The advice given [last week] to the [person] disgusted by [their] partner's pornography collection was the most ignorant, ill-informed bit of guidance I have ever seen. Ever. Even if the collection was not illegal, if it was material that is degrading, such as [example of material I find degrading], the [person] has every right to be both angry and repulsed.
—S.F.
Certainly. And in addition to feeling angry or repulsed, they have every right to keep this material out of their relationships—as I clearly stated last week. But their right to do that ends at controlling whom will be their partner, not at controlling what their partner is permitted to enjoy.
- - - - - - - -
PORN IS INHERENTLY DEGRADING TO WOMEN!!!!
—M.S.
Interesting. I think it's degrading to women to say porn is inherently degrading to women. Of course, not all women choose porn out of desire or free agency, and especially during Sexual Assault Awareness Month, we should be cognizant of this fact and the institutional factors that make it so. But many women consume and/or participate in porn actively and frequently, with enjoyment and discerning ethics.
Discounting our participation erases our sexual agency and restricts our free sexual expression.
I also think it's degrading to read all these e-mails assuming last week's letter applies to a delicate ladyflower letter-writer and her big rapey porn-watching boyfriend. Because feminism is best advanced and defended with a healthy dose of gender stereotyping and heteronormativity, right?
- - - - - - - -
[Last week's] column telling ""PORN"" that [they] should just keep quiet about [their] boyfriend's disgusting pornography collection was a disgrace to women in relationships. You basically said that [they] should keep [their] mouth shut while [their] boyfriend masturbates to material that requires the mistreatment and degradation of women. You said that [PORN] can set boundaries in [their] relationship, but there's no way [to] set boundaries if you can't talk about it.
—M.C.
Let's examine what the letter-writer said last week, shall we? In PORN's own words, ""I found some porn [on my bf's computer]. I didn't like it at all … this particular material was such a turnoff."" That gives no indication whatsoever about kind of material PORN found, so why don't we cut the assumptions about it, eh?
Yes, it certainly could have been violent. Or maybe it depicted a completely consensual activity PORN happens to find unsexy. Maybe PORN had some homophobia surface after finding gay porn. Perhaps PORN was appalled that the actors were not using condoms or barriers.
If you're out there, PORN, I'm not accusing you of anything in the previous paragraph. My point is that we know absolutely nothing about PORN's particular circumstances, and any one of those totally non-violent scenarios is plausible. It's irresponsible and inconsiderate for readers and particularly for me as a sex advice columnist to flesh out writers' stories with details not included or specified in their letters.
And, per my advice last week, it's irresponsible and inconsiderate for people to barge into conversations with their lovers—especially conversations which will likely and perhaps inevitably result in one party feeling shamed for their sexual desires and enjoyment—without considering their words and aims carefully first.
Finally, even if the porn was violent, that still doesn't necessarily legitimize these kinds of sneering reactions. First, ""violent"" and ""nonconsensual"" are not synonyms. Some activities, in porn and in real bedrooms, which may be perceived as violent to an outsider may be consensual and in fact desired and enjoyed by all parties in a scene.
Second, there is a boundary between fantasy and reality. Without a doubt, there is pornography out there that dehumanizes people. But this starts to occur precisely when consumers begin to unquestioningly conflate these images with reality—assuming that's what all sex should look like, that that's the best and most/only pleasurable way to fuck or be fucked. Thus, those who seek to dismantle these kinds of degrading attitudes are better served by drawing sharp distinctions between pornography and ""real life""—not by further blurring the lines between the two.
If we choose to enjoy porn, we can also choose websites and production companies that clearly demarcate the division between fantasy and reality as well as demonstrate unequivocal respect for the ways in which performers are treated behind and in the scenes—no matter what the scenes depict. We can also demonstrate this kind of respect for consent and pleasure with our own partners.
Porn isn't for everybody, and even people who enjoy porn generally don't indiscriminately enjoy all kinds of porn. That's fine. Nobody should be required to observe or participate in a sexual act that makes them uncomfortable. I mean, duh.
But seriously. Andrea Dworkin is dead. Let's move on.
Comments? Questions? E-mail them to sex@dailycardinal.com.
