While a feminist might say that pornography is demeaning to women because it promotes violence and rape towards women, there are statistics to prove otherwise. In a sexual study it was stated that less than ten percent of pornographic materials contain aggression and only one to three percent contains any violence such as rape. Depending upon the study, this article claims that only 15 to 33 percent of explicit material, or porn, shows men in any sort of power over a woman; contains any type of rape fantasy or myth that women like to be treated roughly; or demeans women in any way. The site also argues that some R-rated movies are more violent than the X-rated movies. The article What Sexual Scientists Know AboutPornography also illustrates the point that it is not simply the pornographic material that causes men to act upon negative and

sexist attitudes toward women. While most people would look negatively on demeaning or degrading representations of women, men who had already been conditioned to approve of such mannerisms would hold on to their past recollections and find no fault in this type of pornography. Basically, pornography does not have a violent effect on all people. In addition, pornography does not make the manman makes the pornography in the way that (he in particular) enjoys it, whether it demeans women or not (Sexual Scientists). So, scientists have concluded that a negative sexual attitude does not stem from what a person watches, but from the attitude/s that one brings to pornography. To practice good morals and ethics, the scientists have (of course) not actively experimented to see if violence in pornography has increased sexual violence. However, they have researched sexual offenders, and it has not been pornography that has caused their crimes. It is found that most sexual offenders came from an environment of sexual and physical abuse in the home, and while some had been exposed to more explicit materials than others, that alone is not a basis for their crimes. The scientist however, did do any experiment where people were shown three types of material with explicit sex. They found that sexual material alone does not increase aggression toward women and that it was belligerence that causes violence. In fact, it was stated that most people did not find aggression and sex as something they would find compatible with one another (Sexual Scientists). To refute what some of the radical feminists said about pornography, I wanted to see what other feminists said about the same issue. I got online at www.yahoo.com and entered the words women and pornography into a search engine and came upon many feminist websites that debated the controversial issue of pornography and whether or not the porn industry specifically and singly targets women. Once again, the site I found at www.geocities.com agreed

that there is a lot of argument about the true definition of pornography. This site claimed that the Meese Commission of 1986 defined pornography as any depiction of sex to which the person using the word objects. This site argued both sides of the coin on whether or not feminists thought pornography to be a medium that always degraded women. Women such as Susan Brownmiller and Helen Longino feel that pornography is not about sexual freedom, but about making women appear dirty. They also believe that pornography is simply a way to demean, degrade, manipulate, and exploit women and womens sexuality. Some, such as Gloria Steinem wish to differentiate between porn and erotica. Steinem differentiated the two by claiming erotica was a mutually pleasurable, sexual expression between two people who have enough power to be there by positive choice . . . .It doesnt require us to identify with a conquer or victim. Some people would argue the same could be said for consenting adults who are paid to work in the pornography industry. There are famous feminists who argue a similar point as I myself am arguing (Geocities). I also found a great site that gave the opinion of many famous feminists who seemed to completely disagree with the feminist perspective represented in Everything You Know Is Wrong. I thought this was a great source that refuted many of the popular opinion of radical feminists. As assistant lecturer, Patricia Peterson, of Queensland University of Technology seemed to think that our society should quit questioning what women want to do with their own bodies, and it should not be a government affair (Libertus). Another great argument that directly refutes the claims in Everything You Know Is Wrong was quoted from Mrs. Patricia Peterson again when she gave statistics about rape numbers when pornography was and was not taken from the people of Denmark. It was said that when pornography was made available in the late 1960s, the rate of sexual crimes and sexual

violence lowered remarkably. Peterson claimed that the rates dropped by twenty-five percent in 1967, by thirteen percent in 1968, and by a large 30.5 percent in 1969. Basically, this womans argument is that it may be more dangerous for this country to ban or edit pornography than just to allow it to run its course. Another feminist, Avedon Carol, shares the same opinion. She believes that pornography ends up benefiting women because debates on its censorship end up challenging sexism (Libetus). Another woman made a good point about establishing the difference between artistic merit and porn. When a supermodel is naked in a movie, is that not the same as being tastefully naked in a magazine? Where do we draw the line on what is degrading to women, especially if a woman chooses to pose by choice? The example given was of that of Elle MacPherson. No one could honestly say she was forced into anything, nor was it degrading or demeaning to someone of her stature (Libertus). As I read through these quotes, more and more women seemed to oppose the same view as the author of the article in the textbook. Women began to pose questions such asking that if the government decides what is demeaning and or degrading to women as a whole, how much control do women really have over their own sexuality? The author of our article also seemed hostile to the idea that pornography causes or results in rape. She said, If the BCRS convinces people that it is pornography, not men, that causes rape, the issue of how responsible men are for rape becomes the real issue (Libertus). Perhaps my favorite statement was that which an opinion columnist at the Western Herald published. Elisabeth Carnell attacked Gloria Steinem by saying that feminists who think all pornography is about women being raped, etc. should spend more time exploring adult bookstores. Also, there is a woman named Barbara Dority (who has been Executive Director,

Washington Coalition Against Censorship and Co-chair, and the Northwest Feminist AntiCensorship Taskforce) who claims that sexual violence toward both male and female gender existed long before the introduction of pornography. She says that sexist or violent material are the product of the society, not visa versa (Libertus). Finally, I asked the people around me what they thought the definition of pornography. Most thought it was simply pictures of people in the nude, or lucid pictures of both sexes (male and female). All ten people I asked had similar answers. I also asked all ten of these people if they thought pornography was demeaning or degrading toward women. All ten people said no, but for different reasons. Some said no because the women consented. Others knew that pornography is usually performed for many, and the women choose to get paid for those services. So, it would be right to agree that McElroy has a point about revamping the definition of pornography. These radical feminists she discusses misrepresent the definition because they are biased. Websters Dictionary as well as many other people (including other feminists) disagree with that perspective. There is a difference between defining pornography and telling people how it makes you feel. The same women who are suppose to be supporting womens rights demean them more than pornography ever could because they act as if women are not intelligent enough not to get sucked in.