Følgende artikkel er noen refleksjoner jeg har gjort etter å ha lest Kjetil Rolness' bok "Sex, løgn og videofilm". Jeg er ikke sikker på at argumentene jeg legger frem er holdbare eller mangelfulle og presenterer dem derfor her, slik at de som ønsker kan delta i debatten. Teksten er på engelsk, fordi jeg har etterhvert tenkt å legge den ut på et annet forum jeg arbeider med, men vil gjerne diskutere problemstillingen her først:
Regulation of porn
What are the pros and cons of porn, and why should it be regulated? If one sees porn in itself from the perspective of rationality and common sense ethics, it will be difficult to argue that is if wrong if it is done by consenting adults. Supporters of porn have followed a strategy where they compare porn to other acceptable forms of work and behaviour in society and that has made it pretty clear that porn isn’t wrong. They say for example that kissing, which is a sign of intimacy, is allowed in movies, so why shouldn’t contact between other body parts be acceptable as well? Many argue that working overtime with stress, back pain and low pay in places like McDonald’s is worse than having sex on film. It is said that nudity and sex is natural, and that one should not be shamed of showing it. It is also argued that one can be portrayed as an object of desire and still act as an independent and strong subject in other situations. All in all, it is difficult to support the claim that porn as such is unethical if one sees it purely from the perspective of reason and common sense morality. By “common sense ethics” I mean morality which is so basic that most people follow it. If seen from the perspective of religion, the conclusion can be different, but religious believers can not demand that everybody shall follow their faith.
When I talk about porn as such I mean that it is evaluated independent of other factors which can make it unethical. The porn industry, for example, has many producers which act unethically, but this is another part of the discussion.
Buddhism and New Age spirituality is very popular nowadays, and one often hear that the duality of porn vs. non-porn should be transcended, that everything in the universe is at it should be, that aversion is wrong also when it comes to porn, and that one should not judge porn from the standpoint of political correctness. Chögyam Trungpa visited brothels and Herman Hesse tells about the prostitute Kamala who was the teacher of Siddhartha. One Tibetan meditation master once said that a prostitute was his lama. But can this high-flying spiritual standard be applied to the lives of ordinary people whose main purpose of life is to realise common happiness and simple love? Will it help a 19 year old girl who likes partying, coke and easy money? It can in some cases, must often not.
From a spiritual perspective, not having aversion against porn does not imply that one should accept it. Instead, duality is transcended by showing patient kindness towards all phenomena, including porn, but this unconditional compassion can’t be mixed with not-love without losing more or less of its true nature. So the spiritual idea of transcending duality should not be used as an excuse for being indifferent and cynically minded.
The fact that something is not wrong does not in itself make is positive. Porn is cold, explicit, and superficial. It treats the body as an anatomical pleasure device, it reduces it to ejaculation, no feelings involved. It is distant. It is not necessarily anything wrong with that, but many people, especially women, want much more. They want warmth, romance, and true love, and most people will agree that psychologically this is very difficult to combine with porn. It can be argued that the deepest kinds of love and compassion are in principle not in harmony with something as cold and superficial as porn. In general, it can be said that the superficial character of porn effectively dissolves the mysteries of life. It does so by making everything explicit. For some people that is okay, and they should not be ashamed of it. One can actually thank porn for dissolving much of the irrational shame that religions have created around sexuality. But one doesn’t have to be religious in order to understand that authentic love in its deepest form is incompatible with porn. Most people desire such love, they want to experience the mystery of life, and this means that those who appear in porn movies and magazines may regret their actions when they later in life for example meet a person they really love. Such regrets are common among porn actors, and even those who support porn can agree that it is difficult to tell a person you really love that nude pictures of you are published on the Internet. Porn can, in other words, prevent happiness, and happiness is something we all want.
There is also another aspect of porn which much be taken into consideration. Many sex workers choose this line of work because they have emotional or financial problems. Many girls have been abused as children. Some appear in porn movies as a way to somehow punish and provoke their parents. Others are so tired of stupid men fixated on sex and superficial beauty that they just flash their genitals after having lost all illusions about romantic relationships. Most have emotional numbness in common, and when you watch porn you don’t know if the woman you are seeing has been the victim of child abuse or not. That gives porn a bad taste.
A third aspect is that sex workers have low status in today’s society. People are judgemental and porn is still characterised by shame. Sex workers have to carry that shame, and that can be really difficult and perhaps cause severe psychological problems if you are an 18 year old girl who regrets that nude pictures of her will stay on the Internet for ever; pictures that can be seen by her children and grandchildren. She may not like that her children may be bullied at school when their classmates realise that their mother was a pornstar.
One should not conclude from this that one should be ashamed of having appeared in porn movies. The problem is not necessarily nude pictures as such, but a society which can be very judgmental.
Porn will always exist, but what can be done to reduce its negative effects? It is very easy actually. One can pass a law which demands that all publishers of porn must sign a contract with their porn actors that allow the later to withdraw all pictures and movies if they feel regret about the publishing. But those who have bought a porn magazine or a DVD can always make a copy and publish it on the Internet. So for the law to be effective, it must demand that porn publishers only use forms of publishing that prevent such copying. This leaves only one option, and that is websites which don’t allow viewers to copy and download any of the material published.
The advantage of this solution is that is protects the freedom of publishing since the Internet is today the main media used by porn publishers. It gives credibility to the notion that porn is acceptable as long as it is done by consenting adults. It lets women have control over their own body, and it gives them a better bargaining position when dealing with a cynical porn industry.
Half of the world’s population consists of women, and consequently they are in a position to force the politicians to create such a law. They can sign a petition which demands it. If they are against it or similar solutions, they prove that they (indirectly) support the porn industry and then they can certainly not judge any man for watching porn.
This compromise is not about “women liberation”. It is built on the main argument of the porn industry itself: free consent. Many supporters of porn will not like it, but the thing about jurisprudence is that their voice will simply be ignored if a majority of the population supports the creation of such a law mentioned above. If the law is passed, the porn industry must follow it.
