Opinion
Experts’ verdict on porn: A hung jury
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Tim Williams:
- Want to lower drinking age? Stop driving drunk (April 24, 2008)
- Experts' verdict on porn: A hung jury (April 10, 2008)
- Taking the 'super' out of superdelegates (March 27, 2008)
- No matter how tasty, cheese won't solve problems (March 6, 2008)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Sex Out Loud is one of the most grossly overfunded student organizations on campus. So it was with a healthy dose of skepticism that I trekked Tuesday night to the Red Gym for a pornography debate for Sexual Health Week.
The rain and poor directions made for a bleak turnout, and an opening promotion for a “striptease class” Wednesday prompted unrestrained laughter from a human development professor and a fruitless battle with wayward eyes from a local priest — both on the panel. But Sex Out Loud should be commended for stimulating a thought-provoking debate on something often relegated to guilty jokes and fear-mongering.
The motley crew panel — including a sex and marriage counselor, a neopagan priest, two men involved in anti-sexual violence programs and a self-described “third-wave, sex-positive, fabulous queer feminist” — roughly divided into two camps: those who believe pornography is inherently destructive, and those who believe its good and ill effects are entirely dependent on the context in which it is consumed. While I left the debate unconvinced of any widespread tangible benefits or detriments pornography could have on human relationships, the wide-ranging personal reactions displayed point to pornography as a blank slate bordered with neon lights — it says, less tastefully, whatever you want it to say.
The deck was somewhat stacked against those with more black-and-white views, as neither grad student John Capuano nor Men Stopping Rape coordinator Stephen Montagna offered much substantive critique of the researched “pro-context” arguments of MATC professor Amy Gilliland. This is unsurprising, as there is little evidence to support any link, let alone a causal one, between pornography and sexual violence. The best Mr. Montagna could come up with was a head-scratching extended metaphor, comparing pornography to the “girl you have fun with.” Father Eric Nielsen, however, put forth by far the most focused and elegant argument of the panel members. He argued, without resorting to easy biblical quoting, pornography removes sex from the intimacy of partners and distinguished sexual practice between partners exchanging “base pleasure” from those engaging in a “reciprocal self-forgetfulness.” But this represents a fundamentally neo-Platonic view of sexuality; it is a critique of the simple pursuit of pleasure more than it is a critique of pornography specifically.
The theme that rang most true in the debate is that context determines the effects of pornography on the viewer. Ms. Gilliland pointed to numerous surveys of individuals who reported the anonymity of the Internet allows them to seek out others with sexual interests they would otherwise not dare speak of. This train of thought leaned toward caricature in her, well, fetishistic academic curiosity on the expanding world of fetishes, talking at length on how members of online communities assert their sexual freedom in choosing animals as their avatars. Ms. Gilliland and others cautious of passing judgment on pornography did not totally avoid the question at hand, though.
Many were troubled by the unrealistic body images perpetuated by pornography. As Ms. Gilliland said, if we were to draw our sexual expectations from most pornography, we would think, among other things, fat people don’t have sex, people over the age of 30 don’t have sex, condoms are accessories and good sex doesn’t require communication skills. A couple panelists made a distinction between “erotica” and “pornography,” the latter being objectifying and degrading, and the former “celebrating the human body.” Ms. Gilliland recommended Comstock Films as a “realistic” purveyor of pornography, for the curious.
The problem, of course, is what some find degrading, others consider normal sexual behavior. Those proclaiming doom and gloom on the multitudinous perversities of the Internet age would do well to take a historical perspective. Ms. Gilliland rightly pointed out “any activity you see in pornography today … you can see in a film 100 years ago.” Moreover, porn has proliferated at the dawn of every new communicative technology — there are medieval woodcuts that could make some blush. Whatever one believes about the influence of pornography, the only thing different today is the ease of access to it.
Some at the panel, including sex therapist Cara Hoffert, thought that is enough of a problem in and of itself. It’s true the possibility of addiction to online pornography is real, but so too with many other activities. In the absence of hard numbers, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more people addicted to “World of Warcraft” than anything else online. More troubling is the overwhelming tendency of individuals to hide their consumption of pornography from their partners. The largest problem Ms. Hoffert hears from couples is a lack of interest in sex. But Ms. Hoffert said she could not put out a blanket warning against pornography. Pornography can revitalize a relationship and aid those without one, but it can have the opposite effect when used in secret and shame, she said.
So what are we left with, then? One danger of pornography, like sex in general, is our inability to talk about it. Turning the focus to college students, Ms. Hoffert asked the crowd how many had ever talked seriously with their parents about sex, with the expected result. Pornography may be out of sight, but it is not out of mind, and we cannot form our values in a vacuum.
Tim Williams (twilliams@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in English.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
"The motley crew panel — including a sex and marriage counselor, a neopagan priest, two men involved in anti-sexual violence programs and a self-described “third-wave, sex-positive, fabulous queer feminist”"
If this doesn't sound like a stereotypical cross-section of Madison, I don't know what does.
Almost anything "used in secret and shame" can be a problem.
An "ok" article, but loved the title!...lol.
"One danger of pornography, like sex in general, is our inability to talk about it."
Wonderfully stated, Mr. Williams, and this is precisely why Sex Out Loud receives the funding it does. Despite your opening criticism of our organization, you conclude by noting that, as "expected," few of us are well-educated by our parents (or schools) about sexual health and sexual pleasure (or perhaps I should say that you do not actually note this, since it's such a painfully obvious statement). Part of Sex Out Loud's role on campus is to fill this sex-ed void, to provide information people value and seek out (as evidenced by the "bleak" turnout of 30-40 people at Tuesday night's debate).
Further, without commenting on my own personal views on pornography, your claim that "there is little evidence to support any link, let alone a causal one, between pornography and sexual violence" is inaccurate. I do agree that evidence supporting a causal relationship is lacking (at this time). However, to state that there is "little evidence" connecting the two indicates "little evidence" of any research on your part prior to writing this article. A number of well-known studies, including Zillman & Bryant (1982) and virtually any research by Donnerstein indicate an association between the viewing of pornography and sexual aggression. Though I disagree with your dismissal of Sex Out Loud, your opinion is one that I can accept and respect. But while this is a matter of opinion, to claim that little evidence supports a connection between pornography and sexual violence is an error of fact.
Haha yeah dude, Damn! I am totally wishing I went to that debate, so I could have dropped in on that 'dialogue' as some people say it. I've found myself -- lately -- jacking off a lot to porn videos online. Like seriously betweenst 2-5 times a day, depending on how hard my guilt is prodding me on the respective day. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's bad, but I will say that I agree with the lady you mentioned that said that one of the ills about it is that it makes one not want to go out and fuck chicks. That's the case with me right now, but then again, right now everyone all around campus is trying to 'raise' 'awareness' of stids n' aids n' consa-pitchin'-a-tently how to properly pull a condom over your pussy prod/poo poker/throat throbber/ et cetera. Well, here's the thing, man: I don't run the risk of any of that shit by virtue of the fact that my dick gets its jollies from my hand and my hand only -- not some armpit-like ham wallet festering, maybe, with stids.
I don't understand what's wrong with my methodology here. It does abrasively rub against my Christian ideology, and I can't reconcile that, but, aside from that, I think it's only keeping me as fit as a steed. My transubstantiation to a stallion shalt only commence once a female finally takes a liking to me and shows a substantial promise of fidelity. Hoo ha.
First, Mr. Williams, thanks for giving some ink to this issue. I'm sorry some of my statements caused head-scratching; the format of the debate was rather rigid - we had been given a set of questions to respond to, and two minutes to respond; it can be difficult to explore this complex a topic in such a short time frame.
To clarify my statement, I was alluding to an old (and maybe still current) phrase: "there are two kinds of women: the kind you marry and the kind you don't" which alludes to the pornography-driven idea that some women are built for fun (and can therefore be humiliated, dominated, treated like meat, etc.) and others are the "nice girls" you take home to meet the parents and commit to. My point (or intent at least) was to point to the fact that pornography teaches a very narrow definition of woman-hood (and subsequently masculinity and male behavior) which focuses us on a lowest-common-denominator of sexuality. What we miss is the larger picture of seeing women as whole beings, and of experiencing sensuality and incredible pleasure in tandem with human connection, respect, and consent.
Second, to the gentleman who posted above - as far as "a female finally tak[ing] a liking to" you, perhaps if you learn to start thinking (and speaking and typing) about it as loving a woman rather than "fuck chicks" (which, can you see from "her" point of view might sound a little violent, depersonalized, mechanical, and generally off-putting?), you might have more of a chance of meeting a woman on her level - a human one.
Stephen Montagna
Men Stopping Rape, Inc.