The Union’s decision to hold a pornography debate this term should be applauded. For one thing, the promise of a woman best known for directing gritty, English fuck-fests with names like ‘Hug a Hoodie’ can’t fail to bring the punters in.
Just as importantly for the Union’s sense of purpose, pornography is swiftly becoming the issue of the day for many young people. The 21st century, with its social networks and 24-hour media, is a voyeur’s paradise. In this environment, the morality of pornography is less a debate than a battleground.
The reflex assumption made by porno-phobic feminists is that getting pleasure solely from how someone looks is wrong. This absurdly overlooks the realities of human nature and only exacerbates feminism’s image problem (excuse the irony). Many people still view feminists as sour, puritanical spoilsports, precisely because feminism doesn’t seem to accommodate an appreciation of good-looking people. On the other side of the battleground are the apathetic addicts in denial who have no problem with the nihilistic-freak-show that porn has become. As for the rest of us, from the reluctant viewers to the blissfully ignorant, we need someone to say something new about pornography.
This is where the Union comes in. The real reason the Union should pat itself on the back is that, rather than relying on the headline-grabbing topic of debate to bring people in, they have booked four interesting speakers who might breathe fresh life into the debate. Here are four people who, because of their professions and circumstances, have thought deeply about pornography. Richard Woolfson’s doctorate obviously speaks for itself, but for my money the most interesting choice is pornstar turned chaplain, Shelly Lubben (above). Lubben might well offer a genuine critique of the porn industry, rather than the vague platitudes about objectification we are so bored of hearing from the cretins on Mumsnet and the part-time feminists who lurk in women-only meetings.
What unites the three pornstars (other than the obvious) is that they are all, in a sense, outsiders. Shelly Lubben was abused as a child and struggled with self-esteem issues. Johnny Anglais lost his job because of porn, and spent a lot of time defending himself in the press. Anna Span has tried to enter two male-dominated professions: pornography and politics. The porn debate needs their eccentric and original points of view if we are to learn anything new. Critics of porn often look down on porn stars, and I’m sure many will assume that the three who feature in this debate are incapable of sophisticated arguments. In fact, this might be a rare instance where pornography is discussed properly and honestly.
It is a cliché to say that uncomfortable topics are the most important ones, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. At its worst, the Union chases conflict for conflict’s sake, like a failing down-market newspaper. But, this is the Union at their best: picking up an issue where the good points have yet to be made. Idiots will criticise the pornography debate and its speakers, but it is controversy – in the truest sense of the word – that the Union exists for. Does pornography do a good public service? I’m not sure, but this debate certainly does.
"The reflex assumption made by porno-phobic feminists is that getting pleasure solely from how someone looks is wrong."
Do you really think that's the only argument feminists have against pornography?
Idiot.
no, otherwise he would use the word only, rather than reflex?
No, I said it was the REFLEX assumption by PORNO-PHOBIC feminists. (www.learntoreadadfree.com if you need a hand)
The author of this article will undoubtedly walk into a professional journalism job after uni.
I bemoan the state of mankind.
you read the first paragraph didn't you?
Anna Span is a porn director, not a porn star. Not every woman involved in porn has to get her tits out in front of the cameras. Having made that mistake twice in your article, you might want to proofread next time. Just saying. Otherwise rock on.
To what extent did you read this article looking for a mistake. Loser.
a gorgeous article written by a true journalist….
Some feminists are pro-pornography especially Anna Span who makes films with women in mind. I have nothing against pornography, I think it is something society will always have and feminists shouldn't be focusing on it. I'm also a feminist myself and I am actively involved with the Women's Campaign.
Good job on stereotyping and showing such ignorance.
The crux of the article is spot-on. This isn't an argument against anti-pornography stances, but an article for sensible debate about the issue. If that means that we allow people to argue points other than that pornography is misogynistic, abusive and evil, what's the harm in that?
As a feminist, it's important to realise that feminist views relied (and continue to rely) on free debate to get heard. It's worrying indeed when other feminists are heard trying to close down debate on feminist issues by crying 'thoughtcrime' at anyone vaguely in opposition. Well done Jack.
"This isn't an argument against anti-pornography stances, but an article for sensible debate about the issue."
Right on, Ben. As soon as the article called all those who oppose the debate "idiots", the thought "sensible debate" were the very first words that came to mind.
You seem to be replying to an argument that never got made. No one's saying the debate shouldn't be had. I imagine most feminists think it's a great idea. People are objecting, rightly in my opinion, to a few sentences and implications in the article which impute sweeping views of feminist arguments which needlessly foster a negative stereotype and project a generalised, inaccurate image of feminist views. Clare's comment suggests what some sensible feminist views might actually be. If the author is going to make vague suggestions about "feminists", then he should research the current debate more thoroughly, and represent it more accurately.
Basically, the tab needs to be more responsible in what it allows to be published. As you say, the "crux" of this article is fine – an interesting opinion piece with a sensible point of view. But it's peppered with needless attacks on feminists which are reprehensible and libelous. Why say "idiots will criticise [my argument]" when you could be sensible and say "some might criticise…"?
excellent article. genuinely.
"The reflex assumption made by porno-phobic feminists is that getting pleasure solely from how someone looks is wrong. This absurdly overlooks the realities of human nature and only exacerbates feminism’s image problem (excuse the irony)."
If you think that's still feminism's main objection to pornography you really don't know much about feminism.
You seem to be conflating 'objectification' with 'getting pleasure from how someone looks'. Objectification is actually at attitude whereby humans are reduced to, and valued solely for their physical appearance. This, I think, *is* an issue, as it fundamentally dehumanises the people being objectified. That does *not* mean that finding someone attractive, or enjoying looking at someone is necessarily wrong, or even related to objectification.
The main problem with porn, as I, and the majority of feminist thinkers I know seem to see it, is actually that a lot of mainstream pornography today encourages deeply abusive, reductive, dehumanising attitudes – largely towards women, since the narratives are to do with humiliation and objectification and do not encourage a positive view of women. In my experience, a huge quantity of pornography now (in the advent of the internet, which has widened access to increasingly hardcore stuff) seems to encourage a view of sex as a means of causing distress, pain and degradation to other human beings. *This* is where feminists have a problem with pornography.
Essentially, I haven't met many people who are against pornography altogether, just certain kinds, and certain narratives and ideologies put forward.
Now, if you're praising The Union for engaging in a potentially fascinating and very timely debate, why not engage fully with feminist debates yourself, rather than reacting in a typical knee-jerk, negative fashion? Stop playing to stereotypes, and perhaps think about the real reasons feminists might have for objecting to pornography.
I don't mind feminists.
They dominate in bed, which is good enough for me.
This article does exactly what it sets out to do- create debate whether you agree with its views or not. M