Pleasure Politics: A Feminist Assessment
Imo Sneath assesses the 'pornography debate' within feminism, interrogating its uneasy sexual moralism and denial of expansive sexual practices, in what begins a two-part QUIRK special.
Imo Sneath
25 November 2021
25 November 2021
The term “porne” literally translates as ‘female slavery’ in ancient Greek. We all know too well that the systematic abuse of women at the hands of the patriarchy has been prevalent for centuries. Over time, pornography has transgressed from simply being carvings on cave walls to erotic magazines. Hefner’s Playboy rose to fame in the 1950s, and this changed the way that porn was perceived: it became more than simply an art form and was rebranded as a shameless and healthy part of masculinity.
As porn rose in popularity and fame, and sexual expression became a normality, erotic films such as that of Lovelace’s Deep Throat, a cinematic exploration of a woman having a clitoris in her throat instead of as part of her genitals, came about. Deep Throat’s portrayal of sexual pleasure meant that Lovelace’s character literally had to swallow penises into her throat to be satisfied. But instead of being an exploration of sexual freedom, Deep Throat became a plain example of how the patriarchy manages the pornography market. Instead of being an example of female pleasure, the film encouraged the gratification of the male, as the clitoris was unable to be stimulated, and the film became a cult representation of patriarchal pleasure narratives.
As porn rose in popularity and fame, and sexual expression became a normality, erotic films such as that of Lovelace’s Deep Throat, a cinematic exploration of a woman having a clitoris in her throat instead of as part of her genitals, came about. Deep Throat’s portrayal of sexual pleasure meant that Lovelace’s character literally had to swallow penises into her throat to be satisfied. But instead of being an exploration of sexual freedom, Deep Throat became a plain example of how the patriarchy manages the pornography market. Instead of being an example of female pleasure, the film encouraged the gratification of the male, as the clitoris was unable to be stimulated, and the film became a cult representation of patriarchal pleasure narratives.
"Sexism wasn’t created by porn. Sexism is far more multifaceted and complicated than simply dependent upon certain representations of erotica."
I’m not suggesting that all pornography is inherently sexist and built upon aggression towards women. Yes, there is a strong argument to say that porn diminishes the feminist narrative - and in parts, it can. But this viewpoint fails to recognise that although pornography can be misogynistic and predatory, it isn’t the cause of a sexist society.
Sexism wasn’t created by porn. Sexism is far more multifaceted and complicated than simply dependent upon certain representations of erotica. Some waves of feminism would disagree; Susan Brownmiller, writing “Against our will” in the 1970s convinced others that porn is eternally predisposed to depict women as “anonymous panting playthings, adult toys and dehumanised objects to be used, broken and discarded”. Yes, she has a point. Some men have even admitted that porn has distorted their relationship with women. Take Terry Crews who spoke up about his addiction to porn from the age of 12, calling it an “intimacy killer” as it deeply affected his marriage, that in seeing his wife through her body parts, she became a “thing to be used” instead of a “person to be loved”. But viewpoints such as Brownmiller’s have the potential to veer into cries of censorship and victimhood, endorsing a sexual moralism disturbingly like the religious right.
Sexism wasn’t created by porn. Sexism is far more multifaceted and complicated than simply dependent upon certain representations of erotica. Some waves of feminism would disagree; Susan Brownmiller, writing “Against our will” in the 1970s convinced others that porn is eternally predisposed to depict women as “anonymous panting playthings, adult toys and dehumanised objects to be used, broken and discarded”. Yes, she has a point. Some men have even admitted that porn has distorted their relationship with women. Take Terry Crews who spoke up about his addiction to porn from the age of 12, calling it an “intimacy killer” as it deeply affected his marriage, that in seeing his wife through her body parts, she became a “thing to be used” instead of a “person to be loved”. But viewpoints such as Brownmiller’s have the potential to veer into cries of censorship and victimhood, endorsing a sexual moralism disturbingly like the religious right.
"The “other side” who ignore the possibility of feminism being congruent with pornography, sadomasochism and deviant sexual practice."
Yes, Brownmiller’s argument is inherently feminist, and it supports the shared perspective that women have been marginalised and subjugated throughout societal history within the narrative of the patriarchy. However, her perspective also has the potential for denying the plain idea that women might want to sleep with men, want to watch porn for pleasure or explore their own sexual freedom, “simply because they want to”.
Feminists who take the position of pro-porn question the assumption of the “other side”. The “other side” who ignore the possibility of feminism being congruent with pornography, sadomasochism and deviant sexual practice. The “other side” who have essentially become puritanical- seeing pornography as a tool of the patriarchy instead of a vanguard of sexual freedom.
Supporting the porn industry isn’t anti-feminist or something which allows society to excuse sexual assault and harassment. It isn’t based upon an ideology of feminine weakness or victimhood, it is instead viewing feminism as a “vision of active freedom, of fulfilled desires”.
Feminists who take the position of pro-porn question the assumption of the “other side”. The “other side” who ignore the possibility of feminism being congruent with pornography, sadomasochism and deviant sexual practice. The “other side” who have essentially become puritanical- seeing pornography as a tool of the patriarchy instead of a vanguard of sexual freedom.
Supporting the porn industry isn’t anti-feminist or something which allows society to excuse sexual assault and harassment. It isn’t based upon an ideology of feminine weakness or victimhood, it is instead viewing feminism as a “vision of active freedom, of fulfilled desires”.