Image by FML Photography.
So, Katherine Broendel begins her post with all the stuff she left out in Effects of Pornography on Perceptions of Women & Sexual Violence (such as the exclusion of sexual violence against men/LGBT communities, which is actually pretty significant for the conversation) and that’s a good way of making the methodology clear, ya? And the findings err on neutrality within contextualizing porn. Which is the stand-out for looking at this study. However, what is “porn” here? I really think she needs to answer the key question from commenter Maggie — did Broendel make a distinction between garden-variety porn and porn with BDSM (or “violent” porn) as Broendel frames all porn as one and the same. Magge asks, “What criteria are being used to separate violent porn and regular porn?” Again, the conflation of porn and violence?
And we all know there are a LOT of different kind of porn, right? I don’t want a hero for women and porn and violence, I just want a contemporary snapshot the whole picture.
Anyway, here’s a snip from the latest to hit the science wires on women, porn, violence and the perceived impacts of the combo:
(…) When I first started out in my research, I was interested in exploring the arguments surrounding the effects pornography has on society. There are some feminists, among others, who argue that viewing pornography has negative effects on women, including societal perceptions of women. These effects can contribute to the disconnect that exists between media coverage of sexual violence and the social problem in reality.
The studies regarding sexually violent media that I reviewed for my research had mixed findings. Interestingly, the types of effects found and the varying degrees of their severity depended on factors such as the level of violence shown and the amount of education and/or debriefing subjects had prior to or after viewing.
Research in this area by Intons-Peterson in 1989 found that audiences viewing pornographic films tend to feel more aggressive toward women; however, if the audiences are debriefed afterward, their likelihood of aggression toward women decreases. This is an interesting finding because educating people about the emotions this type of media may instill is a tool for individuals or organizations working to stop sexual violence.
A later study in 1997 by Krafka, et al. found that viewers of sexually violent material were more likely to become desensitized to violence and even feel ambivalent toward the victims. However, the study conducted by Linz et al. in 1988 found that while audiences remain aware of the sexual violence that exists and is present in the film, they are more likely to be sympathetic and sensitive toward perceived victims.
These studies show that one of the things needed to help mitigate sexual violence in society is to educate and provide more context for it. (…read more, scienceblogs.com, thanks Praemedia!)
All I have to say is, preach on Tony.
What THE FUCK does obviously-skewed research on pornography have on, according to Broendel, “the shift that’s needed in sex crime coverage to provide more information and context to audiences”?!
Broendel’s subtle wording throughout the entire article displays a grotesque arrogance toward viewers of pornography as if they are simple-minded mites scrabbling incoherently about in the overwhelming rabble of ‘female exploitation’.
What a fucking self-absorbed, ego-inflated, brain-shrunken termagant.
The entire investigation is based on a false premise. Pornography is not a genre; it’s an accusation and a business model.
Labeling a work as “pornography” allows the work to be marginalize, socially and economically. Accepting or even celebrating this label means running a business that accepts the realities of this marginalization: poor access to markets, legally marginalized distribution, preposterously low wholesale price points, second-class citizen treatment in the media, government censorship, etc. (Producers and publishers who wish to participate in the market broadly label their work as erotica see for example, the book covers in the side bar our or own self-created label “erotic documentary.)
Once the argument over content stops, and the question of “pornography” is parsed from a legal and economic point of view, investigations like Katherine Broendel’s can be seen for what they are, an attempt to further justify the legal, social, and most of all, economic marginalization of sexual expression. She creates an ill defined and ultimately false class “pornography” and then layers on top of that dubious assertions about the effect of viewing material drawn from within this class. If her assertions gain currency, then the label “pornography” can be used to marginal whatever work to which it can be successfully attached.
It was Nadine Strossen, I believe, who said the solution to bad pornography is good pornography, but her solution is offered in ignorance of the realities of film production and most especially the production sexually explicit images.
The solution is not “good pornography”. The solution is to make erotic work of sufficient quality that it can stand along side non-erotic productions without embarrassment; and having made that work, to fight for fair and equal treatment in markets and the media: to fight for wholesale price point, to fight for shelf space, to fight against censorship, to fight to be treated with respect when the subject of coverage in mainstream media outlets.
Erotic work that can stand side by side with non-erotic work without embarrassment to producer or audience, that can command the same wholesale price point as non-erotic work, that will not tolerate second-class treatment by the media or legal system is definitionally not pornography.
Feminists yawn.
Great post, Violet–long time lurker, first time poster (as far as I remember).
I’m not questioning that violent media and imagery cause increases in violence–this is actually accepted as a fact by most respected psychological associations. As the article says, however, when “debriefed” after viewing presumably-violent pornography, their feelings of “aggression to women” decrease.
I have to wonder what the nature of this debriefing is, or what contextualization this applies to the sexual material involved. Are the response feelings from porn accurately described as “aggression,” particularly in the case of male viewers? Isn’t the whole concept of BDSM as a lifestyle an aspect of debriefing or deprogramming such experiences?
My impression of anti-porn feminism is that it’s still very tightly tied to the upper- and upper-middle class feminist experience that’s more focused on what they find personally offensive and could care less about the problems of sexuality and violence on poor women who don’t have the access or funds to participate in movement feminism.
As the previous commenter pointed out, your site presents and directs people to good porn that embraces a broad perspective on human sexuality, and that’s all the more proof that people who attempt to demonize all pornography simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why this is still an issue among feminists. Why continue to beat a dead horse? The subtle message implied in Broendel’s article is the implication of violence in all forms of porn. The standard mantra is that the commodification of sex (even if it is consenting) ultimately degrades and objectifies women and this equals violence. And yet so many women (and men, couples, etc..) get off while viewing this material. I bet even Broendel has objectifying sexual fantasies. I honestly thought that the whole issue of porn is slowly moving into the post-feminist realm with the notion that the solution to bad porn (whatever your definition is eg. the coercive kind or child porn) is the production of better porn. Isn’t Tiny Nibbles an example of good porn? Yet I bet Broendel would think otherwise and consider Tiny Nibbles as an example of violence towards women.