tratto da The Insurgent
Porn as Power: a Fallacy of Liberation
There is much defense in Eugene (and other places) of the use of
pornography as a tool for sexual liberation. Very few activists are willing
to target purveyors of pornography, who have turned sexuality into a
commodity, but they are quite ready to target other oppressive businesses,
like Nike. Often this is because they fail to see that pornography has less
to do with liberation or free speech than it does with commerce.
Pornography turns human sexuality--particularly women's sexuality--into a
product, bought and sold for huge profits.
Worse yet, supposed post-feminists defend woman-made porn or stripping, and
even the likes of playboy or hustler, by claiming that women are finding
their sexual power through bearing their naked bodies for money. I want to
dissect these rationalizations to give a better understanding of what is
behind the failure of anarchists and other activists to combat the
oppression that is pornography. Why are so many activists, who are
otherwise aware of capitalist exploitation, unable to make the connection
to the commodification of sexuality into a billion-dollar industry?
Some women in the sex industry and porn apologists defend the
commodification of women's bodies as women reclaiming their power. I've
heard this from friends and roommates who worked as strippers, who said
they enjoyed controlling the sexual response of men and being the object of
desire. As an anarchist, I find this rationalization absurd. How far have
you fallen from the tree of sexism, if you still define sex in terms of
power dynamics? Who is really in control of the product? In actuality, porn
is consumer-driven. It provides a very limited forum for women to perform
sexually in ways that the consumer will find appealing. The "performer"
must conform her expression to the whims and fantasies of the consumer or
she'll quickly lose her forum. This is not free expression by any means!
It is particularly disturbing to hear anarchists use "liberation" as an
excuse to defend what is blatantly sexist and hierarchical. There are at
least two problems with the "liberation" argument: capitalism in any form
is oppressive, but most especially when it exploits and distorts humanness
and intimacy. Secondly, how on earth can anarchists or feminists claim with
a straight face that the use of sex as power is anti-hierarchical or even
anti-establishment? Commodification through capitalism and the
bastardization of sexuality as power are both very much in line with
mainstream society and patriarchal values.
Additionally, the concept of women gaining power by putting themselves
forth as objects to be drooled over by men, is absolutely a ridiculous
argument. ("I contribute to the demeaning of women's sexuality, because it
gives me power.") For anarchists, the concept of using sexuality as a means
of power over others is not only a bastardization of sexuality, but it is
oppressive and anti-male, as well as anti-female. To portray oneself as an
unobtainable fetish is manipulative and dysfunctional. Women who get their
kicks off gaining sexual power over others obviously have some issues about
sexuality that they need to work out.
Women who put themselves forward to be judged only by their sexual
attributes reflect caricatures of women in our society. In an average issue
of a porno mag, the only aspect of a woman that is presented is her
sexuality. The reader never has a chance to see the woman as anything but
her ability to copulate or titillate. Interviews may be conducted with the
latest writers or actors, but not usually with any of the "models." And
thus, women put themselves forward as nothing but their sexuality. I'm
proud to say that I am more than just my sexuality -- I am a whole being
that refuses to be pigeon-holed as only one aspect of myself. Women who
believe that they gain power by leaning on their sexuality as their major
attribute are selling themselves short.
Porn also presents an irresponsible and shallow image of women, and
contributes to the mass perception of women as objects to be used for their
sexuality only. Because it perpetuates an image of women as synonymous with
sexual availability, it contributes to the lack of safety for all women.
women who allow themselves to be portrayed as merely sexual creatures
contribute to the all-American myth of women as always sexually available
for men. This is distinctly pro-establishment.
While it's easier to not examine this issue, or to fall back on "first
amendment" defensiveness, it's something that activists cannot ignore. Try
using the first amendment smokescreen to defend any other billion-dollar
industry and most anarchists would laugh you out of the room (at the very
least!). It's time to get past the excuses and look at the way pornography
ties into issues of domination, the commodification and distortion of human
experience, class issues, sexism and many other oppressions.
So the next time a spontaneous demonstration/riot happens, I hope
anarchists are also thinking about the many porno shops that are dumped in
poor and working-class neighborhoods. There's a reason these places are
ghetto-ized. There's a reason why the most vulnerable (young and poor
women) are targeted for this sexual exploitation. So start thinking about it...
This is an excerpt from Durga #3. Get your very own copy, filled with other
cool stuff!
Write Durga at:
PO Box 5841, Eugene, OR 97405
http://insurgent.fruitiondesign.com/index.php?volnum=13.3&article=pornpower
