As a left-libertarian, I’ve been pleased to see a trend towards increasing recognition of patriarchal oppression emerge within the libertarian world. At the same time, I’ve been distressed to see an appreciation for the insights of feminism translate into an easy absorbtion of the Dworkinite views which I consider the dark side of the feminist movement. I very much hope antistatists and feminists can learn from each other; at the same time, I would hate to see libertarians start learning the worst habits of feminist culture at a time when the womens’ movement itself is thoroughly challenging them.

The following thoughts were touched off by a libertarian blog, in the context of a review of Pamela Paul’s Pornified - which I confess I haven’t read, nor do I claim to judge here.

* * * * *

If I may, I'd like to say a few words as someone who does work in the sex industry, specifically an escort living and working in San Francisco. Essentially, I think there is a great deal of ugliness and sexism in the culture of pornography and the larger sex industry. But I'd also like to be careful that what is being objected to doesn't end up becoming the erotic depiction of human sexuality per se, or any degree of explicitness in that regard. I applaud you for supporting free expression and opposing patriarchy, but I would like to voice a feminism which is strongly sexually liberatory, not in a shallow sense that ignores inequities in our sexual culture, but in a sense which draws on, reclaims, and celebrates a vocal sexuality whose origins and essence are not patriarchal.

I usually agree with radical feminist critiques of sexism within porn, which is extremely pervasive, but it does not logically follow that sexism is inherent to pornography. I personally find human sexuality beautiful, and would precisely like to see more unashamed portrayals of desire that partake of neither power relations nor the general cheap, sleazy, sniggering attitude of most pornography. But for this reason I'd precisely like to see better porn- better both politically and artistically. Some of this already exists to some degree, in the work of pro-sex feminist pornographers such as Candida Royalle and Annie Sprinkle. Here in the Bay Area there is a larger pro-sex feminist and sex worker activist subculture which produces a wide variety of erotic art which any logical definition must consider pornography.

Condemning porn as such annuls this reality and possibility, and only plays into the hands of mainstream pornographers who claim to represent the unchangeable reality of (men's) sexual feelings. This is something we should not be willing to surrender to them. It lets the pimps define the terms, and then goes after the pimps while accepting their status as the kings of sexuality. That is a war they will win. [The grey market status of pornography helps enforce this, as a pornographer who does not follow mindless (and sexist) set formulas is vulnerable to community standards lawsuits from any court in the country. Ugly conformity promises safety.]

Sexual desire is a power that is not going to go away, and I believe the nasty, dehumanising stuff that people call 'smut' is only the flipside of anti-sexual moralism. When sex is condemned as a vicious evil that men who fail to restrain their selfishness impose on asexual women, it is not surprising that the cultural representations of sexuality that do surface conform to the Satanic image mainstream moralism damns. The mainstream moralist and the bottom-feeding pornographer, seemingly enemies, concur precisely on the nature of sex- the only difference is that what one damns and drives to a grey market, the other profits by delivering. Both share a vested image in an ugly, demeaning view of sex, and each feeds off the power of the other. Dworkinite feminists who condemn porn as such only contribute to the problem, and effectively reproduce the patriarch's morality in order to save us from the pornographer. There is no way to break the cycle except to refuse the cultural conception of sex as something offensive, dirty and smutty.

I don't think sex is inherently like that, and I don't think an explicit theatre of sexual desire has to be like that. But condemning pornography as such attacks all sexual depiction alike, and so reinforces the very schema of values which sustains pornographic sexism. As I said, sexual desire or any of its byproducts is simply not going away- much like the demand for ecstatic experiences with drugs- and condemning all porn alike only gives a potentially benevolent market over to control of the worst elements. I fear greatly that Dworkin-style critiques of pornography as such only deepen sexual repression, which is particularly damaging to women insofar as patriarchy uniquely sexualises all women's bodies and our culture's judgement of sexuality and women are tightly linked. And such repression need not be enforced by law (tho' it often is)- anyone who sends a message that explicit sexuality is sexist immediately brands men who enjoy sexy pictures as pigs and predators (and the women involved as voiceless whores). This will not reduce interest in pornography, but it will encourage an ugly, sexist self-concept in men whom there might otherwise be nothing wrong with. It encourages the coding of sexual desire as repellent, exploitive, and male. It encourages men to think of themselves as the worst in the industry want them to. This is good for the sleazes, bad for women, and incidentally bad for men.

My experience is that most women are more sexual than people think and most men are less sexist in their desires than they know themselves- but that most people pick up their sexual ideas and images from an impoverished public sexual discourse. I think what we most need to do is open up this discourse by encouraging new forms of sexual expression, not condemning the entire concept of sexual representation. Yet this is what an politics that is against 'porn' as such effectively does. I say there is nothing wrong and much good with sexually exciting visual art. I say 'porn' is something valuable which patriarchy has done terribly wrong. To attack 'porn' is to dismiss everything, actual and possible, good and bad. Might there not be a better way?