A Distinction That Matters

I believe this distinction is worth making, and worth using when discussing pornography. Sexual pornography - even though it frequently does "objectify women" - really is completely different from violent pornography. Mixing the two only muddies the waters for those women who use erotica and sexual pornography to enhance sexual expression in their lives. In an effort to end all pornography, anti-porn activists often run afoul of what such women see as their sexual self-interest. But I would venture a guess that very few of these women truly enjoy, or willingly consume, violent pornography. By lumping the two together, we force women to choose between none or both, and I believe anti-pornography activists will be on the losing end of that choice more often than not.

For myself, and many feminists, it is not the sex in pornography that is objectionable, it's the violence. What we find objectionable is pornography in which violence and degradation is portrayed as a sexual act; pornography in which violence is shown as sexually arousing to the participants, and intended to be sexually arousing to the user. To avoid confusion, perhaps we need a new word to denote violent pornography. Violography? No, that conjures up images of pictures of violinists. Perhaps "pornolence" is a better word.

(Note: Before you fire off that scathing missive about "consensual activities," let me add that, yes, I'm aware that there are people who enjoy bondage/discipline, dominance/submission or sadomasochism. About even has a website dedicated to it: About BDSM (you must be 21 to enter). As a consensual activity, assuming it is consensual, it's none of my business. But, I believe that most BDSM films/videos do not make clear the consensual nature of the activities. By my definition, that falls into the realm of "violence or degradation as sex.")

There are a lot of "graphic" sex films/tapes/books/magazines out there that aren't "pornolence". There is a lot of material that doesn't even include sex that is "pornolence." For example, "crush videos," in which women stomp on mice and other small animals with high heels, for the apparently erotic effect it has on some people.

When it comes to "pornolence," I think MacKinnon and Dworkin have a point well worth considering: These images affect what we, as a society, view as "acceptable" behavior. It is highly disingenuous to complain about the pervasiveness of violence against women in our society - especially sexual violence such as rape and other forms of sexual assault - while pretending that films, books and magazines which promote that same kind of violence don't have anything to do with its pervasiveness. As the old saying goes, companies don't spend millions of dollars to plaster images of their products across every available media because it doesn't work.

To state the issue clearly: Those who insist that we must defend all forms of pornography, including "pornolence," as free speech, are defending the portrayal of violent acts perpetrated on unwilling victims, for the perpetrator's sexual pleasure. Yes, sadly, pornolence is "speech" and protected under the Constitution. But even free speech has limits under our laws: you can't use it to directly threaten to actually harm a person, for example. Nor can you use it to "incite" someone to commit a criminal act. However, those limits apparently were not enough to prevent University of Michigan student Jake Baker. from publishing a rape/torture fantasy online, using the actual name of a female he knew as the victim. (The above link will take you to a page containing a link to that story, as well as some of his other torture fantasies. They are graphic, brutal and gruesome, and I would suggest you read them only if you truly believe that "pornolence" bears any rational relationship to sex.)

The Baker case was dismissed on two extremely narrow readings of the legal limitations on speech: The publicly-available story didn't specify actual intent to commit the crime, and so did not constitute an "actual" threat of harm to the woman. Secondly, the emails which did specify intent to commit the crimes, and invited another person to join him in committing those crimes, were not public - and therefore not available to the victims specified in the email - so they weren't "direct" threats. That dismissal was upheld on appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, although not without a strong dissent by Judge Krupansky.

But wait, you say. That was just one sick individual, publishing his fantasies in some dark corner of the internet where the cockroaches of humanity gather. Shine a light into that corner and they will scatter, you say. Well, no. Consider that the best selling book American Psycho has scenes every bit as brutal as Baker's, and not only did the "light" cause the book's sales to go up, it attracted the attention of Hollywood. The movie, based on the book, opened to rave reviews in April, 2000, backed with millions of dollars worth of promotion.

Next: Back on the Band Wagon

Back to Article Index