On situational ethics or why we are contradictory beings

One of my good friends sent this article the other day, and of course I read it because the latent feminist (not so latent? umm. not sure) in me was reminded of our utopian women's college days where foreign language neuter genders were bent to favor the female, if only for a few brief moments of subversive bliss.

I am reminded then of several things, none of which have any real connection to the death of Andrea Dworkin, the radical feminist icon, but all of which spring to mind nonetheless. Like:

K.'s and my cubicle cum car of spite in which we were very "unfeminist" and catty (see Laura's thoughts on cattiness today) when referring to a certain kind of woman - like Nell the prom-queen turned socialist poseur, blue-haired, combat-boot sporting, most likely LUG* (not that we didn't end up LUGs too, but what can we count on but our own hypocrisy or biologic urges), who accosted us from her high horse on our way into Haffner's starchy food college dining hall milieu, about why we weren't signing petitions left and right to save the world... Last time I checked, petitions didn't save the world, and in fact wasted an inordinate amount of paper.

There I go again. You see there is this morose nihilistic vein that bulges when the starry-eyed begin their speeches, but there is also this part of me that really, really wants to believe that a difference can be made, it is just that the other part of me is quite sure that the only real effect we can have is based on our personal choices (of consumption in this hyper-capitalist world in its decadence).

Which brings me back to Dworkin. Her rhetoric leaves me a bit ambivalent, and the demonization or the direct equation of pornography to violence against women leaves me with my eternal desire to temper things with a "but... ", however that is not to say that the women who fought for more protection for women and less degrading/agressive media weren't absolutely necessary or important, I just admire their ability to subscribe so whole-heartedly and unbendingly to a particular dogma. Ok when I say admire, I really mean, am puzzled by... Yes there are all sorts of ways in which objectively pornography is "bad" we could start with the fact that it is generally lacking in verisimilitude and therefore panders to the tastes of the mentally deficient, (note please that I did not inscribe any particular gender into this group). We could break it down into its varying components as a market, it generally exploits its "actors" both male and female (I think that the argument that meaningless sex is great for men and horrible for women is decidedly bunk, I imagine that in the long run it is pretty horrible for anyone), but if the people being portrayed are willing to use their bodies (Jenny, this goes back to our whole discussion about prostitution) for profit, then who are we to regulate this? Of course we can assign the title of "bad" to those scenarios that require coercion of persons unable to advocate on their own behalf (children, people who have been drugged etc.), and certainly to those situations in which a person is maimed or killed in reality for the sake of the pleasure of the viewers.

But, what really begs the question is where do you draw the line? Are mainstream movies with full frontal nudity to be considered "pornographic"? What about artistic photos of nude children? Does indulging in fantasy have a direct manifestation in reality? Are all consumers of pornography dysfunctional freaks that will necessarily carry out violent acts against women, children and farm animals? Probably not. The consumption of any product can be detrimental if in excess, but I do think that this particular umbrella term is a bit too encompassing in its current form.

Plato would agree that to see such representations would necessariliy cause negative actions in its receptors, where Aristotle was a proponent of the pleasure of text and argued that we often take pleasure in the mimesis, the representation, of things that we would otherwise find painful to see in reality, and that we take pleasure in learning from the error of others. If two pillars of western thought could not agree on the psychological effects and the "goodness" of representation (or art?) on the viewer, I would say we are still hard-pressed to find an answer in these times.

I propose that both are right. Certain texts (visual or otherwise) will stimulate anti-social behavior in some people while they will provoke the opposite reaction in others. In a loving situation where both partners are excited by erotic images and/or words, utilizing objects in which no person was harmed in their creation, where is the damage? Conversely, if we are fed media images of powerlessness (in certain groups: read non-white male) and violence against anybody (how many tv programs do we see in which people are assasinated, beaten or raped?) from a young age do we not lose our sensitivity to the real horror of those actions carried out on a mass scale (Shock and Awe anyone)?

I reiterate, that personally there are images and words that I find detestable, acts of which I would never choose to partake, but I firmly believe that the problem lies not in the existence of "pornography" per se but with (some of) its users and the underlying social structures that exist which make it possible or socially acceptable to carry out the acts of violence against others of all genders and sexual persuasions.


*LUG -in BMC-speak= Lesbian until graduation also often used in conjunction with BDOC - Big dyke on campus, which, incidentally, I discovered, (to my chagrin for lateness of said discovery, ie. pregnant and married) that I was :( Why do we always get the important information too late???