People go on and on about pornography being dangerous and a problem but as far as I can see if people are happy to be filmed naked or having sex and other people enjoy seeing or watching this there is no moral damage being done. In fact, one might argue that a decently made film might be educational in terms of depicting a consensual physical relationship without dysfunction as a paradigm for behaviour.
For me, the problem lies elsewhere, both in the sense that bodies and sex have no intrinsic moral character (they are neither good nor bad, they just are) and in the sense that a lot of harmful stuff is buried by conflating the mere depiction of bodies or sex acts with actions which definitely are harmful and immoral.
Let’s have a look at some really popular TV shows to give us an example. Both NCIS and Berlin Station regularly depict, in great detail, beautiful (usually young) women having their brains blown out.
The details:
- They are always shot from the front: in real life, when people get shot, it will sometimes be from the back, or side, resulting in their face being partially or completely blown off.
- When they are on the mortuary table we are shown their intestines, the stomach contents and their eviscerated body.
- Their breasts and vagina are obliterated by bright lights and they are never laid on their faces exposing their buttocks.
Watch too many episodes of NCIS/Berlin Station et. seq. and you will be inculcated with the following values:
- Extreme violence against women is OK/ exciting
- Only the deaths of beautiful women matter, or to put it another way; once a woman’s beauty is destroyed (e.g. be being shot from behind so her face is destroyed) she is worthless.
- Women are made out of meat just like cows (but for god’s sake preserve that beautiful face!)
- Dignity in death is not a thing
- Women’s breasts, vaginas and buttocks are obscene
Worse than that is that this gives us a glimpse into the morals of the programme makers and the authorities that regulate them. Are these really the values they are happy to promote?
This is the kind of pornography that is truly obscene, but it is broadcast regularly on multiple channels and lapped up by men and women alike with no qualms.
When I compare that with the porno films that circulated on the boats, in my youth, where people were having sex with evident relish, no violence, and no appearance of compulsion, it is very hard to see what the moral issue is with sex films that are not pretending to anything else.
But a film that is just about people having sex is obscene and pornography, whereas a weekly series that uses sex to spice up extreme violence is just a highly rated TV show.
Hmmm.
A lot of people go on about pornography that features evident compulsion and / or is degrading to women etc. This is a problem, but it is not an intrinsic property of pornography. In fact, I think some people find this blurring of morals very useful – the thing that makes pornography bad is compulsion and mistreatment of people, but conflating it with sex itself just blurs the fact that compulsion and abuse are wrong. If we separate them, we have to face the problem of compulsion and abuse of power, if we conflate them we don’t.
People are often compelled to do things they don’t want to do or that are harmful to them or their interests. This is immoral but is considered to be normal.
If you face the fact that compulsion in pornography is the immoral bit then you have to face the fact that compulsion anywhere is immoral.
When I’m talking about compulsion I am not talking about operating within the social contract where, for instance I agree not to murder somebody who wrongs me in exchange for the state dealing with their wrongdoing. That is to say that I am not regarding complying with reasonably made laws as being compulsion.
Another thing that people mention as a problem is that pornography mostly features women arranged to be attractive to men. The concern is objectification. This is a valid point, no question.
But consider this: a woman’s vagina displayed as if ready for sex is not obscene under British law. An erect penis is obscene under British law. Maybe if men’s bodies had the same legal status as women’s bodies, pornography (or erotica if you want to take the stigma out of it) would be more even. Maybe most women don’t get turned on by pictures of erect men, but a lot of gay men probably do – what did they do wrong? Although sexy men are increasingly used to sell stuff, it is still women who are predominantly used to sell stuff. It is weird how it is completely acceptable to use sex to sell stuff (not obscene or immoral at all) but sex itself, as the product is immoral.
Can somebody explain to me why watching someone being eviscerated (having their guts ripped out), in great detail, is not obscene but an erect penis is? What is the moral foundation for this?
Let’s take another trope that annoys the piss out of me:
People in a committed relationship never have good sex.
Name me one film or series where a couple who are not cheating on someone else are having good sex. go on, you can’t can you?
It seems to me that we have reached the point where the only reason to get married is to facilitate adultery and therefore bring about good sex. Sadly it’s not just fiction where this is presented as good. I still haven’t got over the shock of an adulterous newsreader who proudly stated that given that 60% of people have cheated other partner at least once was it such a big deal? Well it won’t be if you present it as an achievement. The other pernicious crap along these lines are the “bucket list” books that include “have an affair” as a bucket list must-have.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand that people make mistakes; married the wrong person, met the love of their life afterwards, lost and lonely miles from home and meet someone in the same position in a crappy hotel bar, far too drunk at a party etc. but to turn it into a virtue and an expectation? Nah, not right!
Worse, cheating is regularly presented as romantic.
The classic example of this kind of crap in films is brief encounter which is regularly cited as the most romantic film ever. Can you explain to my why the closing scenes where the poor dupe of a husband comforts his wife, who is crying her eyes out in self-pity and frustration that she didn’t get to shag the hunky Doctor, is in any way romantic?
I also have no problem with open relationships as long as the people involved are genuinely OK with it. I personally couldn’t cope with it, but there is no moral hurt if both people in a relationship are happy for the other to have sex with other people too.
In summary our morals around sex are anything but moral and we have far bigger problems than pictures of people naked or having sex.
Ceefer Madness 