![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsychePornography: [from] Late Greek. Pornographos, writing about prostitutes: porne, prostitute + graphein, to write.
The relationship between pornography and prostitution is of great importance if one is to understand the former. Although modern pornography is, arguably, about regular, everyday women (co-workers, acquaintances, 'the girl next door,' etc.), most still protrays women as lustful, insatiable, and always ready for sexual activity, which is the traditional description of the young, sexy prostitute. The common cultural view of the prostitute is that of cultural filth. In this context, it is understandable why some feminists are against pornography: conflating everyday women with "traditional" prostitutes may well lead to an overarching view of all women as whores, tramps, and sluts; in other words, sexually inviolable. Such a view unquestionably leads to what feminists term a 'rape culture': a society in which men exercise their power over women by using sex as a weapon.
This popular notion elevates and transforms pornography into a symbol of a much larger problem. This larger problem is the cultural view of woman as body and woman as sex, ideas that have been embedded in our culture's philosophy for centuries. Thus, in order to understand the problem with pornography, one must examine that philosophy, uncover its symbols, and then observe how these symbols became translated into societal values.
[...] One cannot observe American society without noting how Americans continually obsess about the body. From diet strategies to sodomy laws, the whole of society is based on recognition, assessment, and regulation of the body. For example, all babies are assigned a gender. Gender is codified with physicality; thus a male is presumed to be a man and a female a woman. This marker provides society a way to classify, to identify, the body.
From a societal point of view, the body must be controlled because the body represents nature. Nature is understood to be antithetical to civilization. Civilization equals culture and reason, the very things humans strive to attain and further; nature is reckless and chaotic, bringing with it uncertainty, anarchy, ruin of civilization. As long as the body remains unchecked, the basis of our culture and identity, indeed our very existence, is threatened.
[...] Women are equated with nature, philosophy aside, because of their direct physical link with reproduction. For centuries, the idea of woman has been synonymous with the idea of mother, because the female is the sex of the species that gives birth. As all of nature reproduces, and women obviously reproduce, the parallel is not difficult to make. Conversely, men never seem to reproduce, as no human being is seen coming from the male. Thus man stands apart from nature. This enables men to possibly transcend nature. Women, as they are literally tied to the birthing process, are forever trapped in their bodies. They are not only of matter--they are matter. Thus they can never truly transcend matter and enter a state of pure reason; they cannot transcend their very essence.
If women equal reproduction, then they essentially equal sex and sexuality. As such, they must be controlled. Because sex is one of the few remaining ways in which humans must admit to their animality, it must be suppressed in order to maintain civilization. . . . Each time a man has sex, he relinquishes (albeit momentarily) his ability, his possibility, of transcendence. Sex distracts man, keeps him from pursuing his proper goal, reason.
[...] Prostitutes have been despised by society for centuries. On the surface, one should be puzzled as to why: a prostitute is simply a woman who, in one sense or another, has given her body to men sexually in exchange for explicit monetary reward. In a capitalistic society such as ours, such a phenomenon should be expected if not tacitly encouraged: a person using whatever means necessary to attain monetary success has always been praised in our society. Only when sex as a trade is involved do people express abhorrence. In America, we often attribute this despisal to our Puritanical roots as an explanation. However, I believe it goes further than that. Prostitutes are not only hated by mainstream society; they are now disdained by many feminists as well. The prostitute is not just a woman--she is a symbol of something beyond the exchange of her services. She represents gender confusion and subversion for the patriarchs; she is the ultimate symbol of sex for the feminists. Either way, she is a problem.
The prostitute, first and perhaps foremost, accepts her depiction as the Body. She accentuates her body, wearing clothes that emphasize her flesh, particularly those body parts that have become elements of the cultural erotic script for male arousal: breasts (and shoulders, the more modest symbol of the breast), buttocks, and legs. Lips are stressed as well, almost always lipsticked in order to symbolize the reddened, 'ready' lips of the vulva. . . . As the Body, the prostitute completely relinquishes any claim of Mind, of mental capacity; she uses her body to sway men impulsively instead of using her faculties to reason with them.
[...] The prostitute, in her acceptance of the body, is not seen as celebrating her sexuality; instead she is seen as flaunting it. This sexual aggression is a transgression of the primary gender boundary for women, as women must be the mothers of society and maintainers of societal restraint. Women must also be passive, since they embody the opposite of masculinity--men are active, women are acted upon. Her sexual aggression thus threatens on multiple levels. She represents the fall of civilization, as she tempts men away from their rational pursuits and causes them to surrender to the flesh; she renders rigid gender constructs ambiguous, since activity, even sexual activity, is circumscribed only within the masculine cultural script; and she upsets the current patriarchal structure, which rewards women with monogamous marriage for their purity and docility--the prostitute seduces men away from their 'good, honest' wives.
[...] The prostitute becomes conflated with the cultural idea of woman through the medium of pornography. At its roots, pornography refers to "writing about prostitutes." If it had remained true to its roots, perhaps pornography would not constitute the political threat it does now to some feminists. 'Good' women could still separate themselves from the symbol of the prostitute, still redeem themselves to society as people who can use reason and be rational. The lines between 'normal' women and 'fallen' prostitutes would be much clearer.
However, at some point, pornography began to refer to the explicit depiction of sex, not just between a prostitute and her client but between average, everyday men and women. This blurred the distinction between prostitutes and women, as 'normal' women were being depicted in pornography. Normal, everyday women began to be seen as oversexed, insatiable, even nymphomaniacal. For the men depicted in this transformed pornography, the depiction of average people engaged in sex in common pornography probably does not constitute as large problem: men, as their gender permits, do not have the same restrictions that women do. Men have always been freer in terms of selecting sexual partners; even soliciting a prostitute does not defile a man's cultural character. Thus, showing men and women participating in sex does not directly endanger men's self- or societal image.
For some women, however, the common depiction of woman as oversexed is seen as potentially damaging. To participate in reason, a woman must in some way deny her sexuality. As pornography has come to show everyday women, every woman becomes associated with the symbol of the prostitute, by virtue of the medium. If all women are like prostitutes, and if all women therefore are oversexed, then no woman can claim to be of pure reason, as they are often and easily swayed by bodily sensation. In the political struggle to attain equal rights for women in a male-dominated, scientific world, this view can be quite dangerous.
Pornography, or rather the pornographic woman, becomes the epitome of body, sex and sexuality. Pornography and the pornographic woman become the symbol representing the destruction of human civilization and everything we hold dear. And, as the pornographic woman becomes extended to mean every woman, then every woman, because of her deep-rooted sexuality and despite her rationality, comes to be seen as the enemy of society. As all women become implicated in pornography, the very issue of pornography becomes a problem for many feminists, as it seems to fly in the face of the overarching political goals of the feminist movement. It is impossible, in many feminists' minds, to support a medium that helps devalue women to mere bodies.
[...] The radical feminists have converted the idea of woman as sex into pornographic woman as sex, which necessarily divides feminists, and inevitably all women, among themselves. As Ellen Willis has explained, such thinking "pit[s] 'good' feminists against 'bad' whores," something "clearly not in women's interests" ("Feminism, Moralism, and Pornography"). It transforms sexual women into beings living purely for sensation and not for intellectual advancement (something awful in terms of the feminist movement), and seemingly asexual women as something beyond feminine, a female who has transcended her expected sexual role. The major flaw in the radical feminist mode of thought is that it circles back to the old philosophy of mind versus body. For radical feminists, women in pornography are seen as 'dehumanized' and 'objectified'. This language sounds incredibly and suspiciously similar to Plato's description of 'form' and 'matter'. Getting rid of the symbol of pornography is not going to disempower the philosophy upon which that symbol is based. The old mind-body dualism arguably is patriarchal and misogynistic. To pattern a feminist politics from it is oxymoronic and foolish.
The liberal feminist viewpoint is flawed as well. As it concentrates on pornography as a free speech issue, it completely skirts the problem of woman as body, something that the radical feminists tackle head-on. Pornography is a visual medium and, as such, should be protected under our ideals of freedom of the press and freedom of expression. However, the issues of mind and body deserve to be examined as well. Again, that dualism is patriarchal; thus, to support a concept such as pornography which as such an idea as its foundation is dangerous and ill-considered. A thorough look at a concept's tenets is necessary in order for one to know if one should support that concept. As pornography, at its source, is based on the mind-body dualism, blind support of it because it is mass-produced by the press is more than a bit short-sighted. Such a simplistic view of the battle over pornography ignores its power base and the message inherent in the medium.
The mind-body dualism, as the philosophical base to pornography, is the problem with pornography as a concept. It divides mind from matter. In the medium of pornography, the women therein are depicted as bodies, as matter, as form; these bodies are devoid of life, devoid of personhood. As a concept, then, pornography reinforces the idea that women are divorced from mental activity and should be seen only as beautiful, oversexed objects. What is needed is a philosophy--personal, political, or universal--that incorporates body and mind. We need a mode of thought that reaches beyond the dualities that plague Western philosophy.
[...] Pornography teaches us to look at the body and to see sexuality as exclusive of mental activity. But, once we learn to see our bodies as part of our selves, we can then take steps to look past the mind-body dualism. We will learn to integrate our sexuality and our mentality with our bodily selves. When that happens, sex will occur with the mind as well as the body, and pornography as the medium we know it to be today will become obsolete. Only depictions that show whole persons will be considered arousing; old pornography, depicting only the body, will no longer be adequate for its purpose, sexual arousal. Its philosophy will need to be changed in order for it to reflect the current cultural beliefs of the society that surrounds it. Here is where pornography needs to be changed: at the personal level, learning to see oneself as both body and actor. It is not an easy battle, for transforming a long-held philosophical tenet is no small charge. However, the endeavor is worthwhile, for in changing how we view ourselves, we change the way we view the world.
The relationship between pornography and prostitution is of great importance if one is to understand the former. Although modern pornography is, arguably, about regular, everyday women (co-workers, acquaintances, 'the girl next door,' etc.), most still protrays women as lustful, insatiable, and always ready for sexual activity, which is the traditional description of the young, sexy prostitute. The common cultural view of the prostitute is that of cultural filth. In this context, it is understandable why some feminists are against pornography: conflating everyday women with "traditional" prostitutes may well lead to an overarching view of all women as whores, tramps, and sluts; in other words, sexually inviolable. Such a view unquestionably leads to what feminists term a 'rape culture': a society in which men exercise their power over women by using sex as a weapon.
This popular notion elevates and transforms pornography into a symbol of a much larger problem. This larger problem is the cultural view of woman as body and woman as sex, ideas that have been embedded in our culture's philosophy for centuries. Thus, in order to understand the problem with pornography, one must examine that philosophy, uncover its symbols, and then observe how these symbols became translated into societal values.
[...] One cannot observe American society without noting how Americans continually obsess about the body. From diet strategies to sodomy laws, the whole of society is based on recognition, assessment, and regulation of the body. For example, all babies are assigned a gender. Gender is codified with physicality; thus a male is presumed to be a man and a female a woman. This marker provides society a way to classify, to identify, the body.
From a societal point of view, the body must be controlled because the body represents nature. Nature is understood to be antithetical to civilization. Civilization equals culture and reason, the very things humans strive to attain and further; nature is reckless and chaotic, bringing with it uncertainty, anarchy, ruin of civilization. As long as the body remains unchecked, the basis of our culture and identity, indeed our very existence, is threatened.
[...] Women are equated with nature, philosophy aside, because of their direct physical link with reproduction. For centuries, the idea of woman has been synonymous with the idea of mother, because the female is the sex of the species that gives birth. As all of nature reproduces, and women obviously reproduce, the parallel is not difficult to make. Conversely, men never seem to reproduce, as no human being is seen coming from the male. Thus man stands apart from nature. This enables men to possibly transcend nature. Women, as they are literally tied to the birthing process, are forever trapped in their bodies. They are not only of matter--they are matter. Thus they can never truly transcend matter and enter a state of pure reason; they cannot transcend their very essence.
If women equal reproduction, then they essentially equal sex and sexuality. As such, they must be controlled. Because sex is one of the few remaining ways in which humans must admit to their animality, it must be suppressed in order to maintain civilization. . . . Each time a man has sex, he relinquishes (albeit momentarily) his ability, his possibility, of transcendence. Sex distracts man, keeps him from pursuing his proper goal, reason.
[...] Prostitutes have been despised by society for centuries. On the surface, one should be puzzled as to why: a prostitute is simply a woman who, in one sense or another, has given her body to men sexually in exchange for explicit monetary reward. In a capitalistic society such as ours, such a phenomenon should be expected if not tacitly encouraged: a person using whatever means necessary to attain monetary success has always been praised in our society. Only when sex as a trade is involved do people express abhorrence. In America, we often attribute this despisal to our Puritanical roots as an explanation. However, I believe it goes further than that. Prostitutes are not only hated by mainstream society; they are now disdained by many feminists as well. The prostitute is not just a woman--she is a symbol of something beyond the exchange of her services. She represents gender confusion and subversion for the patriarchs; she is the ultimate symbol of sex for the feminists. Either way, she is a problem.
The prostitute, first and perhaps foremost, accepts her depiction as the Body. She accentuates her body, wearing clothes that emphasize her flesh, particularly those body parts that have become elements of the cultural erotic script for male arousal: breasts (and shoulders, the more modest symbol of the breast), buttocks, and legs. Lips are stressed as well, almost always lipsticked in order to symbolize the reddened, 'ready' lips of the vulva. . . . As the Body, the prostitute completely relinquishes any claim of Mind, of mental capacity; she uses her body to sway men impulsively instead of using her faculties to reason with them.
[...] The prostitute, in her acceptance of the body, is not seen as celebrating her sexuality; instead she is seen as flaunting it. This sexual aggression is a transgression of the primary gender boundary for women, as women must be the mothers of society and maintainers of societal restraint. Women must also be passive, since they embody the opposite of masculinity--men are active, women are acted upon. Her sexual aggression thus threatens on multiple levels. She represents the fall of civilization, as she tempts men away from their rational pursuits and causes them to surrender to the flesh; she renders rigid gender constructs ambiguous, since activity, even sexual activity, is circumscribed only within the masculine cultural script; and she upsets the current patriarchal structure, which rewards women with monogamous marriage for their purity and docility--the prostitute seduces men away from their 'good, honest' wives.
[...] The prostitute becomes conflated with the cultural idea of woman through the medium of pornography. At its roots, pornography refers to "writing about prostitutes." If it had remained true to its roots, perhaps pornography would not constitute the political threat it does now to some feminists. 'Good' women could still separate themselves from the symbol of the prostitute, still redeem themselves to society as people who can use reason and be rational. The lines between 'normal' women and 'fallen' prostitutes would be much clearer.
However, at some point, pornography began to refer to the explicit depiction of sex, not just between a prostitute and her client but between average, everyday men and women. This blurred the distinction between prostitutes and women, as 'normal' women were being depicted in pornography. Normal, everyday women began to be seen as oversexed, insatiable, even nymphomaniacal. For the men depicted in this transformed pornography, the depiction of average people engaged in sex in common pornography probably does not constitute as large problem: men, as their gender permits, do not have the same restrictions that women do. Men have always been freer in terms of selecting sexual partners; even soliciting a prostitute does not defile a man's cultural character. Thus, showing men and women participating in sex does not directly endanger men's self- or societal image.
For some women, however, the common depiction of woman as oversexed is seen as potentially damaging. To participate in reason, a woman must in some way deny her sexuality. As pornography has come to show everyday women, every woman becomes associated with the symbol of the prostitute, by virtue of the medium. If all women are like prostitutes, and if all women therefore are oversexed, then no woman can claim to be of pure reason, as they are often and easily swayed by bodily sensation. In the political struggle to attain equal rights for women in a male-dominated, scientific world, this view can be quite dangerous.
Pornography, or rather the pornographic woman, becomes the epitome of body, sex and sexuality. Pornography and the pornographic woman become the symbol representing the destruction of human civilization and everything we hold dear. And, as the pornographic woman becomes extended to mean every woman, then every woman, because of her deep-rooted sexuality and despite her rationality, comes to be seen as the enemy of society. As all women become implicated in pornography, the very issue of pornography becomes a problem for many feminists, as it seems to fly in the face of the overarching political goals of the feminist movement. It is impossible, in many feminists' minds, to support a medium that helps devalue women to mere bodies.
[...] The radical feminists have converted the idea of woman as sex into pornographic woman as sex, which necessarily divides feminists, and inevitably all women, among themselves. As Ellen Willis has explained, such thinking "pit[s] 'good' feminists against 'bad' whores," something "clearly not in women's interests" ("Feminism, Moralism, and Pornography"). It transforms sexual women into beings living purely for sensation and not for intellectual advancement (something awful in terms of the feminist movement), and seemingly asexual women as something beyond feminine, a female who has transcended her expected sexual role. The major flaw in the radical feminist mode of thought is that it circles back to the old philosophy of mind versus body. For radical feminists, women in pornography are seen as 'dehumanized' and 'objectified'. This language sounds incredibly and suspiciously similar to Plato's description of 'form' and 'matter'. Getting rid of the symbol of pornography is not going to disempower the philosophy upon which that symbol is based. The old mind-body dualism arguably is patriarchal and misogynistic. To pattern a feminist politics from it is oxymoronic and foolish.
The liberal feminist viewpoint is flawed as well. As it concentrates on pornography as a free speech issue, it completely skirts the problem of woman as body, something that the radical feminists tackle head-on. Pornography is a visual medium and, as such, should be protected under our ideals of freedom of the press and freedom of expression. However, the issues of mind and body deserve to be examined as well. Again, that dualism is patriarchal; thus, to support a concept such as pornography which as such an idea as its foundation is dangerous and ill-considered. A thorough look at a concept's tenets is necessary in order for one to know if one should support that concept. As pornography, at its source, is based on the mind-body dualism, blind support of it because it is mass-produced by the press is more than a bit short-sighted. Such a simplistic view of the battle over pornography ignores its power base and the message inherent in the medium.
The mind-body dualism, as the philosophical base to pornography, is the problem with pornography as a concept. It divides mind from matter. In the medium of pornography, the women therein are depicted as bodies, as matter, as form; these bodies are devoid of life, devoid of personhood. As a concept, then, pornography reinforces the idea that women are divorced from mental activity and should be seen only as beautiful, oversexed objects. What is needed is a philosophy--personal, political, or universal--that incorporates body and mind. We need a mode of thought that reaches beyond the dualities that plague Western philosophy.
[...] Pornography teaches us to look at the body and to see sexuality as exclusive of mental activity. But, once we learn to see our bodies as part of our selves, we can then take steps to look past the mind-body dualism. We will learn to integrate our sexuality and our mentality with our bodily selves. When that happens, sex will occur with the mind as well as the body, and pornography as the medium we know it to be today will become obsolete. Only depictions that show whole persons will be considered arousing; old pornography, depicting only the body, will no longer be adequate for its purpose, sexual arousal. Its philosophy will need to be changed in order for it to reflect the current cultural beliefs of the society that surrounds it. Here is where pornography needs to be changed: at the personal level, learning to see oneself as both body and actor. It is not an easy battle, for transforming a long-held philosophical tenet is no small charge. However, the endeavor is worthwhile, for in changing how we view ourselves, we change the way we view the world.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
A+
Date: 2003-11-30 04:01 pm (UTC)Before you got to it in your paper, I was thinking that women are more closely associated with Nature. Women are more natural and more integrated than men. To some extent, I believe men seek integration (as in making whole) through union with women.
I believe the American obsession with the material form has been promoted by both Madison Avenue and Hollywood...and exploited for big bucks.
I particularly liked your observation that we assign a gender identity to a baby...before we know the baby's sexual orientation.
As you know, we can find examples of glorified female sexuality in some art and in the concept of the sacred prostitute (although I'm sure another word was used).
I am convinced that the duality and split you speak of has been intentional...to control us and to cut us off from our power. The people with power and money have encouraged both pornography and prostitution. Everyone gets used for Their purposes. We will not be powerful when we are not whole and integrated. Dividing the body and mind ensures we don't recover our power. Sex and our natural instincts to seek sex bait their trap. We swallow what they're selling with amazingly little resistance.
Your paper is brilliant...and very important.
Re: A+
Date: 2003-11-30 04:22 pm (UTC)At the time, I knew next to nothing about sacred/temple prostitutes, and even now my knowledge of them is scant. If I were to revise this, I'd include a lot more, and restructure a lot of ideas.
As to where I was, I went out of town for Thanksgiving. I just got back. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-30 06:50 pm (UTC)Strangely enough, I was thinking about exactly this issue earlier this afternoon...
I hope more people start to see things this way. The way modern society treats women and sex is damaging to everyone. Is your paper being published anywhere? Online or otherwise?
LJ is good and all, but I think many people could benefit from your analysis if it could be presented to a wider audience.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-30 07:21 pm (UTC)I'll consider revising it, though. It might do me some personal good.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-12-01 06:08 am (UTC)If it had permanent web-home, sites could link to it. I think there are a lot of people out there who are tired of the phallocentric social order, but think the right-wing feminists are just as misguided. Your paper sings with the voice of reason.
Good thoughts should be shared! Truth is empowering.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-12-01 04:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-22 06:52 pm (UTC)