Can Porn Be Good For Us?

The Ten-Day Debate at The Economist, with Dr. Robert Jensen

The Economist magazine sponsored an online debate on the question "Can porn be good for us?" Dr. Robert Jensen argued against pornography and Cindy Gallop argued for, with guest commentaries. At the end of the 10-day debate, readers voted 81% against pornography.

(For those not familiar with Dr. Jensen, he is a long-time mentor of mine whom I had the pleasure of interviewing four years ago on the topic of pornography and again in March of this year- see Related Content, below this blog post).

In the ten-day debate over at The Economist last week, the always-brilliant and outspoken Jensen gave these as his opening remarks: 

by Robert Jensen
Graphic sexual material can make some people feel good, but that doesn't mean it's good for us, as individuals or collectively. Rather than obsessing over the immediate pleasure of an orgasm facilitated by pornography, a more productive inquiry would start with a fundamental question: "What does it mean to be human?"

All political positions are based on underlying moral claims. Attitudes towards pornography are no different. At issue are not preachy judgments about sexual behaviour, but how to reconcile humans' yearning for self-realisation with the need for stable, respectful communities that allow individuals to fulfil their potential. Although it's true that "you can't legislate morality", every position in the pornography debate is based on a sexual ethic. And the ethic of pornography is pretty clear: individual pleasure-seeking trumps all other values, and no one need pay attention to the consequences of either institutionalised male dominance or modern culture's seemingly endless appetite for high-tech media that become more "real" than our own lives.

Pornography is more widely and easily accessible than ever before. Much of it is cruel and degrading to women, and some is overtly racist. As pornographers have championed a libertarian sexual ethic that focuses on individual choices and ignores the social constraints that structure choices, they have helped advance the idea that all aspects of our lives can, and should, be mediated through screens.

How does a pornographic culture answer the question about "being human"? When it comes to power, it says that the domination/subordination dynamic of patriarchy is inevitable, because it's how humans are designed. So get used to the same old hierarchy. And to questions about images and the nature of technology, it responds that the more mediated our lives are the better, since this heightens our sense of control. So get used to ever-greater narcissism.

But does graphic sexual material, with the intensity that comes from delivery through film and video, help build stable, respectful communities? Exploring sexual themes in art can illuminate the power and mystery of desire, but what are the long-term effects of reducing sex to pleasure acquisition through a screen? Do these mediated experiences erode our ability to connect sexually in person? Is it possible that sex and intimacy don't translate well to explicit representation in the mass media?

This leads to an often overlooked question: What is sex for? Of the ways people might understand sexuality in their lives, which are most consistent with self-realisation and stable, respectful communities? At times, especially within certain religious traditions, rigid answers to such questions have been imposed on people in ways that were routinely constraining and sometimes inhumane. But just because a question has sometimes been answered badly does not mean that asking it can, or should be, avoided.

The varied ways different societies have made sense of these questions indicates there is no one answer. Even within one individual's life, sex can play a different role at different times. For young people, sex may be primarily about exploring themselves and their limits; for adults, its most important function may be to foster intimacy within a primary relationship. In general, we can think of sex as a form of communication that teaches us not just about others but also about ourselves. We can collectively try to understand which conceptions of sex are most healthful without claiming definitive knowledge or the right to impose judgments on others.

Just as we recognise that eating is more than the acquisition of calories, so sex is more than the acquisition of pleasure. The food industry offers "industrial eating"; pornography offers "industrial sex". But the experience of eating fast food differs from that of eating food to which we have a more direct connection in production or preparation. Both processed fast food and processed fast sex create a gulf between us and the real world. People often respond to both by saying: "But I like it." Both produce a certain type of pleasure efficiently—but what is lost in normalising these forms of pleasure?

What does it mean to be human now? Our answer must be consistent with the core progressive principles of dignity (all people have the same claim to being human), solidarity (human flourishing depends on loving connections to others) and equality (dignity and solidarity are impossible without social and economic justice).

A feminist critique of the sexual-exploitation industries analyses prostitution, pornography and stripping as ways of delivering objectified female bodies to men. Whatever one's view of the role of intimacy and sexuality in society, it is difficult to imagine achieving justice when members of one group (women) can routinely be bought and sold by those of another (men). Under conditions of equality, it is hard to imagine such exploitative practices would exist.

A sexual ethic consistent with these widely held moral principles would reject the hierarchy of patriarchy and recognise that systems of domination and subordination are inherently abusive. And a sexual ethic consistent with just, sustainable communities would question the rush to "technologise" all human activity. That doesn't mean that mediated storytelling with sexual themes is inherently negative, only that we need to consider not only the pleasures of sex through technology but also the deeper consequences. We don't need to romanticise a mythical golden age to recognise that what we call progress does not always enhance the quality of our lives.

Dr. Jensen's rebuttal is here: http://debates.economist.com/debate/online-pornography?state=rebuttal

And his closing remarks are here: http://debates.economist.com/debate/online-pornography?state=closing

WHAT ABOUT YOU? WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS— OPINIONS—TAKEAWAYS? PLEASE COMMENT BELOW:

Robert Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center in Austin. He is the author of Plain Radical: Living, Loving, and Learning to Leave the Planet Gracefully (Counterpoint/Soft Skull, 2015). Jensen's other books include Arguing for Our Lives: A User's Guide to Constructive Dialogue (City Lights, 2013); All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice, (Soft Skull Press, 2009); Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007); The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights, 2005); Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights, 2004); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang, 2002). Jensen is also co-producer of the documentary film "Abe Osheroff: One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing" (Media Education Fou
ndation,
2009), which chronicles the life and philosophy of the longtime radical activist.
Jensen can be reached at rjensen@austin.utexas.edu and his articles can be found online at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/index.html. To join an email list to receive articles by Jensen, go to http://www.thirdcoastactivist.org/jensenupdates-info.html. Twitter: @jensenrobertw.

Commenting Anonymously
Note that you must enter a name and email below in order to submit a comment. The name you enter will show up along with your comment (your email will not), so if you'd like to comment anonymously, please enter a name such as "guest" or use your initials.