sign in sign up

<<

A Critical Examination of the Pornography Debate

A Critical Examination of the Pornography Debate

A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PORNOGRAPHY DEBATE:

TOWARD A SOCIALIST FEMINIST FRAMEWORK

Crystal Richards Saunders

B-A, Simon Fraser University, 1982

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department

of

Soc iol ugy /Ant hr opul agy

@ ~r~stalRichards Saunders 1990 Si mon Fr aser Universi t y April 1990

A1 1 rights reserved, This wur k may not be repuaduced in whale or in part, by phutocopy or other means, without permissic~nof the author. National Library Biblioth6que ?ationale of Canada du Canada

Canadian Theses Service Service des theses canadiennes

Ottawa. Canada K1 A ON4

The author has granted an irrevocable non- Cauteur a accord6 une licence irrevocable et exclusive licence allowing the National Library non exclusive permettant cl la 8ibliotht5que of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell nationale du Canada de reproduire, preter, copies of hislher thesis by any means and in distribuer ou vendre des copies de sa Wse any form or format, making this thesis available de quelque rnaniere et sous quelque forme to interested persons. que ce soit pour mettre des exemplaires de cette these i la disposition des personnes interessees.

The author retains ownership of the copyright Cauteur conserve la propriete du drat d'auteur in hislher thesis. Neither the thesis nor qui protbe sa these. Ni la these ni des extraits substantial extracts from it may be printed or substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent &re otherwise reproduced without hisher per- irnprirnes ou autrement reproduits sans son mission. autorisation.

ISBN 0-315-69497-1 APPROVAL

NAME : Crystal Richards Saunders

DEGREE : Master of Arts TITLE OF THESIS: A Critical Examination of the Pornography Debate: Toward a Socialist Feminist Framework

EXAMINING COMMITTEE:

Chairperson : Noel Dyck

Arlene McLaren Senior Supervisor

- - - - Sue Wendel 1

Dawn Currie External Examiner Anthropology/Sociology The University of British Columbia

DATE APPROVED: April 17, 1990 PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE

I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis, project or extended essay (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.

Title of Thesis/Project/Extended Essay

A Critical Examination of the Pornography Debate:

Toward a Socialist Feminist Framework

Author: . . , _-__ (s i/gnature)

Crystal Richards Saunders (name)

April 20, 1990

(date)

I ABSTRACT

This thesis undertakes a critical examination of the current discaurse on pornography, ft examines the major theoretical perspectives which can be characterized as conservative, liberal,

f emini st, and mar xi st /sac i a1i st f emi ni st. The t hesi s a1so considers the richly textured debate within each of these general perspectives. The main concern of the thesis is to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of these various analyses of

pornography. This evaluation ia guided by five criteria which arise as central issues from the literature: 1) whether or not a

definition of pornography is provided, and the adequacy of the definition; 25 the manner in which sexuality is characterized;

3) the way in which 'harm' is defined; 41 the type and quality

of research, if any, which is, used to support arguments; and

5) the prescriptions for change which are advanced. This

critical examinat ion reveals under lying assumptions of the different theoretical positions on sexuality, the obligations of

the individual in society, gender relations, and the role of the

State.

This thesis considers a wide range of published and

unpubl ished posit ion and discussion papers including the social

sci ent i f i c r eseav.ch generated by t )re two i mpur t ant guver nment

ccmrnissions appointed in the United States (13705 and Canada

(1983) to investigate the social implicationsi of pornography. This; thesis looks at works that arc widely cited and reprinted, as well as works that are less well known, but aid in the articulation uf distinct theoretical positions.

The thesis demonstrates that most analyses of pornography are inadequate. Some of the analyses considered are gender- blind, athers do not acknowledge the social construction of sexuality, and rmat ignore the economic context in which the production of pornugraphy takes place. It is argued that to advance our understanding of pornography these issues must be addressed. To Margaret Coates, my fv iend, my advisor. I thank you for your patience, interest, and insight. I would like to extend my appreciation and deep respect for the support and excel lent supervision provided by Dr. Arlene McLaren and Dr. Susan Wendell. I would also 1 i ke to thank Chris Ward far her technical advice and assistance. TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NO,

Ab~tract...... ~...~~.,....~.~...... i i i Dedication ...... v Acknowledgements ...... vi Table of Contents ...... vi i Introduction...... I..I...... ,. 1

CY-I~~~~Y-E...... -m....m.mm.w..I...II...... -.m=m 13 His-kouical Backgv ouvrd: A disctts~io~~of Lhe changes in availability and content of pornography since WW I I €Xgetcr,Ir ...... Definition c The On-Gaing Di lemma $&g~t;w--+h& ...... Conser vat i vo and Li bcr a1 Per spec t i ves on Fornogr aphy mg~g3~""xy ...... 1-i beraI and Radical Feminist Perspectives an Pornography

c3lgetgxe-y ...... Mar xist and Sac i a1 i st Fewi ni st Per spec t i ves on Pornography

Chg~gg~_V&...... "."...I)...... Conc 1 usi on and Recornmendat iansz Where analysis and research lmpcwnography might fit if sexual politics were integrated into socialist feminist theory.

Bibliography ...... I...... O.... 1'31 Appendix I ...... 1'93 Appendix I1 ...... 200 Appendix 111 ...... 3:)1

Appendix IV ...... I.eaI~~...... m..~I. 203 To understand pornography from a sociological perspective, it is necessary to place it within a historical and theoretical context. While the production of pornography and changes in content have increased dramat ical 1y since War ld ldav I I, socialogy has not developed a systematic body of argument and research to explain t hi s phenorttencm. The pwohl ern of pow nogr aphy has r eached public recognition in both the United States and Canada resulting in guver nment commissions to investigate the pr obl apt. Those comroi ssions CU. S. Commission on Obxeni ty and Pornography ii*WOl and the Special Cornmi ttee on Pornography and Prostituticwt (1383) in Canada) were appointed to solve the problem of porncqraphy, instead they added to the ccwttroversy. With the grcwth of the women ' s movement, quest i ons about por nogr aphy bec ame part i cul ar 1y contentious. The significance of pornography has been recognized by a wide range of commentators. Yet, there have been very few att errtpts to group these comment atcars and present an ovsrvi ew of their arguments.

This thesis will examine the current debate surrounding pornography. I wi 11 be focusing on the conservat iv*, 1 iberal , feminist, and mar xist/soc i a1 i st fewti ni st perspectives on pornagraphy. I will examine these positions on the basis of five important criteria: 1) whether a definition of pornography is provided, and the adequacy of the definition; 2) the manner in which sexuality is characterired; 3) the way in which vharmp is defined; 4) the type and quality of research, if any, which is used to support arguments; and 53 an evaluation of the prescrip-

tions for change which are advanced. These five criteria emerge

from the literature as central issues. The problem with defini-

t il:.m is important: because wi thout soree degree of consensus as to

a definition uf pornography serious discussion of the issues is precluded. Further, research which employs dif ferent terminology

to describe sexual materials used in clinical experirfients is

di f f icult to compare and evaluate; whether strong conclusi on5 can be drawn frm such problematic research is dubious. The manner

in which sexuality is characterized, the values that arc or are not attached to it, form tho core of each position's perspective on pornography and is the key factor from which their prescriptions flow. The concept of harm is important because, fullowing the principles of John Stuart Mill, harm is put forward by

liberals as the ultimate test for whether or not material can be right fully suppressed. Little agreement exists among the speakers from the various perspectives as to what constitutes har r~i. Those comment ator s who pr aduce r esearc h on pornography as

evidence to support their contenticms, e. g. Berger C1•‹~77),

general ly present 5%ranger and mor e convi nci ng wrgument s, depend-

ing an the quality of the research, than those who rely largely on impassioned rhetoric and re1igictus nations of the sanctity of sexuality within marriage. Last, the prescriptions which are recommended, if adopted, could have far-reaching effects an constitutional guarantees to free speech and on sexual expression in general.

This thesis will argue that pornography cannot be examined in isolation from the material conditions in which it endures.

Pornography does not exist in a vacuum and the imagery and the industry are shaped by the prevai 1ing sac i a1 and economic context. Also, to provide a %atisfactory explanation of parnugraphy, one cannot ignore questions of gender and race. Finally, a convincing treatment of por nography must acknowl edge the soci a1 constructi~naf sexuality. Ultimately, I will argue that none of the positions taken with regard to pornography are satisfactury-

However, the socialist feminist perspective has promise, a1though it is not without problemsi. In the final chapter of this thesis I wi 11 suggest how pornography and the pornography industry might be examined within a model of sexual politics advanced by Weir

( 1987:) -- a soc i a1 i st feminist.

A% I have stated, the content and availability of pcwnography has changed significantly since World War 11. These changes have caused a great deal of public concern both in Canada and the U.3. In response to such concern, governments have been farced to investigate the pussible impact of pc~rnoguaphyand the legal measures which should be taken to deal with it. The 1970

President 'a Commission an Obscenity and Pornctgraphy in the United

States (hereinafter referred to as the 1970 Pornography Commis- sion) is the most well known government cammission. This

Commission set out to investigate the cc~nnection between pornog- r aphy and ant i -sac i a1 att itudes and behavi our. The Cornmi ssi on c cmc 1uded that pcw nogr aphy was not harmful , r ecsrnrnendi ng a relaxation af controls on pornography,

Seven years after this i rqmr t ant Comrwissi on reached i t s cun- clusicm, the purnugraphy industry was estimated tu be a four bill ion dcrllar a year business -- more profitable than the conventional film and record industries combined (Schipper, 19801 -- arrd with more established tadult bookstoresy than there are McDonald9s restaurants.' According to Gloria Leonard, publisher of the soft-core magazine l-l-lq~-iiq~Lgty in the United States, there were, as of 1980, 165 heterosexual soft-care magazines available, 12 so€t-care homosexuaI magazines, 200 magazines catering to the hard-core heterosexual market , and 50 hard-core humosexual magaz i nes. 2 Combined circulation figurea fcw pornographic magazines like

F'Lpybpy and eqqtbp~~eexceed that uf Ih~g-and hlqys_w_q&.3

Although Canadian domestic productinn of pornography is small campared to that of the United States, the industry appears tci be growing. The estimated annual take is said to be KW>,000,000. 4

The degree of violence in pcwtwgrsphic magazi nss has also increased, espec i a11 y i n tssft-car ep magazines 1i kc elgyb~y,

(Ma1 amuth and Spinner, 19801. Recent technolugi cal innovat ion has produced video and cable t *l evision parnogr aphy which enabl es viewers to watch thi<~type of material in the privacy of their

Canadap5 exper i cutce with porrwgr aphy has not para1 lell ed

that c~fthe U.S. Canada gets 90% of its pnrnography from the

U.S., very little domestic production is taking place. Therefore, 4 the Canadian State has relied on Customs regulations and review

boards in an atterc~pttcl monitor and stem the flood of porno-

graphic material into the country, Eventually, due to pressures

from the Canadian pub1 ic, the Special Cornmi ttee on Pornography

and Prostitution was appointed in 1983 to ascertain the situation

in Canada with respect to pcwnography and recommend legal reform.

Rather than trying to reach one conclusion about pornagv aphy,

1i kc the 1470 Pcwnography @ommissi ~m,the Fraser Cummi ttee ganar-

ated 49 recummendat ions far legal r eforrn. The Cctmmi tteeFs

speci f ic recommendat ions for a three-t ierad system of porna-

graphic mater i a1 open to prosecut ion wi 11 be discussed in Chapter

I I.

The growth in the pornography industry in North America, the

wider accessibi 1i ty of pornography, the changes in content

Cespec i a11 y coerci ve themes) have exacerbated an a1ready standing

cantroversy between conaervat ives and 1 i berals over suppression

of g'ornography. The entrance of feminists into the debate has been a very signi f icant theoretical and pol i tical development

since 1970. Feminists insist that pornography is about male power not sex.

Even t haugh the pornography controversy has accelerated and has become a high profile social problem, sociology has not

developed a systematic body of argument and research to explain

this phenomenon. One cannot turn to a socialogy of pornography ur

a sociology of sex with e treatment of pornography for an over- view of commentary and research.1 Pulsky f1967), writing in the area of the sociology of deviance, acknowledges the absence of a socicdogy of psrnugraphy. We suggests that the phenomena be seen similar to prostitution as a mechanism for "discharging anti- social sex; iropersanal and nun-mar i tal " C188). Polsky maintains that his brief treatment of the subJect is sirrqly to alert the discipline to the "rubbishy sociologizing about pornography"C202) in the c~bservationsof literary critics and cultural historians and to suggest a general framewar k within which pornography might be investigated. Unfortunately, Polsky does not seem to have generated much interest in the topic. The only theoretical perspective within ssci~~lugythat has considered pornugraphy is mar xism. Reich f 1945) and Heic he (19681 bath discuss pornography but only peripherally to their main concern with sexual repression within capital ism. Later, mar xi sts s~~has McNal 1 C l983? have looked at pornography as an ideological mechanism used in the subordination of wornen. I will be considering McNall later in this thesis.

Why sociology has not provided mare explanation in this area remains unknown. Several reasons are plausible. First, aca- demics have shied away from sex and pornography as unsavoury subjects or from the fear uf social stigma CPolsky, 1967: 251).

Second, feminists Ce. g. Diamond, 19801 argue that mainstream sociology has tended to ignore women and to investigate social phenomena from a ma1e perspect ive, Because par nogr aphy is

I ~kte-~E~9~gqx-gf.f.gf19783, for cxampl e, does not i nc 1ude a discussion of pornography. produced and consumed principal ly by men, the presence of purnography may have been considered unremarkable. Third, because the concern with pornography has been connected with use and subsequent attitude and behaviour , i nvest igation of the phenomena may have been seen as the province of psychology. f f one lcrcrks at existing research, many uf the researchers are from that discipline. However, the focus of a psychalogical approach is on the individual, not the individual as part of a collective. What is desperately needed is a socioXogica1 explanation which acknowledgeti the psychological processes which give rise to the desi re for por nogr aphy.

While sociology has neglected pornography, feminists have not. Feminists began writing on this subject in She early

IWOTs. Pornography was perceived as a ser ious irfipediment to improvement in the status of wt=cn~en. Ferrti nists concerned about pornography include soci ologists, 1 i ke Kathleen Barry, whom I will be cotwidering in this thesis. With little assistance from sociological theories, Barry and other feminists interested in the subject of pornugraphy have relied primarily upon feminist theory and argument to aid thew in their analysis.

Feminists have insisted that pornsgr aphy is not about sex but about power, Pornography is discussed by radical feminists as a script for sexual assault and rape. This charge has stimulated research into the connect ion between sex and aggression

(Donnerst ei n & Hal 1an, 1'378; Dunnerst ain, i980; Ma1 amuth, 1384). Although there exists a wide range of in%eudi%ciplinaryerftpirical research on pornogr aphy (see Eyscnc k % Nias, 1978; McCor mac k, 1'378; Wendell & Copp, 1383; Malamuth % Dunnerstein, 1'384) and a l orge body of commentary enrompa~singa number of disc i pl i nes iphilussphy, psychology, law, women's studies), there have been relatively few attempts to examine the move prominent posit ions taken with regard to pornography. Such an exercise is warranted because many of these complex explanations r est upon quest i onabl e assumptions which need to be articulated and examined. In addition, groups comrfii t ted to certain perspectives on pornography e. g. Citizens for Decency in Canada Crepresenting a cunservative view), the B,C- Civil Liberties Assc~ciations Ecivil likertarian),

Women Against Violence Against Women i f emini st 1 influence pub1 i c c~pinicm and the measures which are taken to regulate pornography.

Far example, the Citizens for Decency in coopsration with the

Taronta police force (Project P> hold slide shows in various com- munities to convince the public of the horrurs of presently avail able material. Such groups attempt to influence governrr~ent decision-rmkers by subwitting briefs as the B.C. Civil Liberties

Associat ion did here in Canada for the Special Cummi ttee on

Pornography and Prostitution in 1984.

The subject of pornogr aphy ther efor e is si gni f i cant theoretically, politically, and practically. We must be informed and aware of the full political agenda of the individuals, groups, and perspectives we choose to support. This thesis is written to make a contribution tu the kind of full understanding that is required. M_gtl?_c;!4

The 1i terature on pornography being vast and disparate, poses a ser iuus challenge to categ~x-izatiunand methctds of discr~ssingthe rrtater i a1 . Those who want to disc~tss pornography must decide upon some method of managing the literature. Wendell and Copp C1983) broke their book into three sections: phila- sophical work, social scientific research, and important legal cases. McKay b Do1 f f f 19841, in their working paper for the

Frascr Committee, also decided upon three categories: the impact of pornography on suciety, participants, and consurrrers- As they pointed out in their introduction, they had to manufacture a framework to rrlake ccrher evlt a "chaotic l i t erature" . Her ger C 1977) chose to describe and evaluate arguments put forward by antagonists and apologists. This basic method is the one I have adopted and expanded. I will be describing and evaluating the cunservative, 1iberaX , feminist, and mar xist /social ist ferfiini st pccsitictns on pornography. These *gr~zsupsi' are not homogeneccus and there is individual variation and csver 1apping to some extent.

Difficult choices had to be made in gr~~~pingindividuals.

However, this vgroupingy is a useful analytical device which helps to demonstrate the fundamental di f ferences in argument and under 1yi ng assurr~pti ctns bet ween the per spect i ves.

I have c tmsen spec i f i c speakers t~ t he i %sues because t hci r work has received a good deal of reaction and comment and has been reprinted several t imes.' I have chosen some of the cornrnen- tatcwsi, not because their work has received wide attention, but because their particular position aIluws us to look at the

'3 dif fsrent angles of argument and the rich texture of the debate.

As well, I be1 ieve the commentary which will be examined demsn- strates that pornography can be a very divisive and troubling issue which can cause individuals to break rank or transgress other firmly held political cornrnitrnents.

As 1 have stated, 1 will be arguing that none of the perspectives an pornography is satisfactory. This criticism does not mean that there are no strengths in the present perspectives.

Fur instance, the liberal desire to protect sexuality and sexual imagery is an i mprovement over the conoervat i ve content ion that sex and therefore sexual imagery is potent i a11 y dangerous and corrupting. Finally, I will be suggesting Chat the developing soc i a1 i st feminist theoretical f r amewor k seems promising in terms of providing a useful cr ikical examinat ic~nuf pornc~graphyand the pornography industry. But, this pcrspect i ve is not without problems and there is a great deal sf theory formulation and research that needs to be dune.

Arguing that a soc i a1 i st feminist anal ysi s of pcwnogr aphy is the musf useful does not necessarily lead tu a single prescription for solving the problem of pornography. In this thesis I will suggest that the Fno-cet~surshipat a11 ' stance, which many socialist feminists take, is not entirely convincing. This position does not address adequately the problem of coercive pornography imater i a1 depicting involuntary bondage, physical assault, rape, murder or adult/child sex). Even civil Xiber- tarions have di f ficulty with the position of tabsolutely nu censarship' . The B. C. Civil Libeut ies Association for example, recent 1y recommended that mater i a1 depicting adult -chi 1d sex should he proscribed.6 However, I will also argue that using censorship as methud of dealing with pornography wi 11 mast l i kely be ineffective and dangerous in its arbitrary suppression uf "evil" material egg. feminist or gay material. We must develop a viable alternative ta censorship, One possible avenue would be to develop (non--coercive, non-soxist :) sexual imagery to ccmtradict the pcwnoguaphy industry's view of sexuality,

I will introduce each perspective on pcwnography with a general discussion of the views and arguments prcm~tedby the individuals and groups associated with that perspective. Second,

I will carry out an examination of specific com~~entatorsta demonstrate the nuances within the perspective. Last, I will provide a critical summary.

Before I begin the evaluation of the conservative, liberal, feminist, and marxist /s~cialisst feminist explanations of pornography, I will discuss the historical ct~atzgesirt content and availability sf pornography since World War 11 in Chapter I. In

Chapter 11 the serious prohlerns surrsunding a definition of pornography wi 11 be explored. These two preliminary chapters should bring a fuller understanding of the recent histcfry and complexities of the pornography debate and set the stage for a more meaningful discussion of the various perspectives beginning in Chapter 1x1. INTRODUCTIQN ENDNDTES

1. Jclanvle Fair hart, "Eccmortti cs of Pornography", klysBp&&a_, Vc11, 111, No. 1, Spring 1'384, p. 5./5ae also Dennis Scabin, pub1 isher of L)lf-&dylt-~~gj~ggg~~gzep~t,,put the number of adult bookstores in the U.S. as of June, 1979 at 15,000 - 20,000.

2, She describes soft-cure pornography as the type of content found in clavboy magazine. Hard-core pornugr aphy she does not; def ine. The tern1 "hard-coret1 petleral ly refers tea material depicting fel latio, cutini 1itigus, and penetration. See Appendix IV for a partial list of pornographic magazines which can be found in Canada.

3. Fairhart.

5, Fred Bergeu, "Pornography, Sex and Censurship", in Sue Wendell and Davi d Copp (eds. :) ~pmgqugphy-gqd-~gng:zr~hie, (N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 19833, p. 85.

6. John Di xun, B,C. Civi 1 Li bevt ies Assoc iat i cm, submi ssi on to the ~~g~Lp~-&g~~~~tqg-pn_~~q~n_pqv_g~h,y~gr_?~~~~v_c;~4;,~t;u_t;~~n_,March 1984, p. 30. CHAPTER I

~~S~Q~&~:A,L-B~~~~=,~~~U_~D,EThe changes i n avai 1abi 1i t y and cant ent since World War XI.

In this chapter I will demonstrate that there have been significant changes in North America in the content and availability of pornography since World War 11. These developments account, in part, for the increased public controversy over the ubiquitous display of pornography and the burgeuning feminist concern that pornccgraphy irfipedes the efforts of worr~en to overcome sexual ub jecti fication. These changes in content and avai labi l- ity have exacerbated the long-standing censorship controver%y.

The increased public concern results from the fact that we have moved beyot-td simple nudity and difficult access ta clinical depictions of genitalia, vaginal and anal intercourse, sadomasu- chism, fetish rmter i a1 , coercive pornography (involuntary bondage, physical assault , rape, mur der , and adul t -c hi1 d S and relatively easy access. I will be looking at the change in content and avai 1abi l i ty in three areas of purnctgraphi c produc-. tion: ri~agazifie, film, and fiction.

1 will also discuss the government commissions in the U.S. and Canada which were appointed to investigate pornography. It is appropriate to discuss the comrtri~sionresearch in this chapter because Lhe changes in availability and content created public concern and led tu the appointment of these commissions. The findings of these commissions affected legislative reform which in turn further exacerbated the censorship controverrjy. I. am providing a brief description and evaluation of the research carried out fur these commissicans to provide background and enhance the readers trnderstanding of the problems with the research. The 1970 U. S. Pornography Cornmi ssi on Y esearch has proven to be very currtruversial and needs to be approached with caution. This Commission is important to our discussion because it is "quoted in bath textbook and Courtracm as the authority on the subject."' As will be made clear throughaut this thesis, commentators continuously refer tl3 this body of research. The i mpac t of the Fr aser Cornmi t t ec t 1983) r eseav c h and r ecummenda- tions few law reform is less clear as the government has only responded in part to these recommendations. This is the only bcdy uf research available which deals with the specific Canadian experience and the research is w~ttch rmre current than the 1970 Por nogr aphy Ccmimi ssi on r csear c h .

Eesnzi!xa The amount of pornographic material available in the early

1950's was minimal, and by today's standards, quite tame. The occasional female nude could be found in spout and photography magazines or in more elegant periodicals like Ezgukrg with its

Vargas girls (pin-up drawings of busty women in filmy blouses).

But the focus of these rftagasines was not on the nudes- Other more explicit material, such as photo sets cw *girlie9 magazines, usually of European origin, could be obtained with difficulty.

The 'girl ie' magazines that were available duritig this period were not very explicit or accessible, These magazines "Those cheap little magazines - the typical title was 'Gals, Gals, Galsp - presented nothing more cumplicated than a few dozen pictures of girls wearing very little clothing. They were always placed well to the back of the cigar stcwes. Yca had to search tkam out and then, with an embarrassed ha1 f-smi 1e, hand your money to the disappraving old proprietor. I, 3

However , the "cheesecake" content of povnugraphi c magazine began to change with the birth of W.aybgy in 1952 published by

Hugh Hefner. The first issue of Wgybpy, featuring a nude photo uf Mar i 1yn Monroe, was an instant success. e&g&ey circulation steadi 1y climbed to one millicm in 195G and would eventually reach seven mi1 1 i on cupi es a msnth by l'W2. 4

Hefneuys magazine was the first periadicaI to offer quality

photographic stills of attractive women with their breists exposed. These semi-nude women were framed in an expendve, glossy magazine which also paid tap dc~llarfor interviews and

articles by famous and accomplished people. This fact lent the magazine legitimacy and protected Hefner from being charged with

peddling a curf~pletelypruri ent magazine. Pivotal to this legiti-

macy was the fact that Wef ner presented his Playmates as yuung, beautiful, and sexual , but; now-threatening avld chi ldlike, The

Playmates were nut portrayed as cheap, street-wise, exper ience-d women. Hefner ertjoyed a long and lucrative place in the povnog-

raptly market. Even though Playboy spawned numerous imitators,

(e.9. Qgh~g, Eigank, Cipnk, Begyp) all trying to capture Hefner's

success, none of them every reached Playbay's circulation. However, in 1968 Hefner ' 5 ~f~ot~upuly on the market began to sl i p wi th the appearance uf Bob Gucc i one Cfgn_th_pg%g). Hefner and Guccione are largely respc~nsiblefor changing the content of

'girlie magazines'. These two men entered into a vicious competition for the market in the 1970's. In the trade this competition is referred to as the 'Pubic WarsT. Every issue exposed a little bit more of the female anatomy culrfiinating in a full frontal 1ay-out in Fkqg~gg~gin August 1971. 5

Guccione welc~medthe obscenity charges which were laid against him in Britain Che soon moved his operation to the United

States) for the notoriety it brought hirfi in the newspapers.

Hefner, on the other hand, felt Guccione was promoting "cheap, pornographic crapu6 and withdrew F'lgybgx frorfi this contest.

However, in 1972 Hefner procured a floundering French magazine which he titled OIL. It was HefnerPs intention to use Qgi in the fight against Pe~thgyag. In this magazine he did allow the women to be portrayed much like GtrccioneFs "Pets of the Month", that is more street-wise and sleazy. This competition accelerated with every issue tc~see who could "produce the raunchier magazine". 7

Judith Reiw~an, who recent 1y c ompl et ed an extensive cantent analysis of i?t?lybpy and hqthggag, charges elaybgy wi t h 1aying the grordndwork for, what she calls, the whole media sexploitation movement. She clairt~s "P&aybgyI_s successi ve rnani pul at i ons and distortions of the image of wonten typi f ies the pornography- conditioning processm

Reisman has neglected to bring out Buicciune's very significant rule in forcing Mefner to get mare explicit. Heismanpsi charge does seerit to have va1 idity in view of the fact that the

tPubic Warsv encouraged an impressive list of imitators all more revealing and explicit than F'lgybqy. Further, longitudinal content analyses done an Msybpy and h~thpgqgi ndicate that these two leading magazines have become more vi c~lentin pi ctcw i a1 subject matter through time. 9

In a pictorial format North America in the 1980's has moved way beyond the simple nude and into a specialty market catering ta numerous fetishes. One such business is the ritai 1 arder porn house, Tao Productions in Los Angeles, California. Catalogues can be cheap1y and easily obtained, bath in the U.S. and Canada, by responding to advertisements found in the back of porn maga- r i nes. These col our ed brochures adver t i so magaz i nes and vi dens catering to a wide range of sexual behaviour. Tor example, ctnc i s i rwi t ed to purchase L he pic t or i al magax i ne i3~3pqem~gsgg~ which boasts that the magazine is "jammed with tight bondage, suspension and whipping of young pretty girls" (see Appendi x 1).

Also, in ths Tao culloction are magazines of obedience, breast bondage, waterworks (featuring the adventures of 'Enema Many 1, and ~~Tnaqgrev-FnnEp~&qq+ Videus, ranging frcm $49-$89 U. S. sport titles 1ike the @L~iLL&gWi~e which promi ses fi fty rninirtes of exciting torture and pain (see Appendix 113. I will be discussing videos in more detail in the next section.

Other rhai l arder houses, such as R. B. L. Sal esi in L.os Angel es C see Appendi x I I I ) , sell magaz i nes and vi deos whi c h f et i shire certain female body parts or b~dyshapes. For example, me can pur c hase magat i nes which displ ay naked pregnant or lact at i ng women fur $6.00 U.S. Also available are magazines which focus on the anus, erect nipples, hanging breasts or huge breasts, chunky bottoms, obesity, or warnen with shaved genital areas. An interesting feature of these full colour brochures is that there is usually a standard section advertising ethnic girls (Latin,

Black, or Oriental) as well as a section which promises pictures of lesbian sex.

In the late 1940's and early 50's 1Gmm stag films or 'bl~~e* movi es were available in which penetration and ejaculation were shown, Usual l y these f i 1nts were dist r i but ed by traver 1i ng sal es- men who would arrange qsmokersv to show the films to groups of rnen for a set fee, This phenonsenon gradual 1y began to fade in the 19mys with the advent of 8wtrfi home movie equipment. Sixteen mi11 i metre equipment was expensi ve and meant that or11 y a few producers could afford the costly equipment. With the availabil- i ty sf hafie mavie equipment many more amateur producers appeared with a subsequent decline in film quality. Cnstorwrs began to buy the films outright or rent the films for a private showing. 10

Besides the pr i vale shawi np of tstag f i 1ms' , there were a1so public theatres playing "sexplciitation films" Cthe commissi~m's term). According to the Traffic & Distribution Panel of the 1970

Pornography Cornmi ssion, this industry has existed since the 1920's and is a very small segment of the general film industry.

Far example, of the 14,000 theatres in the U.S. only 500 would exhihit sexploitatiun films. lt The sexplcsi tation film was shown in a limited number sf theatres as a special event. The Panel claimed that in the 1920Fsthese films included total nudity of the participants but no sexual activity. In the 1930's the nudity began to disappear and there was more of an emphasis ctn story line. In the 1950ps the character of this type of film began to revert back to nudity, ("nudie cutiesj"). During the years 1964-68 sexploi tation film content began to signi ficantly diversify. In many af these films plot was abandoned altogether in favour c~fcant inuous scenes of nudity. "Roughi es" appeared with a sex--violence format. (Some of these "roughi es" depicted women as aggressors, others cast wcmen as victi~1s.3 "Kinkies", films that explored fet;ishe%, were also available. "Ehoulies", a forerunner to the present horror genre, minimized the nudity and wtaximized the violence, According to the panel, these films contained full female nudity and the full range of heterosexual conduct stopping short of actual penetration,

The Panel claimed that as of the late 1960's there were f i fty to one hundred business f i rrwi invul ved in production of this type of film. Production budgets ranged from $3,000 -

$100,000. The prsducers trsed non-unionixed actors and actresses and a limited film crew, Virtually no money was spent by producers on script development. The films usually took one week to 12 sho~t( l35-2W f i lms were prctduced in 196'3). One of the tasks of the Panel was to provide data regarding the amount of "adults only" material available. "Adults on1 y" material was described as fiction or film completely concerned with sex. The Panel complained of the difficulty in giving ratings of "W" (restricted:) or "X" ~x-rated:)'~to films, boclks, or periodicals for the amount of sexual content because there was such an overlap with general release filws and mass market books and periodicals.14 The Panel claimed the only difference between

X-rated films with a wide distribution like Qgg~-Lhu_o_gtand sexploi tat ion films was the marketing pattern (87). These sexpluitatiun films were Iow budget with limited exhibition,

One phenomenon in the area of film that needs mentioning is the appearance of the "snuff film". Snuff refers tc* the tortt~re, rape, and murder uf women for male sexual grati fication. This type of f i 1m has caused enuvmsus pub1 i c outrage.

In 1975 police in New Yurk confiscated film footage they clairmd came frctrn South America. These films captured the actual rape and murder of wmten. Becanse of the notoriety and press that these f i lms generated the porrrcrgraphy industry seized upon the idea af producing a mock 'snuff film*. In 1976 the rmvie Q~gff was r el eased.

"Advertised as a rr~crviewhich recorded the real murder of an actress...it attracted hundr eds of eager men at X-rated theatr es. l5

The story line and events in this filrn are truly horrible.

Suffice it to say that the problem scenes include the murder c~fa pregnant woman and her unborn baby as well as the dismemberment and disembowel1 ing of another wuman. At the end of the film the man r esponsi b 1e for the disembuwel ment holds the wctmans entrai 1s up over his head Lriumphanthy. LaBePle C1980) claims this movie was the final straw fur anti-porn feminists because of the blatant misagyny and vi ulence.

From this point forward anti-porn feminists relentlessly attacked the pornography industry, especi a11 y retai 1ers.

Feminists came out in droves to protest, picket, leaflet, and boycott the theatres showing the film fhgrff. They were successful, in most cases, sf having the filrft removed. Pol ice officials, at the same time, were reporting that as a result of this movie, the word can the street was that similar "snuff" films could be procured for a private showing far $100 - $500 U.S. a per son. 16

In 1980, technological innovation burmght us video purnog- raptly. Video porn can be rented at local tmtlets and watched in the privacy of oney5 home. Because videos have been considered property for home use and therefore exempt from prior screening by censor or film boards, the video mar kat has been leas regu- lated than ather types of film. There has been much public concern about the content of pornographic videos and their accessibi 1i ty to ysrmg pectple. This concern does have a certain basis in fact. Research for the Fraser Committee C1983) in

Canada revealed that many videotapes, some of which have violent and/or degrading content, are being smuggled in from the U.S. @I

W. Canada gets rnost of i. ts pornography from the U. S. Vanccuver , because of its proximity to Lus Angeles where a great deal of pornography production takes place, is an ideal 1c~c at ion for i ncctmi ng mat er i a1 . avoiding custom9s inspection and getting on the video outlet shelves i 1legally. 17

Ridingtun, the Chairperson of the British Columbia

Periodical Review Board, outlines the problems with regulaticcn crf videccs. Each province in Canada is responsible fur administer ing the criminal justice system. It is the duty of the Attorney

General in each province to provide guidelines to police on what material constitutes obscenity. In these guide1 ines obscene material is defined as that which "depicts sexual acts coupled with acts of violence (including sadism, masuchism, and other cinilar acts3."18 These guidelines vary frorn province to province and the public has no input into the content of these regula-- tions. Ridington went through a great deal of difficulty to obtain the guidelines fur 8.12. 19

Video retailers have complaf ned that they do not real 1y have a clear understanding of what material is obscene and that confiscations and prosecutions seem inconsistent CKai te, 19831.

Most video retai lers; understand that sexual exploitation is the area af most concern but they also express confusion about what constitutes exploitation(la33.

As a result of this confusiot~as to what material is permis- sable, coupled with i 1legal videos appearing on the outlet shelves, there has been a great deal of pub1 ic concern in Canada.

The anger generated by the presence of illegal videos has oc- casionaXly erupted into violence. I refer here tct action like that directed against Red Hot Video. Red Hot Video opened an outlet in North Vancouver, British Columbia in 1982. A committee from the North Vancouver Women's Centre visited the video outlet and sampled many of the films available to the public. The delegation from the Centre chose six examples of videotapes which contravened Section 159 of the existing Canadian Criminal Code, that is, material portraying sex in conjunction with violence. They brought these illegal films to the attention of authorities and asked the police to prosecute these videos under present obscenity legislation. The police did pick up five of the films including Prisoners of Paradise. The central male character in this film chains and suspends women from the ceiling and forces them to perform oral sex. Later, these women are chained to a billiard table and raped. 20

Red Hot Video was never prosecuted for peddling these films because the local Crown Counsel claimed the acting was so bad that the film could not be taken seriously. At the same time, women in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, were concerned about films being offered at their Red Hot Video outlet. They brought the attention of authorities to films like Water Power in which women are given forced enemas, among other violent acts. The Crown prosecutor would not act against these films or proprietors .21 Eventually the situation erupted when the Wimmin's Fire Brigade bombed three Red Hot Video outlets on

November 22, 1982. EFc,Y..Lnn,

"Adults only" paperback fiction, at least in the United

States, appears to be one of the largest volume areas af pornog- r aphy pr oduc t i on. 22 "Adults onlyn refers to baaks that are cc~nstructedaround a series of sex episodes. Don Smith, who has done a content analysis of these books claims paperbacks are the most "visiblr; and accessible mani festatiotrs c~fparncqraphy. m23

His study, done in the U.S., covered the years 1968-1'374 and examined four hundred and twenty-eight papcrbac ks. Smith descr ibcs the content of these paper backs.

"Sixty percent of the sex episodes are characterized by sex for sex sake - sheer physical grat i f icatim devoid of any feeling toward the partner as a person (the typical character is young, single, white, attractive, and het erosexual I Indeed, almost one-third of the episodes contain the use of some form of force, e.g. physical, mental, bl ackrnai 1, almost a1 ways admini stered by the malc.."24

His data detmnstrates a rise every year in %he number of pages in the text devoted to the description of sexual activity, He attributes this rise, in part, to the 1969 Suprerth? Court decision in the Stanley v. Georgia case. This decision was seen by pub1 ishers and distributors in the pornography industry as a signal for a relaxatiotr of cc~trtrlrrlsion portmgraptric mater ial . In brief, the judgement in this case indicated that an individual cannot be charged with possessi ng obscenity i f the individual has the material on their premises for private use, even though the material in questic~nmight contain themes or depictions which would constitute obscenity, The home was being singled out as some kind csf safety zone.

The Traffic and Distribution Parcel of the 1970 Pornography

Cornmissian concurs with Smithys contention that a series of ccturt cases gave pub1 ishers of "adult s on1y" paperbacks indirect permission to expand the sexual content of these books. They paint to the tri a1s i nvol ving Mi 11errs Lug~i=-pf-Cgt?gey C 1964) and Clelandps Fhmy,H&LL < 13663. Buth of these books cctntaincd numerous descr i pt i ons af sexual activity, The Courts dec 1ar ed t huse books nut obscene.

The Panel clcain~cthat up ~tnti 1 about 19G5 these paperbac ks had plot and character development with only 50% of the book devoted to describing sexual activity. This sexual activity was confined to descriptions of foreplay or the character's state of mind. There was no description of genital.5, penetration, or uncummc~n sexual acts like group sex. A great deal was left to the reader s imagination. However, by 1969 this format changed.

These "adul tr only" paperbacks became nothing mare than a description of continuous sexual activity. The Panel stated that these paperbacks arc largely written for the male, heterosexual reader, The sexual acts described in these paperbacks concen- trate largely on heterusexual intercourse but other subjects are dealt with such as beatiality, paedophilia, necrophilia, and homosexuality. They stated less than 10% of these bouks are written for the male homosexual and 5% are produced for those interested in sadumasochism. I~g,Qz~,,~~~~f~g~e~-pn_-Q~s_g~~~~yY~n_d,-~~u_figg~g~~y-~~~~~~

The widespread distributictn and availability sf pornographic material, the increasing awareness of the easy accessi biZi ty of this material to young people, the reports from law enfcwcement of f i c i a1 s regarding pur nography' s rol e i n cr i me 25, the appearance of wagazinos 1i ke "Hust 1er " with an arrogant sexlviolence for mat, coupled with the advent of the Isnuff film9 fit~allybrought a swelli ng wave of anti-por nogr aphy sentimerit bath in Canada and the U. S. The respective governments were forced to commission investigations into the charges that pornography can have scr i ous anti-social effects.

The most important cammission in the United States was the

1970 Comrni ssi cm on Qbscenit y and Fornogr aphy. This Cummi ssi cm set out to investigate the cc~nnection between anti -%mial attitudes and behavisur. The Commission carried out a wide range of attitude surveys, lab experiments, one Iongitudinal study, and a few prujects were conducted with incarcerated sex offenders. A

Traffic and Distribution Panel was appointed to examine production, distribution, and profits.

Four t een l ab exper i merrts were carr i ed out for the Commission largely on male college students - only three studies tried t a ascertain the impact of pornography on aggressive behaviour. As Diamond points out, two of these studies lacked a cantral group. The one study that did have a control group

(testing for an increase in aggressive behaviour after exposure to at7 "erotic" film) found that participat~tsdelivered stronger shocks tu confederates after being angered and then viewing an

"erotic" film with an audio track conveying aggressive messages.

The subjecks delivered shocks of greater intensity after viewing a film ccmbining aggression and sex than after viewing neutral films ur films depicting aggression in a nun-sexual context. The outcome of this research was counterbalanced by the Commission with Washer's (1970) study which found that subjects were less likely to verbally aggrecs against a female after viewing pornug-

Y aphy . However, verbal aggr essi an i nc r eased when seeing further pornugraphic fi1 rns was cant i ngent on such bshavi our. 26

The mast controversial research done for the Commission was the longitudinal study done in Denmark. This study was said to have proven the catharsis theory, "the mcwe you see, the less you do." Pornography was legalized in Denmark in the 1•‹3G0p55and data seemed to indicate that sex cri mes had cortsequent 1y decreased

(Ben Veniste, 196'31.

In Walker's C1970) study, for the Commission, a significant number of cclt-tvicted sex offenders stated that pcrrtmgraphy had i nflcrenced their behaviuur . The researchers derki grated this outcome arguing that pornography was just hei ng scapegoated. In

Prapperys Ci970) work, males aged 16 to 21 curnmitted to a rofurwt- atory, had considerable exper i ence with pornography. A1though this fact was acknowledged by the Cammission they pointed out that only 3% of the inmates were incarcerated for assault and only 2% for sexual offense^.^' Yet, 62% of these inrrtaterj scored very high on a "peer sex behaviour index", agreeing that they would participate in a gang-bang or would resort to getting a girl drunk to obtain cuitus(695). There were several studies done with married coup1es. Them couples viewed pov nogr aphy together and were then asked for their reaction. Husbands and wives tended to report similar reactions. 20

This U.S- Cammission stated that on the basis of its research nu harmful effects could be said to stem from the use of pornography. They recommended a relaxat ion of controls ut~ pornography.

This Cuw~missionhas been criticized €Cline, 1974; McCorrnack,

1978; Diarfmnd, 1380) for its liberal bias. The Chairperson and wtembers of the Board belonged to the American Civi 1 tibert ies

Union. Keating, a dissenting member of the Cummission, argued that this group made up its culfective mind beforehand that the use of pornography doeti not contribute to anti-social attitudes and behaviour and ther afore suppressed or igtwr ed r csearch that implied negative sf fects from the use of parnography. Although the Commission claimed that pornography has a negligible effect on behaviour, very few studies done for the Commission actually examined the impact of pmrnogr aphy un behavi our. Re-eval uat i on of the study done in Denmark (Eysenck and Nias, 1978; Diamond, 1'380;

Ri di ngt on, 1983) has demonst r ated that a1though t her c may have been a decrease in less serious sexual of fonses, such as peeping or exhibitionism, there was not a decrease in rape. 29 In 197G

Court and Bachy both maintained that since 1969 rape rates in

Copenhagen have risen and are much higher than statistics %en years earlier. Also Court7s (1984) work in Hawaii indicated that when controls on porncrgraphy are lifted rape rates increase, when controle are reimposed rape rates decline.

Compounding the problems in this body of research wikh

1i beral bi as, rnethcdol ogi cal problems, and sloppy use nf ter -- minology (erotica, sexually explicit, and pornography get used interchangeably), this research was carried out by male researchers using a preponderance uf male subject pupul at i uns.

McCormack (lW8I maintains that in the studies done with couples viewing pornography together, the women may very well have been intimidated by a male researcher and the presence of their husbands when asked about their react ion to the purnography. She suggests that the r esul ts of these surveys and exper i ments may have been quite di f ferent with female researchers designing and carrying out research or i f the subject populations had contained

SOY. worften.

A1 though this body of research is f 1awed and puabf emakic it is the largest project to date attempting to examine this phenomenon and provides us with an extensive database. This research is, however, growing quite out-dated.

Lh~,Se~c~aL,Esm~Lkteff~n_n_E~~t?ct~~rreh,~Y~n_d,-~~~~~~k~k~~~-L~2@2~ In Canada, the pub1 ic controversy surrounding pornography, the difficulties with obscenity law, and the failure uf tighter customs and postal regulations to sitem the flood of parnugraphic material from the U.S., produced the appointment of the Special

Committee on Pcrrnography and Prostittrtion (referred to as the

Fraser Commi ttee after its Chairman). This Cornmi ttee was ap-

29 painted in 1983 to evaluate the situation in Canada with respect

to pornugr aphy and pr oduce r ecommendat i on5 fur legal and soc i a1 refarrn. I will fc~cuscan the research and recc~w~rnendationson

pornography. I wi 11 demonstrate that this Committee re1ied heavily un non-Canadian data, and the applicability of some 13f

this data to the Canadian experience is questionable.

The Commi t t ee, compr i sed u f t hr ee men and four women,

commissiuned empirical research to ascertain the way pornography

has been dealt with in other countries, tsuch as the U.S. and

Britain. Noclinical research was carried out. TheCumrdttee

under took the legal research themselves, examining ccmparat ive

legislation in other countries and weighing the impact of pro-

posed law reform can constitutional guarantees. Finally, the

Ccsmmittee had the responsibility of determining the publicvs

chief concerns regarding pornography; therefore, they conducted

rtationwide pub1 ic heavings in twenty-.two Canadian cities, The

Committee was expected to report to the guvernment on the current

situaticsn in Canada with respect tu access to pornography and the

impact ctts society.

Unfortunately, the Committee had to look at both the ques-

tions of pornography and prostitution simultaneously. This fact

limited the time and research that could be devoted ko pounug-

raptly. I say unfortunate because there is so little Canadian

data on the subject uf pornography. Why it was felt that these

two xlcial problems shc~uldbe investigated cotscurrent ly is

unclear. Researchers for the Carmi ttee Ce. g. McKay and Do1 f f ,

19843 complained of the lack of Canadian data an aspects of the subject , espec i a1 1 y the i mpor t ant and cont rover si a1 quest ions on the connect ion between rape and pornography. They also identified a lackof dataon (1) thecantent sf pornography, (2) the use of children as participants in production, and (33 marketing, distribution, and consumer patterns in Canada. As a result of the lack of Canadian research, the Committee had to rely on research and legal solutions carried out in other countries, such as the

U.8. The relevance for Canada of methods adopted in other countries to deal with pornography, especially the U-S- is unclear- Canada's experience with pornography is dissimilar to that of the

S Fur example, there is very little domestic production uf pornography taking place. Canada gets 90% of its pornography

frorft the U.S. The Canadian situation is unique and cowtplex and needs to be investigated in its c~wn right.

McKay and Dolff did an appraisal for the Committee of the existing social scientific research regarding the impact of pornography on saciet y, part ici pant s, and consumers, The conclusion of these researchers was that no systematic research

is available which demonstrates =harmv to the public or the consumer ('341. The research which does demonstrate negat ive effects is not, for these authors, persuasive. They admit, however, that the database is not sufficient to support firm concl uai ons,

With respect tu the impact of pornography c~nsociety, McKay

and Dolff make two claims. First, "there is no systematic re-

search evidence which suggests a causal re1 at ianshi p between

pornography and the moral i ty of Canadian society" (933. No explanation is offered regarding what cc~nstitutesmorality or what is

the supposed cannecticm. What they seem to be addressing is the concern of conservatives that widespread availability of pornog-

ri-\g~P~ycontributes to the moral decay of society by encouraging

infidelity, promiscuity, venereal disease, and the corruption of

youth. The authors state clearly that Canadian data regarding the impact of pornography on the community is missing. What they do look at is research frur11 the U.S. on neighbouvhood deteriora-

tion as a result of strip joints and adult bc~okstoresc~pening up

in certain curnmnunities. But, can a curfiparison be made in this way? Are there comparable "adult zones" in varic~uscommunities

in Canada?

The second corrc 1tmi on the r esear c her s Y eached i s that "there

is no systematic research evidence available which suggests that

increases i n dcvi ant behavi our. . ,are causal X y r el atad to pornugraphy"C93). For the mument this is correct. But, Ccturt's

f 1984) study in Hawaii demunstrated that the incidence af rape

increased when cuntrols on pornography were re1 axed and decreased

when controls were reintroduced. This study contradicted the

earlier findings in Copenhagen. These contradictory findings are

not acknowledged by McKay and Do1 f f.

The concl usiuns of the researchers regardi ng consumers were

t l-,t,.;!. there was no persuasive evidence that I11 viewing pornog-

raphy causes harm to an adult or (2) that viewing pornography

causes an adult to harm others. 30 We cannot weigh t he importance

of these conclusions unless we know what the researchers consider

Tt~aumr,which is a contentious issue, and what they mean by qpersuasivc evidence.'

Their first conclusictn ignores research such as Zillman &

Bryant, (19823 which demonstrates that massive viewing of pornography can harm adults by increasitzg sex--callo~tsedattitudes towards women and womenPs issues. In the same study desensitira- t ion to rape occurred through massive exposure to pornography.

Subjects trivialized rape and demonstrated a subsequent lack of compassion for rape vict ima. The researchers deimnst r ated that after massive viewing of pornography subjects thought that uncormon sex practices, fur example, group sex ccr anal intercourse were more common than they actually are. The researchers speculated that a viewer labour ing under these misconceptions could therefore be encouraged to experiment with uncommon sex practices unwelcomed by their partner. Alsoy they suggested that the viewing of these uncommon sex practices could create dissatisfaction with oneXssex life or sex partner.

There is same evidence to support these speculatic~ns.

Russel 1 s C1975) study on sexual abuse in San Francisco revealed that women were reporting disturbing experiences as a result af male viewing of pornography. Ten percent of the women in this study (N=9293 recounted episc~desof male partners want ing the women to ifftitate acts which the men had viewed in pornographic magazines or film. These attempts were often accompanied by ver bal or physical coer c i on. The acts demanded inc 1uded group sex, anal penetration, slapping and hitting, bestiality, ob.ject3

in the vagina, and urination into the mouth. Because the sub.ject population was a representative one, it was generalized that 10% of tho adult female population in %an Francisco would report similar disturbing experiences(224). We also know from earlier research that consumers have stated that one of the likely

13utcomes caf using pornography is to get ideas to try out with one's spouse. This type of research is not discussed in McKay and Dal f fpsreview af the literature.

On the basis of suhrnissions such as McEay and Do1 f f's the

Commi t t ee made recommendations to the government regarding 1aw ref cwm. The Cummi t t ee generated a ser i es of r ecommendat i ons outlining the type of material which should incur criminal sanctions. I wi 11 be discussing these recommendat ions in Chapter

I1 because the Committee's three-tiered system of categorizing ff~aterial.ties into the question of a definition of pornography.

In cunclusiun, the rapid growth in the pornography industry and the changes in content and availability have raised serious concerns regarding pornography's impact on sctciety. In response to these concerns, the governments in Canada and the U.S. have under taken invest igat i uns i nCo the effects 13f pornography tct determine whether pornography is a phenomena to be protected or suppr esscd . CHAPTER I ENDNOTES

3. Robert Fulford, "Dream World sf the Sex Magazines" in ...,.,".-.".---Saturday- Wight 77: March 11, 1962, p. 9-10. 4. Miller, p. 137.

5. Ibid., p. 195.

G- Ibid., p, 190.

7. Ibid., p. 199.

9- Neal Malavtuth and Barry Spinner, "L.ongitudinal Content Analysis of Sexual Violence in the Rest Selling Erc~tic Magazines", J_guy~cjr&._qf-St;,x-~gsgp~r;,~1980, 16, 3, p. 226-237.

11. Ibid., p, 7.

12. Ibid., p. 32-33.

13. A rating of "F," is a film which cannot be shown to a person under 17 unless accompanied by an adult. A film rated "R" can include nttdi ty, brief touching of breast and simulated intercourse. Nu language restricticms are imposed. An "X" rated film cannot be shown to persons under 17. In this type of film graphic simulated intercourse can be shown along with suggest ions and shot5 of OY a1 -9eni t a1 coot ac t . No 1anguage restrictions are imposed. The line between "R" and "X" is murky and the decision as to rating appears to be made on the basis of the quantity of sexual activity in the film.

15. Bever 1y La Eel 1e, "Snuff : The Ulti mate in Wcicttan-Hat ing" ,in L... lederer Csd. :tLgkg-Qg~~-t~e-YLgh,hCN. Y. :Murr12w, 1980), p. 272.

16. Ibid., p. 275.

17, 7.5. PaXys, "A Content Analysis of Sexually Explicit Videos i n 3. C ." , Wor k i ng Paper # 15, Smgkg&-gg@qjttg~-pp,-f~~~ggu_$~~y pn,g,e~q~ti~gtkq~,(Canada: Department of Just i cu, 1984) p. 9. 21. Ibid.

22. Donald D. Smith, "The Social Content of Furnogr aphy", dggwai_ nf$~~u_n_ig~tLpn_~~26, 1'376, p. 16-24.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid., p. 22.

25, Mark Hamilton, "Sex Crirtws: Pal ice Just Scratching the Sur f ace " , Tbg-Nq~~-~hg~g-Nggg,Sept . 5, 1986. 26. D.L. Masher and H. Katz, "Pornographic Films, Male Verbal Aggr essi cm Against Women and Guf 1t " , Lhg-~~ZQ-~,S,-Cp~~fg&gs~g~ qa,QbOge~ jLy-a_~d-Ppwnc,gpphy, Technica1 Repor ts, Val . 8, p. 357.

27. Ibid., p. 695.

28. Thelma McCormack, "Machismo in Media Research: A Critical Review uf Research ctn Violence and Pornography", Spcial F'r_pb_&gwi, Vol. .-Rrd.~, NO. 5, June 1978, p. 543.

30. W.B, McKay and D.J. Do1 f f, "The Impact of Pornography: An Analysis sf Research and Summary of Findings", in bJgrh&qq ~aegrs,gfi,&reeg~n~hy:-s.fi~-~~gs~&tu_t,~~,t Ot tawa : Dep t . u f Justice, 19841 p. 94.

31. Harold Nawy, "The San F'vancirjco Erotic Marketplace" tl97X?, Q~L-~c,~~f~s~g~~-pfi-g~s_c_g~i~~Ygn_cJcJ~c(~n_gg,Technical Reports, Vol. 4, p. 162. (80% of the men invc~lvedin a study of patrons of adult movie theatres in San Francisco reported the above outcome as extremely 1i kely). CHAPTER I I

QEEL\~XL~QNLThe an-Goi ng Di 1emma

In this chapter I will be exploring the problems and con-

fusion siurrounding a definition of pc~rnc~graphy. The use of

undefined terminology, different terrnincilogy being used to refer

to the same material within one document, and vague and proble-

rr~aticdefinitions being put forward are common in the literature

on pornography. The problerw with terrninology and definition

appear to derive from carelessness and a serious lack of consen-

sus. This lack of consensusabaut definition makesuseful

discussion of the issues difficult. I will demonstrate this

point by examining the use af terminology and definition in

commentary an the law and legal cases, research, and philosoph-

ical discussion.

The increasing dissatisfaction with terminology stems

largely from the problems experienced with the term "obscenity".

This term has been in use fur several hundred years. Bhsceni ty

initially characterized material which profaned the sacred but gradual ly came to encompass the sexual or lewd. "Obscene" is

presently used in Canadap5 Cv imirial Code. Otrseeni ty comes frortl

the Latin ob cenum, "about filth" and is def ined in the Ean_d_pm

&Isg Mct&zegry sf EhglFzh Lgqggaqg as mater ial which is

"offensive to modesty or decency, lewd; causing or intending to cause sexual excitement car lust."2 Qbscene carries with it a

condemnati an of sexual ity which has ccme to be ivbcveasingly

unacceptable in a liberal permissive society. When the Fraser Committee carried out its publ ic hearings across Canada it,

1984 there was a clear ccensensus from the public that the term obscenity be dropped as it was dated, unclearly and inconsis- tently defined, and insufficient for entbracitrg the type of material currently available. 3

LegaL Gassi To discuss the problems involved with defining pornagraphy, f will examine two significant legal cases in Canada. Although precise definitiurrs ere crucial tu the practice of law, the history of cases brought before the courts on obscenity charges has demonst rated the problem with forwul ating 1egal 1anguage and tests for such offenses. A guod demonstration of the difficul-

Lies with interpreting legal language and applying tests fctw

"obscenity" is to review the Canadian case Doug Rankine Company and Act I I X Video Prmhx.t ions vs. the Crown, tried by Judge

Stephen Eorins in 1983. The Crown accused Dnxtg Rankine Company and Act 111 Video Froductians, Iocatad in Toronto, of distribut- ing obscene publ icat ions, (25 video cassette tapes). The Judge had the task of deciding whether the videus in question had violated C.C.C. Section 159 (s) 8. This means the videos would have to contain an undue exploitation of sex or sex in any combination with violence, horror, crime, or cruelty. This tmtiun of "undue exploitation" has become a Lest to determine if the mater i a1 in quest ion has exce~dedthe current Canadian cummuni ty standards of tolerance. If the material is said tct have exceeded these standards then it is cunsidered "ubscene". Two women spoke as expert witnesses fur the Crc1wt-i in the above case, Mrs, Walker, a ~~hol:~lteacher, had never been out of

Ontario and the Judge felt her attitudes cc~uldnot be seen as reflecting broader cctntemporary Canadian standards of tolerance,

She viewed all the tapes as obscene. The Judge stated that her views were that uf a smal l minority who hald very strong opinions regarding sexually explicit material. Hc~wever, the Judge did give weight to the evidence of Mrs. Rowlands because he believed she had more exposure to a wide range of public opinion due to the fact that she was an alderwoman and a member of numerous committees and organizations in Toronto. She believed scenes of explicit sex would be tolerated but scenes of sex with violence or cruelty, adult-child sex, buggery, or degradation, c.g. men ejaculaking in wsmenrs faces, would not be tolerated.

The defense argued that the videos did not exceed community standards because eight had been approved far distribution by the

Quebec Censor Board, considered one of the tougher censor boards, and thirteen had been viewed at Customs and permitted into the

This fact posed a dilernrfia for the Judge. He declared that the viewing of thase twenty-five videos was one of the least pleasant dutitx of his career.' His ccmclusions are informative.

Although lengthy, I will reprint some of his remarks here. "Although my task does not require a critical review of the films, I am bound to say that for the most part they are insipid, dull and boring, The common denuminatcw of the f i lms is the artless way in which sexual intercourse is treated.. .most of them reflected very little love or tenderness.,.+he motion pictures depict a wide range of scenes of explicit sex on the part of adults, singly, in pairs and in groups. These scenes include detai led portrayals of sexual intercourse, genitalia, masturbation, cunnilingus, fellatio, and anal intsrcourse. Standard fare for most of the films is at least c~nescene of lesbianism and one sex orgy. ..several of the f i lms have scenes which couple viulence and cruelty with sex. These scenes, such as scenes of bondage, frequently involve rt~en perpetrat ing indignities on women in a sexual context. In my opinion many of the films are exploitive cmf women, paw- traying them as passive victims who derive limitless pleasure from inflicted pain.. . Whether deliberately or otherwise, most of the films portray degradation, humiliation, victimi-- ration, and violence in human relationships as normal and acceptable behaviour .lm6 Judge Bor i ns dismissed the charges against four teen of the

films. These films, in his opinion, were concerned ctnly with

explicit portrayals of sexual intercourse and would not exceed

prevai 1i ng ccw~munity standards ctf to1 erance. The other eleven

films he found to be obscene. These films, he claimed, would

"violate the community standards of tolerance of Sodcm and

s om or r ah. "' Sorite of t hese f i 1 ms, he argued, were coapl et el y or partially concerned with the con.juncti~:~naf sex and violence.

The other filmsj, which he did not clearly identify, he believed

were "obsceneN because they were too explicit. This statement is

- unclear andconfusing. This finding raises thequesticm of how

can an explicit film be too explicit? "...it is the degree of explicitness of the sexual acts which leads me to the conclusi un that they exceed communi ty standards. In films of this nature it is impossible to define with any precisian where the line is to be drawn. To do so would be to attempt to define what may be indefinable."'

Borins' remarks demonstrate that the confusion with definition and tests arc as pervasive in the legal sphere as elsewt~ere.

All of these saw problems with definiticm and tests were mani fesk in the case of Regina vs. Pink Triangle Press. The first trial was held in 1979 Ccharges dismissed) and the seccrnd trial upon appeal took place in 1983. The State charged Fink

Triangle Press with "unlaufully making use of the mails for the purpose af transmitting indecent, immcwal, or scurrilc~us matt er ."9 The matter in question was an issue of Bgdy

Politic,,,,,.,-I a gay publication. This issue contained one in a series of three articles entitled "Men Loving BOYS Loving Men,"

The Judge had di f f icul ty with the community standards test even though he had opinions from expert witnesses. He found the conflicting interpretations from these witnesses provided little direction in deciding whether the issue of @gay f'glitir had exceeded the tolerance of the Canadian curomunity at large. He axso found defining indecent, irnmmal, and scurrilous difficult.

He ultimately dismissed the case on the grounds that the material taken as a whole could not be considered indecent, immoral or scurrilous.

In these types of cases the Judge is being asked to determine the cc~ntemporary1 eve1 of community to1erance in Canada far the average man and woman. But when he turns to witnesses from the community for guidance he often gets conflicting views. The

Judge is being asked to be clb.jective about a sub.ject matter which is extremely personal and very difficult to be objective about.

Still, the Judge has to make a determination. Needless tm say, such deterrttinatiuns have been conflicting. Judges like J.A.

Zuber have clearly stated that they think other judges have erred in the way that they have applied the community standards test. 10

Very little consensus exists about how the level of community standards is tit be determined.

Phj.g.zgehLga& Ceggg~Lary

1 f we examine some of the philosophical cammentary on the subject of pornography the same problems with terminology and definition occur. I have chosen Fred Berger and Ann Garryrs definitions for two reasons. First, their articles on portlog-- raphy produced a substantial react ion and, wxand, one cc~rnrnentatur is a liberal, the other a feminist.

Berger tl'XVI, a liberal camrnentatcw that we will be discus-. sing in Chapter 111, defines pornugraphy in the following way.

*,,.art or literature which explicitly depicts sexual activity or arousal in a manner having little ar na artistic or literary value. ,I li

Berger stales that this definition is for the purposes of discussion and acknc~wledgesthat it wiluld be a disaster in a legal context. But, even if it is only for the purposes of discussiun, this definition is still too vague; it does not identify what material is included and what is nut. Would C1elandTs Fgefiy Hi&& fit into this definitic~n? The problem is that there is nu discussion as to what criteria Berger is applying to decide what material hat artistic or literary value. If we had some idea of the criteria, and examples were provided, we could feel more confident that we understood Bergerrs intentions.

Unlike Berger, Ann Garry goes into mcwe detail about what would be included in her definition. She uses the fallowing definition in her article exploring the question of whether or nut pur nogr aph y i s mor a11 y abjcct i unable.

'$1 use pornography to label those explicit sexual rftater i a1s intended to ar ouse the reader or viewer sexually. I am interested in obvious cases that would be uncontroversi a11 y pornographic - the worst, least artistic kind. The pornography I discuss is that which taken as a whole lacks "serious literary, artistic, political ctr scienki fic merit". 12

Garry is correct to consider the irrtenticrt-r of the rutaterial, but the issue of what constitutes pornography has been nothing but esntroversial. What is meant by the "worst, least artistic kind"? Does Garry refer tc~law budget prc~ductionsand publications with shabby sets, bad fighting, poor plat and character develcipment , or does she refer to water i a1 depicting sadomasw- chisjut, rape, or physical assat.tlt"/ And tct add, as i f she is clarifying the matter, that it is pornography which taken as a whole lacks "sericwii literary, artistic, political, or scientific merit" does not hclp. The courts have been struggling with this very te~tfcir years with conflicting determinatiuns.13 This test has produced not on1y cunf l icti ng determinations but, not mare than three judges have ever been able to agree at one time on the social or literary value of a publicati~mur filro. 14

In an attewtpt tc~overcome the problems being generated by the use of these vague def init ions and to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable material, feminists, like Gloria

Steinerf~, have introduced power a% the essential feature to be considered in defining pornography, specifically male power over worvten. Erotica, considered acceptable, is defined as that material which depicts the mutual enjoyment of the participants with nct imbalance of power. *ErsticaT , Steinem argues, depicts passi onat e 1~:tve, sensual i ty and warmth. l5 Por nogr aptly, on the other hand, is concerned with maXe domination, vi a1encc, and conquest. 16

The difficulty with using this dichotomy between erotica and pornography is that the major i t y of parn~:~graphi c mater i a1 presently available fits in neither category. Far example, can the content of PLgybpy magazine be classi fied as erotica car pornagraphy? The material can not be corr~ideuederotica, in Steinemrs sense, becar.t%a F_Xgybgy has systematical ly infant i1 i zed women. 17

Hefnor ks well known fur his voluptuaus, young, chi ldli ke, non- threatening pl aymatec. Adult wamen with power and autontmy are seen as threatening and distasteful.18 While F'la_~b,c(y infantie- lizes women it does not, on the other hand, include a large percentage of violence in comparison tc* other periodicals like

Hust 1er , a1though admittedly viol ent cant ent has increased duv i ng the past two decades. 19

Further support far this crikicisrn of the dichotomy of erotica and pornography, is provided by research dccne far the

Fraseu Committee. In 1984 Pal ys conducted a content analysis uf

150 sexually explicit videos available in British Columbia. The coders were given the task af counting the tsuritber of sex scenes

in the videos that depicted mutual pleasuring with no imbalance of power and those scenes invulving sex and aggression.

"During pretesting of the coding scheme it became c 1ear that many sexual depi e t i ans existed which fit in neither category. These were depictions in which two (or more) consenting i ndi vi dual s came t uget her and en- gaged in sex and, whi le the depict ion was nut at all coercive, nor was it particularly laving and affectionate. 20

Of the 150 videos sawpled from the adult and triple xxx categories only 2.6% of the sex scenes in the adult category and 3.2% of the sex scenes in the triple xxx category ware considered

"eroticaMas Steitsem would define it. Only 2.6% of the adult and

1.2% of the triple xxx sex scenes were coded as containing %he cumbi nat i on af sex and aggression.

The point of this discusisicm is to explore whether these

terms erotica or pornography, defined as Steitsem suggests, help to solve or eliminate the problems regarding definition and distitsction between materials. Its my ~zlpinion, erotica is as prsblemat ic as the term obscenity. The terw terc~sFcomes from

the Greek and is associated with love and desire. Steitsem, in her discussiun of what cutsstitutes "eroticaN, stated that this material depicts "..people making love, really making love."21

What does "real1y making love" mean? As Scble paints out, this criteria seems to iritply that sexually explicit material, to be

acceptable, must portray sox in a laving, committed relatian- ship. 22 Gayle Rubin, whu has written on the issue of pornugraphy and sexuality, elaborates on Soblets criticism. "...sex has to occur in a certain way for it to be good. And the only legitift~atesex is very 1i mit ed . It ' s nut f c~cusedc~n orgasm, it's very gentle and it takes place in the context of a long-term, caring relatic~nship. It's the missionary position of the women's 11 23 mover net^ t .

In considering the question of a definition of pornography, perhaps the must troubling segment uf the literature is the research. Social scientific research is considered the most persuasive evi dense one can draw upon to support argument and reco~tmendati ons about the impact and regulation of pornography.

The problems with definition in the area of research have become increasing1 y apparent through re-evaluat ion of past research methodolc~gy Ce.g. McCormack, 1878; Diamond, 1480:). R mixture of ilndef i ned termi no1 ogy exists which has caused ccmf usicin and wade the i mpl i c at i ons f much r esear c h unc 1ear.

Some researchers use the term "erotica" CMasher, 1•‹371>,or

"aggressi ve and nm-aggressive erotica" (Ma1 arr~uthand

Donnerstein, 18821, or violent erot ica CMosher , 1980). Qther researchers have chosen "sexual 1y expl ici t " and "obscene" (The

1970 U. S, Pornography Commi ssiun) or "pornogr aptly" (Ma1 amuth and Spinner , 19825 .

Bart and Jazsa C19801 discuss this mixture of terminology in research. "In much of the research dune to date, the terms pornography, erotica, and expl icit sexual material are used interchangeably. This is an important variable, as a film showing two people making love is much different from one portraying the rape and murder of women for male sexual stimuf at ion. Distinctions between these terms must be at the basis of any val id wor k i n par nogr aphy research .11 24

Examples of confusing and undef i ned termi nu1 ogy are not difficult to find, but some authors cc~nfoundthe distinctions mare dramatically than others. fn an article discussing the value of psychalogical research to inform legal change, Psnrod and Linz C1980) initially use the terms "pornography" and

"obw:enityl' without definiticw or explanation. Later, in twt> short pages they manage to use, in a variety of ways, just about every term available, In their discussion of violent trends in the mass media, they talk about the vbrutality chicr of high fashion magazines and record covers. First, they vcfer to these depictions as "soft-core violent p~:trnographic irr~ages".* 1n the next sentence they use " aggr essii ve por nugr aphy" and " aggr essi ve ercttica" interchangeably. The title page of the next chapter r eadrj "Pr ceaxut i on of Har d--Car e ?or nogr aphy under Exi sting taw".

The inatkention to the definition of terms leads to utter confusion.

Even the researchers who appear to have a good grip on the problems associated with defining pornography and the subsequent difficulties in interpreting research go on to make the same mistakes themselves. In their review of the literature on par nugr aphy far the Fr aseu Cummi t t ee, McKay and Dul f f C 1984) point out the chaos in the literature regarding definition. "Furnogr aphy seems to attract ex trewes in definitic~n: so narrow Ce-g. operational def initiuns in speci f ic experiments) as to limit any generalizability to other forms or situations; or, so broad a5 to render it unusable in everyday practice."26

These authors maintain that one of the goals of sicienti fic

inquiry is to arrive at a common definition of terms to avctid cont inuous cunfusi on regar ding the phenomenon under scrutiny.

They argue that def i ni t i ut~are fundarrm~ta1 in generat i ng con-- structs and furmulating theory, therefore we need to arrive at a cunsensus regarding definition so that we are all studying and discussing the same thing. They maintain that "the failure to do so can only result in canfusian, erroneous conclusions, and

f a11 ac i uus c ompar i sons. ,127

This ic an intelligent and insightful statement regarding the necessity of developing and prctviding a definition of pornography. These statements also point to the fact that the academic community bears some resp~msibilityfor adding to the confusion

in terminol ogy and definition. However, having put these statements forward, McKay and Dslff proceed to use the terms

ttpsrnographylt and "erotica" int;t=.~chat~geablyin their paper never defining either one.

Di ana Russel 1, who conducted an i rfipur tank survey an sexual abuse in San Francisco, recognizes this problerri with definition

in research, but; rnafntainsi theye are, in fact, two prc~blerr~s. "First, distinctions are rarely made bet ween explicit sexual rnaterials...Second, precise descriptictt~sof the filwm, picttnres, or stories used in experiments are usual ly lacking, so that it is impossible to know whether the findings are relevant to an eval- uatiog of the effects of pornography or not. I* (Russel 1 defines parnagraphy as rnater ial which degrades men, women, or children).

Russel 1 suggests that subject popul at i ons in r esear c h may r espand differently to material depicting sexual activity in a twn- aggressive context and material depicting the combination of sex and aggressim. We need to know the content of the material used in experiments so we can fully evaluate the significance of the findings.

Russell's criticism is levelled against research like that of Howard, Clifford, and Liptzin 11'3703, and Donald Masher

Ql97O). Howard studied the effects of pcwrmgraphy on thirty-two white, adult college males from affluent families. They wanted to "evaluate the hyput hesi s that r epeated exposur s t ct pornugr aphy causes decreased interest in it, less respc~tlseto it and no 1 asting effects from it . "'' Thc exper imenters used pornographic movies, stills, and photo magazines in the research. The only descr i pt i vo inf or mat i an provi ded concerned the f i lws, They were said to be standard stimuli with g~mdcolc~ur and film quality atwl tho subject matter did not include rooeretic, group, or male homosexual themes. 'jO The inf ornlat ion prcrvi ded does he1 p to some extent, but it is nut sufficient. "Standard stimuli" needs to be explained fully as well as additional information provided regarding the content of the stills and photo magazines. The conclusion of this research was that "extensive exposure to por nogr aphy r esul t s i n dimi ni shed r espmse when exposure t u i t i s enforced, decreased interest in either seeking it or luoki ng at

it i f it is present , and dues not produce any detriment a1 or even enduring effects... 11 .31 Mosher (1470) studied the psycholctgical reactions to two pornographic films of 194 single males and 183 single females, all of wharf1 were college undergraduates. Before viewing the

films the males were given a questionnaire measuring sex- cal loused att i tudes toward wornen frore whi c h the researchers cc~uld ascertain which males suffered from a tlhypermasculit?e concern with sexual conquest, "32 The women were not given a sirni1 ar questionnaire regarding their attitudes and behavi our towards men. The expectat i cm was that after viewing the f i lrns those rftet? whct rated high in terms of sex--callousness (41%:) might be trig- gered into exploitative sexual behavi our because these men a1so reported using physical aggression and exploi tat ivc techniques such as "getting their dates drunk, showing them pornography, or professing love as a means of gaining coitus. "33 AS well, an

increase in sex-cal loused attitudes was ant icipated. However, contrary tl3 expectations, there was little increase it? reported sexual activity in the twenty-four hours following the films and a decrease in sex--cal loused attitudes.

Masher usad two films, Coitus f and Petting XI in which a heterosexual couple indulge in oral-geni tal contact and

intercourse. Masher did provide a description of the filrf~s.

Hc~wever, he then went ctt? to admit that he had some concert? about

the actual repr esant ativeness of the f i 1w~s. "These filnrs were 1imi ted tcc essent ial ly normal heterssexual behavi cmr bet ween a coup1e, a1-- though same would regard f ell a* i o and cunni 1i ngus deviation. Ttrere was nu appeals to f et ishism, sadomasochi sm, hortoosexual i ty, profaning the sacred, or other such activities. There were fewer closeups and mare affection than is typical of much pornography. In my opinion these.. . films would have more appeal to the sexual1y exper i enced, uni nhi bi t ed adul t c~fboth sexes than would most pornography, which is oriented toward a male audience and more "kinky sex. 11 34

This admi ssicrt~call s i t~toquest icm at once the validity of the research because the films were obviously selected carefully for the particular subject gr sup and were not in the author s own view, r epresentat i ve uf most portragraptry,

Mosher and Howard's findings were submitted to the 1370

Pornography Cornmissi on which was investigating the 1ink between

~3Orr\OgWay>hyand anti-soci a1 trehavi our and att i tuck. On the basis of such submissic~nsthe Commission concluded that " fears about learning such attitudes frcm the medium were unwarranted. 11 35

The Commi ssic~nrecarmended a re1axat i un of contr 01 s on por nug- raptry.

The Fraser Comrrri ttee in Canada never provided a definition of pornography . They did , however, r ecammend rep1 as: i ng the t errir obscenity with the term pornography. Regan Ellis of W.A.V.A.W.

(Wclmetr Against Violence Against Women) claimed the decision trot to provide a de f i niti utl of pornography was fata1 . ".. .it (the Committee:) tried to provide something for everyone f she means here ccctrservat ives, 1iberals, and feminists:) and succeeded in creating a tangled mess of legislative prc~posalsranging from the permissive to the repressive. I# 36 However, the Committee did discuss a distinction between pornographic materials in their summary. They argued there was pornographic material which was simply sexually explicit with nu violence or i 1legal acts portrayed, and material depicting sexual exploitation, They stated when they used the term "pornographyM they used it in both senses siutultaneuusl y. This is a peculiar way of trying to bring clarity in language, especially in view of the fact that they argue for dropping the term "obscenity* and replacing it with "pornography", pointing out the importance of precision in legal 1anguageCIO). It also strikes one a5 quite

~ddthat the Committee would argue for abandoning the term

"obscenity" because it is antiquated arrd then use "lewd" in their definition of explicit sexual conduct. Using pornography in the broad sense for discussion purposes might be acceptable if the author was clear about what material is being included and excluded. However, when one is in the p~sbti~r'tof rec~rmending definitims fur legal purposes then clarity and precision is of the utmost irftpurtance. One cannot suggest replacing "obsceni ty" with "pornography" and then neglect to define the term.

The Fraseu Committee did make an effort to be clear about the material which could incur criminal sanction in their pru- posed three-tiered system of pornographic maker i a1 . The first tier, and the tier which would invite the most sericws penalties, incorporates material which 1) depicts a person under eighteen years of age participating in explicit sexual conduct defined as depictions of vaginal, oral, anal intercourse, wasturbat ion, sexually violent behaviour Csexual assault, physical harm for the purpose of sexual gratification of a viewer, including murder, bondage and masochism) bestial ity, incest, necrophilia, lewd tcuching c~fthe breasts or genitals, or the lewd exhibitiut3 of the genitals: 2) advocates or condones the sexual abuse of children and/or 3) was made or produced in a way that caused actual physical harm to the participants. The secund tier, where

1ess seric~us penal t ies wc~uldapply, includes any material or per fortfiance which depicts sexually violent behaviour , herjti a1 ity, incest, or necrctphilia. The third tier would attract crirnioal sanctions only if it were displayed or per formed without a warning to the public as to its nature or if it were displayed or per formed to persons under eighteen. This tier includes visual pornographic material or performances which depict vaginal, oral, and anal i nter ccar se, marjturbat i on, 1ewd t wching or exhi bi t i orr of the breast and/or gcni tals.

In the final analysis, the Canadian governrmnt has only re%- punded in part to the Fraser Cc~mmit tee recommendatiuns. The government appears to have been i nfl uanced 1 ar gel y by the ar gu- merits of conservatives who insist that sexual imagery has the potential to be dangerous and Bill 12-114 was introduced in 1986 nlaki rig sweeping changes to what ntater i a1 would be considered portwgr aph i c and theref or c open to prosecution.

This Bill was tabled as a result of enormous public opposition to the vague wording of the bill. The bill was subsequently

reintroduced as Bill C-54, This 1cgir;lation included five defin-

i tions uf pc~rnographyencompassing a broad range of sexual ly cxplicit material. jli This bi.11 has been tabled and has not been reintroduced. 39

!3u%mgtyy

We have seen through this discussion that whether one is involved in law, philosophical and theoretical debate, or research the qctestion of how best to define pcwnogr aphy and what material deserves protection or nut is di fficult and unclear.

What those i nvol ved with the i ssues surroutrdi ng purnogr aphy have failed to see is that there is no pure, abstract definition of pcwnogr aphy. Every definition i s col uured by the pr evai 1i ng cul tura1 att i tudes and values towards sexual i t y and these attitudes and values do not remain static. Any definitic~tr,i f codified, will eventually became inadequate for a variety of possible reasons. There is no end tathe matter of definition,

Def initions appear to depend largely an the interests and purposes of those developing and using them. It shsul d be clear from the problems I have ident i f ied that every author must pr uvi de a def i nit ion of pornography and r escar c her s must go further, including a description of sexual materials used in experiments, It may be that consensus regarding definition will never be complete but a great deal mare ef fart could be put int13 trying to effect consensus than has been exerted to date, The problem is that research, debate, and legal definitions which have been carried out t3r advanced have been inconsistent, vague,

~=csnfusing,or missing a1together. This fact creates a serious obstacl e to useful discussi an arid research cwl pornography. I wi 11 make some suggest ions as to the rrreasures we might err~pluyto overcome the problerrrs I have been describing. In the first place, t;erminology like "sexually explicit" can be valu-. able. The term sexually explicit is morally neutral and can be used to refer to material in the broadest sense which is con-- cerned wi th nudi ty and sexual behaviuur . Secondly, I suggest that we build upm the term pornography defined rsmr e narrowly than sexually explicit Csee page 571 and abandon terms like erotica, thanatica, etc. for the sake of consisteurcy. It is not that the term pornography , from the Greek , meaning Iwr i t i ng about prostitutes and their patronsv, is completely unproblematic, but it is the term mast widely used at present and has been identified by the pub1 ic as a mure appr opr i ate word than obscenity for the mateui al. curr snt1 y avai 1abl c. At 1emt the term pornography does not carry with it the connectiun of sex with dirt, garbage, and filth. If demarcations are necessary, then the use of adjectives could be considered, such as Wendel 1,s "coercive por nogr aphy " .41

Deirrarcat i oras or sub-categcrr i .r?s which appear repeatedly in the literature are the terms "saft-core1' and "hard-core" pcrrnagwaphy. These dist ivtctiot~scould be useful i f there were clmsensus about what material falls into the categories. Unfor- tunately, these terms too have been used loosely.

Kal lan and Brooks C 1974) maintain that rLay$gy magazine escaped censure when i t first appeared because i t was perceived as "soft-cure" pornography. " It is a genre seemingly cummon to a1 l popular arts. It is a style, the special genius c~fwhich is tu at once arcuse, evoke, and stir -... but never tcs embarrass the audience. Tamer than Deep Throat but braver than Klute; a Last Tango perhaps. 11 42

"Soft-*carew is general 1y ~tsedto derjcviba rmterial which

utilizes partial nudity, suggestion, and simulation with nc~

penetration shown, This term is used in contrast to "hard-care"

which refers to material depicting graphic, clinical portrayals

of genitalia and sexual activity. An example would be a film in

which the participants engage in penetration of vagina and/or

ar.tus, cunnilingus and fellatio. Ustrally the category "hard-care"

allows for the possibilityof viulencc5. We could build on these

cat ego^ ies by creating further distinctions such a% Mendel 1,s

'coercive pornography. Coarcive pornography would exist at the

extrert~eend of the "hard-core" categcwy, Coercive pornography

wuuld include material depict itq i nvoluntary bondage, physical

assault, rape, or murder in a sexual context or adu2t-child

!%ex.43

For the purposes of this thesis, that of socictlogical

inquiry, I will be using a broad definition of pornography tu

facilitate an examination of a wide range of literature and

research. I am using a braad definitic~nso I can include all the

material that has been referred to by the various c~rnmentatousas

portwgraphy. The cc~mmentatorscunsi dered in this thesis wuuld

. generally agree that the material I have identified is pavnog-

raphy and that the rnater ial I have excluded is not porn~graphy.

This definition encompasses the terms that have been used by

commentators to describe pornography. I refer to the use of such terms as "saft--curen, "hard-core", "aggressive and non-agtgressi ~e erot ica", "sexually explicit ", "obscene", etc. My broad defini- tian would include both sexist and non-sexist material. This definition wuuld also include, as a subset, coercive porn~graphy.

(The use of adjectives to demarcate mter i a1 when necessav y follows from my previous discussionl. I will identify the specific material which fits into this subcategory so there will be no confusiun about what material is being referred to by the use of the terms coercive pornography. I make this distinction among mater ial because coercive pornography has caused the greatest public concern and is referred to repeatedly in the

1iterature as the mast troubl ing and problematic material. The term pornography has heen used ie.g. Steinewt) to refer to material which is violent and therefore objectionable. I do not use the term pornography in that sense. I use the terms coercive purnography ts refer ta violent material. I assurfie that pornography coul d be nan-toerc i ve a~~dnon-sexi st. However, at this historical morcsent, given the econorrtic and social cctntext, i.e. capitalist patriarchy, most pornography is sexist and a small per centage coerc i ve. These are feat irr es a f contemporary pornography. I assume these features wuuld change given a di f ferent historical/cultural context. This working definition is used fur analytical and discussion purposes and is not to be ccmstrued as a recummendation fur a legal category open to censorship. f am defining pornography as fed laws:

Pornagraphy is material , whether verbal, f i lmad, or pic- toria1 which is developed for the pu imary purpose of st i mul ating the viewer ur reader sexually. Pcwnography is material which is completely concerrred with the depict ion or description of nudity, masturbation, vaginal and/or anal intercc~urse, fellatio and tunni lingus. This def initian includes material concerned with urinaticw, defecation, enemas, sermim, and speci f ic female body parts, such as the nipples and anus. The t sr~t coer c i ve por nography is used to refer to material in which involuntary bondage, physical assault , rape, murder, or aduf t-chi ld sex is depicted.

This definition would not include material which is fur the purpose of pub1 ic educat ion, such as the f i lm PJgZ;-&-t,~v_t;-fi~gr_y, news coverage or dmumentaries on purnography or the pornography industry, %ex education, ~ierficalor self-help, abortion information, contraceptive or family planning. CHAPTER I1 END NOTES

Eaite, Appendix 3, p. 12,

Fred Bergsr , "Purncqraphy, Sex, and Censm-ship1', in D. Copp and S. Wendel 1 , Ced. 1 ~~~n_ggr_~ehy-and-~cr~,~p~~h~.e~.S.N. Y. : Prometheus Buuks, 19831, p. 84.

Ann Garuy, "Purnt3graphy and Respect for Women", in D. Copp and S. Wendel 1, C ed. :) Pgyfiggygg~y-aqfi-ggfig~r~h~~~-(N. Y. : Prumetheus Ec~I~~s,19831, p. 62.

Gloria Steinem, "Erotica and Pornography: A Clear and Present Di f f erence " , i n I. Leder er (ed .) Lgke-Bggh-th,g-M&~~k~~~~g!@~_n p~,~p~~ggrr-ehy, C N .Y .: Mur row, 19803 p . 37. Ibid. 17. Calvin Turnkin%, "Mr. Playboy of the Western Worldu, gs&gcday &vgcLfiq_lg&, 23 Apr i 1 1966, p. 101.

18. Richard Eallan and Robert Brc~oks, "The Playmate of the Month: Naked but Nice", in Jquy~gl_gf_eqpg&ay,Cultgue~-8, 1974, p. 330.

19. Neil Malamuth and Barry Spinner, "A Longitudinal Content Analysis of Sexual Violence in the Best--Selling Magazines" The-Jg~rsgL-gfS!x,BF&~$axx, Veil . 16, No. 3, Aug 1980.

21. Steinem, p. 54.

23. Gayle Rubin, Diedre English, Arttber Hollibaugh, "Talking Sex: A Converwat ion can Sexuality and Feminism", in Socialist Review, 58, 43--62,1991, p. 50,

25. H. Penrud and D. Linz, "Using Psychological Research on Violent Pornography to Inform Legal Change", in N. Malamuth and E. Donnerstein Ced.1 fqrn_pqraehy-a~d-Sgxga_~-&~gy~h~Lgn_, (Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press, 19843 p. 262.

26. H,B. McKay and D. J, Dalff, "The Impact of Pornography: An Anal ysi s of Research and Summary uf Findings" , &u,kin,q.,rgpgu_cj ~r,r,P,~~n_gqy~~hyYY~fid,d,Ej,~~~t~~u_ti~t~II~gpgu_t;-#~~,(Ottawa: Depaut- ment of Justice, 14841, p. 16.

30- fbid., p. 104.

31. Ibid.? p. 127. 33. Ibid., p. 306.

34. Ibid,, p. 255.

36. Megan Ellis, "Fraser Cummittee: A Masterpiece of Comprc~rnise", ------Einesis, June 19FP5, p. 6. 37. "Scope of Porn taws Queried", ib~cggyeu-S~n,Wednesday, June 11, 1986, p. A2.

38, Ibid.

33. SFU Soc. Sciences Librarian ver i f i ed this fact CDecertlber 19891 with the Vancouver Courthous,e where a docket is kept of pending bi 11 s.

41. Susan Wendell, "Pornography and Freedom of Expresjsion", in S. Wendel 1 and D. Copp (ed .:t ep~gug~a_g).ry,gr_?g,,-~g~zcf~gh,i,(N. Y .: Frometheus Sc~uks, l48J:l, p. 168.

42. Kallan and Brooks, p, 29.

43. 5. Wendel 1, "Pornography and Freedom of Expressic~n", p. 167. In this chapter I will be examining the conservative and liberal explanations of pornography. I will discuss the main arguments associated with each perspective, demonstrate the individual variation within the perspective, and finally, provide a critical summary. The discussion will be guided by the five criteria outlined in the Intraductian, I will be demonstrating that conservative and liberal argument regarding purnugraphy is gender-blind, oftet? overlooks the social construction of sexuality, and ignores the economic context in which the production of pornography takes place,

Cunser-..,..-----...-.---- vat i ves

Censer vat i ves gener a1 l y chavac ter i ze pay nogr aphy as danger - uus and corrupting, but their arguments range from the extrerwly repressive Meating,, 1970) to the moderate {Steiner, 19GS).

Individuals 1 i kc Eeat ing argue for total suppression of pornctg- v aphy because it encaur ages ir r esponsi bl e behaviour , Ber ns

(13713 also argues for suppression of parnugraphy but not of f i tevature with sexual content Ce.9. &-%~ey~&~-&p-&~~~av tJJyggg2). Stei ner , a1 though critical sf the debasement of human bei ngfj and r;exuali.f;yin pur nogr aphy, nsai nlai rt5 that censor ship does nut work. Cc~nsevvativesargue that i f pornography is not controlled the moral decay which results from it such as promiscuity, infidelity, venereal disease, and corruption of youth will lead to the downfall of democratic systems of government.

Purnography, conservat ives be1 i eve, leads to soci a1 l y harmful attitudes and behaviciur that undermine the importance in a dewtocratic society of seli f-restraint. The conservative perspective incarpcwates the notion that sex itsel f is dangerous and must be careful 1y ccrt~trulled, Sexual proreiscui t y is seen as wanton sel f -i ndul getrce which 1eads to chaos and mor a1 anarchy.

The conser vat i ve vi ewpoi nt portr ays the i ndi vi dual as part of a collective sc1cial arrangement in which one has the responsibility tu obey the nsrmc and rules uf the group, These rules inc 1tide being a per scan of 'good character ' , one who uses sel f - restraint in rmtteus sex~ral,and does not indulge in promiscuity, infidelity, and hcmososuality, This 'goad character' would include such things as hard work, a respect for denrcccratic systems uf government, and an obligation to protect the young from moral currupticrrr, Often ccrn~ervativetreatises fall back ctn re1igious justi ficatiotrs regarding the tratural order of social life. In this natural order God created sex for the purp~seof procreation. Procreative sex is to take place within the confines of heterosexual rnarri age. The use of pornography would be a violation of the individual's obligation to refrain from wantonness and sel f-i ndul gence in sexual matters. The mature adult in this scenario does not indulge in promiscuity, infidelity, or the use of pornography as this would signal a regression to an infantile sexuality, an obsession with masturbation, animal activity, and debamwwtrt. 1 The State in conservative argument is seen as responsible through legislation and law enforcement to protect society and the individual from the ravages of pornography. Pornography is seen as perpetuating irfimcwal, degrading, even dehumani r i ng ideas and imagery regarding sexual i ty.

From the ccrrrservative viewpoint the fharn.ls that stems from the widespread avai labi 1i ty of pornography is sweeping. Pornog- raphy undermines and will eventually destroy the very social fabric upon which societies are so dependent for order and stabi 1ity. The remedy to the dangers posed by pornography is suppressicin, Stei ner i 5 a rare exception to this canservat i ve prsscription-

Conser vat i ve argurr~ent i ncl tides the vi ew5 of i ndi vi dual s l i ke

Char 1es 0. Kcati ng , a d i %senti ng member 13f the 1970 Por nogr aphy

Commission in the United States. Keating was also the chairperson of an anti-pornography group in Ohi 13. Keati ng argues that a1 1 ~:mrnography should be suppressed because of i ts damaging effects. These effects, argues Keating, are not confined to the individual user but reach society as a whole. He attacks the

1iberal recummendat i uns of the 1970 Pornography Cormission to relax controls on pornography as advocating mural anarchy and prs~mting a 1i ber t i ne phi losophy. Keat i ng insists God created soxt.tal ity to be shared by heterosexual, married couples and leading to the possibility of procreation. In his view recreational sex, which is promoted in pornography, is perverse.

Keating maintains that the U.S. achieved its place of prominence in the world due to its historical repression of purnagraphers. This repression he claims explains the creativity and excellence uf the U.S. system and society. It is unclear, however, to what historical or legal precedent Keating is refer- ring. The U.8. Customs Act of 1842 which dealt with the influx of foreign pornography, was the only federal legidat ion that existed. The federal government left the matter largely to the individual States, who showed 1 itt le i nter est in suppr essi ng pornography. In 1842 cmly one state, Vermont, had an obscenity statute. Not until 1973 did all the States have legislation2 to control pornography. @

According tu Keating the law is essential as a means of deal ing with pornography.

"No, the State cannot legislate virtue cannot make moral goc~dnessby mersly enacting law; but the State can and does legislate against vices which publicly jeopardize the virtue of people wh~might prefer to remain virtuous. If it is not the proper furrctian of law to sffer citizens such protection, then what is i t?"3

Conservatives like Berns

C17 Much of the fight against pornography in the U.S. between 1873 and 1915 was carried out by a self-proclaimed vigilante called Ant huny Cornst c~ck. obscenity trials Csee Paris Adult Theatre vs. Lewis R. Slaton,

Berns feels that nothing is gained by a society wallowing in extended displays of public nudity and copulation. He argues that pornography has political consequences that we need to consider. Graphic sexual displays and ubiqui tc~ussexual rnater ial encourages shamelessness in the individual, a feeling that anything is permissible. We are told by pornographers to get rid of our sexual hang-ups arkd feelings ctf ernbarrassmer~t and/or shame. Berns maintains these feelings of shame are important and necessary; they protect our need fur privacy and intimacy in sexual matters. V13yeurism, Berns claims, is being promoted by pou nogr aphcrs, and that is unnatur a1 and damaging,

"Whereas sexual attractictn bring man and woman together seeking a unity that culminates in the living being they create, the voyeur mai ntai ns a dist ancc; and because he maintains a distance he looks at, he does not communicate; and because he looks at he objectifies, he makes an object of that which it is natural to join; objectifying, he is incapable of uniting and is therefore incapable of love. 114

Berns maintains this scenario is bad enough on an individual basis, but if the majority of people in a society are behaving in this way, then an unnatural situation is created which leads to tyranny. Bernr is suggesting that if large numbers of pectple are hehavi ng i rt a shame1 ess and sel f -indulgent wanner the Stat r~ wi1 1 have to take repressive measures to restore order or the society will callapse. Berns argues that early founders of rmdern densocr acies 1i Ice Ftousseatr, Washingt an, and Jefferson wer e awar e that a democracy will not wurk without citizens of pgoud character,' He insists that it is the resp.crnsibility of the people in government and those making and adjudicating laws to make an effort to "prsnsote that good character, if only by protecting the effort of other institutions, such as the Church and the family, to naurish and rmintain it. '15 Pornography then is seen as under-- mining important social institutions such as rmrriaqe and the family.

Erneat van den Waag (19671 focuses un the individual user of pornography. Those who would claim that pornography has no ef fect are, in his opinion, being silly. We maintains that as a society we have no assurance that the effects frum the use of pornuyraphy will he positive. Although he admits that not all readers of de

Sade will engage in sadistic acts, the possibility remains that it could happen, as all of us have the potential to be sadistic-

"...not all readers of Marx become Marxists but some do; some nun-readers might have became socialists anyway. Are we to say that Marx has no influence?" 6

Van den Haag insists that actions are influenced by ideas.

Xdaas are present in the particular culture, and these ideas are certainly influenced by media. He argues that the need for sexual gratification resides within all of us, but how to satisfy those needs comes from the culturs.

Van den Haag goes further than other conservatives when he discusses the specific effects of pornography. He claims the individual who uses pornography will eventually become dissat is- f ied with simple nudity <"soft-core1' pcwnography:) and nil 1 begin to require "hard-core" pornography. And for this reason, van den

Haag insists, we must have censorship. If we do not restrict and control pornography we will pay a serious social price. "Our society will beccme ever more coarse, brutal, anxious, indi f- ferent, deindividual ized, hedonistic; at wurst its ethos will disi nt egr ate a1 t ogether. " Pornography is bei ng charged here with creating a sweeping set of threatening social conditic~ns.

George Steiner C19651, a literary critic, presents a much different line of conservative argument. He does not accuse pornsgr aphy of creating mor a1 anarchy but of creating contempt for sexuality and humanity. He warns that this historical period, characterized by freedorft for the "uncensored erotic imagination" and the total freedom of the sadist may not be a coincidence.

"Both are exercised at the expense sf someone else's humanity, of someone el ser5 most pr eci ous r i ght - the right to a private life of feeling."'

Stei ner rmintains that pornographers would do our imagining for us in the must mechanical, sometimes brutal way and, as a result, we are ultimately left empty and unfulfilled rather than stimulated and uplifted. Sexual relaticms, in Steiner's opinic~n, are one of the "last bast ions of privacy in an urban rtmss- technocracy, and a place where we attempt at total communication and communiun with another human being. '19 This privacy and intimacy are precious to Steiner and should be protected. The pornographer subverts this 1ast private place and opens it up for public scrutiny.

Stei ner dues not, however, advccat e censor ship as most cunservatives do. He maintains censorship doesn't work. Censorship fai 1s because, first, the censors are just average people, 1i ke c~crrselves, open to paor judgement and dishonesty.

Second, those people who really want access to a book or fila can get it one way or another.

None of the writers we have considered here provide a defin-, ition of pornography. Although Berns does make a distinction bet ween par noyr aphy f never def i ned 3 and 1i t er atcrr e wi t h eexcral content such as ll.lyrjsjgg, One coul cl speculate that cc~nservat;ives mean all sexual imagery by virtue of the fact that they believe sex to be dangerous. But, this is pure speculaticln. We really dct not know with any certainty what these cam~~entatsrsmean when they use the term pornography. Steiner seems to be suggesting that pornography fnever defined), no matter what is depicted, is an inva!eion of privacy and neither pornographers, nor anyone else should be producing material depicting sexual activity. Conserva- tive writers seldom provide any social scientific research to support their claims. They appeal to oners common sense and ultimate sense 13f decency.

It is difficult not to have some sympathy with the conservative viewpoint. Must of us believe that sexuality is an intimate and private part of our lives. We can understand conservative concerns about the depersonal irat i on and mechanization of sex which make up much of the actual csntent of pornography. However, to see pornography as the evil mechanism which brings the down-

fall of suciety is to ignore important social and ecunurnic conditions which arc responsible far its presence. There is very little reference in conservative argument to the capitalist, sexist, consumer-c~riented society in which we live -- a society that mass markets sex and in which the pcwnsyraphy industry, as a powerful profitable arm of the N1as!5 media, can endure. There is little or nu discussion of the fact that the principal producers, disitr i butcsrs, and consumers of pornography are men. A1 though there are fleeting comments made about thu treatment uf women in p~rn~graphy,it is given no ser ious cconsideraticm. Final 1y, the usual pr encr iption recommended by conservatives is suppressic~n.

It is unlikely thak given khe increase in sexual perrr.~i%sivenerjs and the escalation of explicit sexual content, even in general release films, that blanket suppression will be acceptable by the public. A recent survey of English-speaking Canadians indicated a good deal of tolerance for sexually-explicit materials, 72% of the survey population CN=10001 said they would watch nun-violent gimulated sex with no genitals shown; 67X said non-violent simulated sex was acceptable fcw televisicmi a1most ha1 f said they would watch non-violent sexually explicit rttaterial with genital exposure. Therefore, there is very little reason to assume that blanket suppressim is feasible. 10 !A.$qu_&~

The liberal position stands in stark contrast to that of the conservat ive. Liberals argue general ly fur maxi mum f reedum for the individual, including sexual freedom, without undue interference from the State, unless the exercise of that freedom impinges urr the rights of others. Liberals consider cunsensual sexual activity and the use of purnsgraphy to be a private matter for the individual. Liberals maintain that the use of censorship in controlling parnography cannot be just i f ied due to constitu-- tional protections to free speech. As a result, a great deal. of the literature deals with the dangers ctf censorship (e.g. Gaud- man, 1970; Hyman, 1970) rather than the content and possible impact of pornagraphy. This preoccupation with censorship is carried over into blaming an increase in pornography depicting f et i shism and sadomasochism on sexual repression and censorship.

CRYanhausens, 1959; Goodman, 1970).

1-iberals often connect censorship with sexual repression which, in their cipinion, violates the principles of a democracy tc~allow individuals to choose what they will or will not read or ui ew, The Krcsnhausens, for esampl e, argue Ghat the more aut hou'i -- tarian a political system and the more ecanomically restrictive the less sexual freedom is accorded the individual. If North

America is a real democracy then we must allow total sexual freedow. This freedom would include the use of parnuguaphy.

The liberal position emlnodies a wide spectrurtt of individuals. There are those individuals who call thernsel ves sexual libertines, f e. g. Kronhausens, 1959) who argue Zhat any restr ic- t ion un sexual freedom and porncqraphy is repressive and damaging and signals a return to the puritanical past. Other liberals, like Goc~drnan, claim that censorship creates the need for sadistic pornography and contr ibutes to a cultural climate where sexuality is connected with embarrassment and shame. Berger (19831 argues that pornography is sexual fantasy and entertainment which does not translate into actual behaviclur . He also opposes censorship and is suspicious of regulation. The civil libertarian position, represented by huge organizati~mssuch as the Canadian Civil

Liberties A~i3sociationand the Pkstericat.1 Civil Liberties Union publicly argue for the protection of pornography from censorship.

Censor ship, they argue, cannot- be t of er at ed because it vi ol ates consti tuticwal protections to free speech. However, they recent-

1y have qua1 i f i ed t hi s position by pub1 i cl y st ati ng that mat er i a1 depicting adult-child sex or material in which it could be proven that participants were physical 1y harrtted during prcsductiun should not be protected. This question of harm is very central ta

1i beral argurnent and rnor e explanation i s necessary.

The concept of harm in 1iberal argument originated in John

Stinart Mi 11 s phi lusophy on 1ibeuty, r ights, and freedoms, 17tw cat1 only be justifiably prevented from doing something i f it can be demonstrated that doing it impedes cv infringes on the free-. dams or rights of others. What this principle has meant for pornography 1% that the State has no business intruding into private consensual sexual matters, including the use of parnography.

Much of liberal argument, as a reaction to the suppression of sexual i ty and pornography recommended by conservatives, seeks to vindicate sexuality and pornography by proving that the use of such material is not harmful. lhis line of argurnent often rests on the catharsis theory which maintains that pornography serves a positive function by acting as a safety valve, reducing personal and social tension, allowing far the harmless release of anti- soci a1 tendenc ies Ce. g. Krunhau~en, 1959; Eutchinsky, 1973; Ben-

Veniste, 2971; Richards, 1977; berger , 1977.3 Most liberal argument which employs this idea of catharsis refers to men's use of pornography and their subsequent treatment of women. The release of sexual tension and aggression, 513 the argument goes, occurs in a harm1 ess way; sexual assault or rape are avoided.

One piece af research done for the 1970 Pornugr aphy Ccmmi ssi cm,

"The Danish Experience", tbers-Vetsists, 19701 is frequent 1y cited by 1iberals Ce.g. Eutchinsky, 1973; Di xm, 1984) as evidence that a relaxation of controls on pornography brings a decline in sex offenses. " This piece of research has become extremely important because the catharsis Cheury is said to have been proven as a result of this cultural experiment.

Liberals argue that if there is any harm done it is only tu the willing user and that on the whale pornography should be considered fantasy which does not translate into actual behavictur .12 The harm test has came to mean to liberals that a clear demonstration must be made that the consurrrptian of pcwurography directly causes anti-soc ial behaviaur . Demonstrating a direct causal relationship between any two variables, especially social phet~omena, is, of course, di f f icult. Such a harrc~test disarms antagonists uf pornography unless they can produce the "right" evidence. What constitutes harm, and the necessary evidence which must be produced, has been hotly debated and contested, especially by feminists. We will explore feminist criticism of the harm principle in the next section.

The liberal characterization of sexuality is a consistently posj.tive one; sex is represented as a healthy ht.t~~ianactivity to be en.jayed and celebrated. The harm for liberals is the use of censorship as a means of dealing wi th pornographyf Liberal commentators often draw can supportive social scientific reaearct~

Ce.g. Berger, $983; Dixon, 1984) which generally makes their arguments more persuasive. Pr escr i pt i uns range f rcm doing away with a1 1 ccmtrols sn sex and pornography, regulating on1 y display and purchase of pcwnagraphy, and suppression of visual material s depicting adult-child sex or material where it could be proven that participants were physically harmed.

One of the ear 1i est i nf 1uent i al books on pornography was written by Ebwhard and Phyll is Kronhausen, scl f-proclaimed sexual 1i ber t i nes. The Kronhausens are psyc hol ogi st s interested in sexuality, sex research, and pcwnsgraphy. They have been crew- dited with being the first rnocjern researchers to support fully the catharsis theory and their research is cited frequently. In their 1959 hook, eg~ngq~ag~y,a~@,t~g-f,gg~~Lh,f~~~jyctr,r;~ggy~g~ ~~gtLr,~fgh&~a,g~~-E:~~~ggu_a_g~y,they argue for an end to sexual repression (which they blame largely on religion1 and for increased t ol erance t uwavds por nogr aphy . The Krsnhausens do not often use the wcwd pornography in their text, nor define it, although it appears in the title af their book. They spend a great deal of time making a distinctisn between "erst i c real ism" in 1i terature, s~~has f,~d_y_C~g&&g~~~sr,~r;

Cq-gy and "hard-core obscenity", lik~the classic Victorian piece

Ih*-egpm&. They argue that there are di f f er ences bee ween sexual ly-or iented material, some material being more valuable.

"Erotic realism" in literature, they maintain, wi 11 be obvious to a reader, by virtue of the fact that sex will be dealt with, sometimes in a very graphic, arousing manner, but in the context af a story which examines the human beingsr li fe experiences,

The sexuality in "erotic reali%mUis shown in all its positive and negat i ve mani f est at i c:mc. The #r cmha~twmsargue that this type of material is important and educational because it allows the reader to explore sexuality and to examine the emotional aspects of sex.

" Har d-.c or e ubsccrni t y " , on E he other hand, does not pr nvi de the type of benefits described above although it dctes prcwide cathartic release. According Lo the Krcmhausens, to be effective

"hard-core obscenity" must not distract the reader with plot and character deveX apment or phi lasuphi cal discussi cm, hut prcwide a steady stream of sexual imagery, usual ly beginning with parti a1 nudity and i nnuendo bui 1ding to sexual frenzy and graphic sexcnal

75 detail. 13

The Kronhausens examine the thematic content of ten pieces of pornographic fictiotp to demonstrate the distinction between

"erotic realism" and "hard-core c~bscenity." In this fiction, exhibit iunism, voyeurism, and defluration of young virgins were the uverr iding themes. Other themes were incest, profaning the sacred, and f lagel lat ion. Lesser themes dealt with negroes and

Asiatic?; who were portrayed as inferior and animalistic in the scripts.

The Eronhausens never make clear why they spend so much time drawing the distincticm between "hard-core obscenity" and "erotic uealisrn*. They do nut argue for censorship of "hard-core obscenity", although they clearly believe that "erotic realism" is more valuable. Their close examination of the thematic cuntent of "hard-core ubscenity" appears to be undertaken tct provide evidence of their cantention that the use of this material provides cathartic release. For example, they argue that the reason why the theme of incest appears so often is because it is a strong social taboo. Psychoanalysis, they claim, proves that many people have latent incestuous desires. The use of material with an incest theme provides, therefore, a beneficial release for these desire=. However, no evidence is provided

C23 One of the pieces of pornography they looked at was produced in the 1700?s. A number of the pieces were never dated so their age is unknown but, frcm the language of the pieces, they are clearly frtsrn the period 1700 to 185Ct. What these dated pieces of pornographic fiction have to do with currently avail- ah1 e purnogr aphy is unc 1ear, to prove this point.

The Kronhausens characterize sexual i ty as a power ful biological force which must be gratified. Sexual repression is unhealthy and curtails a natural sexual curiosity un the part of the individual. The conflict between sex drive and sexual repression creates embar Y assment , shame, and gui l t . "Attempts at social control of an irrstinctual force which has as strong a basis in biology as the sex drive must be in keeping with the realities of human nature if they are not to be harmf~tlto the develupment of the individual and the progress of society. 1, 14

The Kronhausens condemn conser vat i vcs for perpetuat ing notions of romantic love LCI justi fy sexual relations. They argue that the conser vat i ve desire t u r epr ess sexual ity and sexual imagery is wrong and helps to create a climate which connects sex with shame. This climate can have very serious and undesirable

"Clinical evidence indicates that guilt-. based sexual inhibitions, restrictions, and r epressions r esul t i n per ver si uns of the sexual irfipulse, general intsl- Xectual dul X i ng, sadumasochi st i c inc 1inat ions, unreasonable (paranaid:) suspiciorwi.. . 1115 The Kvunhausens state that much of the evidence they use to suppurt their arguments is test irrmny f rum therapists* case study material. They admit that there really is not enough evidence regarding effects of sexual materials tu speak with authurity.

However, this dues not prevent them from embracing the catharsis theory. The Eronhausen's analysis is weak in a number of ways.

F-irst, they contend that the use of pornographic water ial with an incest theme provides cathartic release. There is no way that we can be certain that individuals will leave their fascination with incest in the realm of fantasy. Some individuals may well be satisfied with the fantasy, others will act it out.'' Second, the Kronhausens appear to be suggesting that the "hard-core obscenity" they looked at c~~ldbe used as a sex educatic~nal tool, Thia is extremely questionable, Gfhat is it that young people will learn from reading, for example, Lhg-Lggcfvkws t4yeqg,m&tg, one of the bonks the Kronhausens examined? This book depicts the rape of a young virgin fernale with the aid of her mather. The young girl is strapped dawn and the mother sits on her head so she will have a better view of the defloration. 17

Third, the Kronhausens character ise sexuality as a power ful biological fcwce which must be expressed and gratified or nega- ti ve consequences wi 11 result for the individual and society.

This type of explanation suffers from what Rubin would call

"sexual essentialism. "" Here sex is an unchanging, transhis- turical feature sf the human being; an uncuntrullable natural force. There is no recognition of the social ccenstruction of sexuality or its changing character thr~=tughtime and specific to cul t ur e.

Xn their analysis, the Kronhausens commented on the di f-. ferent treatment of men and women, brought out by their own content analysis, but they fail to expand an what this implies. A1 so, their content anal ysi5 demonstrated that peapl e of colour are stereotyped as inferior and animalistic but they do nut comment on this outcome.

Goodman, 1i ke the Kronhausens, feels a1 1 controls on pornog-- raphy should be relaxed but he goes further in his condemnation of censorship and the social problents, he believes, it creates,

Goodman, a literary critic and writer, charges censorship itself with creating the need for what he calls "sadistic pornography", inever def ined3

".,.what if the censorship itself, part of a general repressive anti- sexuality, causes the evil, creates the need fur sadistic pornography sold at criminal profit*?"19

Goodwtan further argues that censor ship pevver t s the att itudes towards sexuality in the community. tie condemns cuurt decisions like the one vindicating Lg@y-Chgtte~&gy~-~-Lgvey(U.S. 19GO) as not being permissive in the right way, These judicial decisions do not vindicate sexuality. In QctudmanVsopinion these decisiclns are still based on tests as to whether the material displays "a shameful or morbid interest in aexW(453. In this way the court is fostering the notion that sex is something to be ernbarra~scd about.

Goodman argues that the definitions of obscenity which are being applied in the legal sphere condemn sexuality. He is correct in that "obscene", in the Canadian Criminal Code, for example, is defined as a publication, picture, model, phonograph record, or other thing whatsoever which exhibits an "undue exploitation of sex". That is, the definition of nmterial which can be rightfully suppressed usually includes reference to prurience or the ati~~ulationof lustful thoughts. Goodman argue8 that this reasoning is wrong and is based on a "miserable social policy" which creates a sense in society that sexual expression is shameful, thereby producing guilt and associating lust with punishment and dcgradatiun. In this way the Court unwittingly fosters a c 1i mat e where sadamasschi st i c mater i a1 can f luur ish. 20

Gondrmn is right that the definitions of object icmable material are unclear and Court rulings inconsistent. The Courts are struggl ing with antiquated ternsi nology l i ke "obscene and lewd" which are impossible to define, as well as attempting to come to grips with a greater permissiveness in camrwnity tolerance. These are real dilemmas which need to be addressed before the confusion is going to be resolved,

Gocadman argues that if we could reverse the climate of at-rti- sexual i ty and rescind controls un pornography, we might even-. tually get back to a healthy, more relaxed attitude towards sexuality. This relaxed attitude would help reduce the desire fur pornography. Others, 1i ke the Kronhausens, have argued that the widespread avai labi 1it y of pornography would eventual 1y prctdnce boredom and a subsequent decline in the demand for such material. According to Judith Bat-Ada, this satiation has not ctccurred because pornographers, just 1i ke advertisers, can hire mar ket i ng anal yst s and ot her rmdi a speci a1 i st s to find uni que ways of promoting the product and creating demand.?' Satiation might occur if it were the same pictures, films, car participants appear ing over and over again. 22 But, there is endless var iat ion in sexual scenarios and a seeming1y vast resource of actors and actresses willing to participate in the production of pornography. The continued growth in the pcwnopraphy industry since

Wcwld War I1 would indicate an increase in desire for pounc~graphy not a decrease.

Goodman never provides a definition of por rwgr aphy, a1though he does draw a distinction between pornography and sadistic parnography. He never clarifies what type of rmterial falls in either category. It is clear from his line of argument that he believes sexuality to be healthy and good and that society needs to protect the expression of sexuality. The harrr~that Goodman sees as most dangerous is that done by the Courts with their confusing, erratic, and anxious policy with regards to pcwnug- raptly. Goodman pr ovi des no soc i a1 sc i ent i f i c research to suppwt his c~mtentionthat censorship creates a need far sadistic pornography. The fact is that i f Qoodrt-~arrtried to produce data regarding the prevalence of "sadistic pornography", he would find that 11 very few content analyses have been dune and, 2) what has been done indicates that the incidence of sexual aggression themes is low. A recent content analysis of triple xxx and adult videos in British Columbia (Palys, 19845 put the incidence of sexual aggression at gX (sexual arousal had ta be achieved, in part, thruugh aggressive/coercive means to be coded as sexual agcytasinn:) And he could not provi dc supporting research for

the content ion that a causal ccmnect ion between censorship and

"sadistic pornugraphy" exists.

Gocsdrrtan ignnres a1ternat ive explanat i on5 for the cjharrre and

guilt surrounding sex, one of which would be, in North America at 23 1east, a pr edominat~t1y Judaeom-Chr ist i an r el i gi13us i deol ogy .

The impact af religious ideas should not be underestimated. And

again, re1 igious ideology perpetuates di f ferent nut ions regarding

sex for ma1 es and f emaf es.

Berger 11977) does not argue that censorship creates the

desire for sadistic pornography, but he, like Goodman, does not

advocate censorship and claims he cannot support uegul ation

because it usually acts like a form of censorship. Unlike the

Kr cmhausens, Eew gev demonstrates more sensit i vi t y to the unequal

treatment of women within pornography. Berger has written on both

the philosophy of John Stuart Mill and an pornography. Unlike

the Kronhausens, Berger does provide a def ini t icm of pornugraphy

which he feels is suitable for discussion purposes (not as a

legal definition).

"...art or literature which explicitly depicts sexual activity ax arousal in a w~anner having little or no artistic or literary value. 11 24

Berger atterrtpts to vindicate sexual ity and pornography by

attacking conservative arguments regarding sexual i ty and sexual

3~hecoders were looking for verbal anger, humiliation, bondage, confinement, slapping, hitting, pulling hair, rape, cuerc i on with weapons, sexual harassment , etc f 46). imagery, Berger insists that people's attitudes toward pornography typically hinge on their attitudes toward sex. For example, conscrvat ives believe sex to be potent i a11 y dangerous and corrupting, therefore, they find depictions of sex c~bjectionable.

Second, Ber ger rmi ntai ns that cunser vat i ves are simply wrong in be1 i eving that pornographic materials can change or a1 ter our att itudes towards one another.

He claims conservatives tend ta romanticize sex, describing sex as spiritual communion within the confines of marriage.

Eerger maintains that this is an idealized view of what really happens in peopl ef s l i ves.

"The fact is that most sex is routinized, dull, unfulfilling. A source af newasis, governed by the restraints the conserva- 11 25 t i vss insist IZW.

Berger takas issue with conservat ivc arguments about sexuality and the use of pornography. He claims Steiner'ti cancer n regardi ng the pornographer ss i nvasi on of our sexual privacy is untrue. Pornography doesn't violate our privacy unless we want it to, Pornography is used, Berger maintains, to enhance the sexual situation, to allc~wgreater freedom in learning about our sexuality, and ta discover other ways of experiencing sex,

Eerger criticizes conservatives, like Kristc~lC19711, who insist that pavnogr aphy encourages autuer at i c st i mu1 ati on, Berger states that this is really a condemnation of masturbation i tsel f.

Ber ger argues that the suppr essi an of par nogr aphy wi 11 not stop the incidence of masturbatic~t~. In his opinion, individuals can en joy pornography and intercourse withaut giving up either . Xn contradiction to earlier rew~auksabout routinized, bcwing sex he maintains no one wc~uld prefer pornography and masturbation over a

"mature" sexual love, but he never tells us exactly what is a mature sexual love.

Berger insists that pornsgr aphy has been benef i ciaf when used by therapists in the treatment of ccluples experiencing sexual probl erhs. These cc~uples; have subsequent 1y reported

"happier, healthier relations" with their partners.26 Berger concludes that pornography has l imited appeal, chart range effects, and is &asically recreational sexual entertainment which is not taken seriously by anyone.

Burger draws on reports frcm therapists, survey material dune with sex of fenders, and other commentary on pornography to support his claims. In this regard, his argument is stronger than, far exari~ple, cot~servat i ve. argument whi c 11 i 5 based almost solely on intuition and a particular view of what constitutes mur a1 behaviuur .

Ber gcr makes no r eccmr~mmdati c*n5 r egar dirig por nogr aphy except that it cannot be justifiably suppressed due to the fact that other media, a.g, television, are equally or more responsible for perpetuating 13r influencing anti-social atti tudes and behaviour . His conclusiork is not particularly satisfying or ccmvincing, especial ly when it is clear that he has certain reservat inns himsel f about the treatmerit of wormn withi n par nogr aphy. " In so far as i t ari ses C i .e, porncqr aphy) in a social context entirely infused with male sexism, much of it reflects the worst aspects of ctur scciety's approved concep- tions of sexual relations, TOO often, the scenes depicted involve male viol ence and aggv essi on toward women, ma1 e dami name over women and females as sexual servants. 1827

The quest ion here is why has Eergev i gnored the possible impact on the status of women frm allcawing sexist and/or coercive pornography to be wider y disseminated within saci et y.

There are further limitations in Bergerrs treatise. First, he does provide a definition of pornography, which is important.

However, as we discussed in Chapter 2 the definition is tact vague. We do nut know with any certainty what material Berger means to include in his definition. Second, Bergev contends that canservat i vcs should not romant i c ire sex because most sex is routinized, dull and unfulfilling. Eerger dsses not provide any evidence to auppor t this general i zat i an and this condemnation hardly seems an appropriate way of vindicating sexuality.

Berger '5 cankcnt i an that pornagv aphi c mater i el can he used by therapi sts to treat couples experiencing sexual problems needs clarification. Berger never explains what type of material is being used in this therapy. It is difficult to imagine a couple ttecurtsing healthier and happier after viewing pornography depicting rape or adult-child sex. Also, the general sexism of the material doe^ nut seest very li kely to he1 p women toward a happier sex life. Final 1y, Berger '5 suggest ion that par nugraphy is a good sex educat i anal tool i si quest icmabl e. Most parnogr aphy presents a very poor view uf sexual relations, it is often sexist, sometimes racist, and possibly coercive.

Civi 1 1i bertar i ans have the same concerns for sexual freedom and freedom of expression, as Eergeu, but with more qua1 i f ica- tions. In contrast to Bergerps discussion, however, the civil f i ber t ari an posi t i on appears gender -hl i nd.

The civil libertarian position has been expressed well by

John Dixan in his submission to the Fraser Commi ttee in March

1984. Dixon, a philosophy professor, is president of the B.C.

Civil Liberties Association, which attempts to influertce both pub1 ic copinion and government pal icy. We has taken part in public debate on the question of pornography fmost notably in oppositicon to feminists like Jillian Ridingtm).

Drawing on Ruus~eauand Mi l 1 , Di xcm argues fur the i mpor - tancc of protecting speech. A society which allcaws fur the rnaximirrn freedom far the individual, freedom of speech being an

impurtant component, wi 1 l be the best and happi cst society, This

society must be committed to non-interference from the State in the actions of the individual unless the act ions in quest ion cause or threaten harm to others. This harm must bc weighed

against the harm of proscribing the action in questicen.

Dixon argues that thinking, imagining, and fantasy arc

important expvessi ans of our liberty, Speech and imagery which

flow from our imaginaticon and fantasy, evert disgusting or objec-- t i unable speech or i magcry, must be prat ect ed because SIX i ety needs a public forum for both bad and good ideas.

Di xon maintains that pornography cannat be considered Itlate

literaturey, as feminists like Clark Ci983) have suggested, because most pnrnography dues nut attempt to incite men to

crirt~inalacts. And fur Dixun, the only way one could .justify suppressing pornography wc~uldbe i f it c~wldbe derfmnstrated that pornography caused direct physical harm. And in his opinion, this has never been prclven.a The type of 'harm9 which must be dernon- strated is an extremely important facet of the civil libertarian

position becau~ethe harm test stiut~tlated fewtin* st and cX irkical researchers to attempt to prove a causal connection between

sexual violence against women and the use of pornography. Di xon

criticizes this family of research as inconclusive and proble-

matic. He refers specifically to the research of Malamuth and

Donnerstein (19843. When angered by a female confederate in an

exper irnent , then shown a piece of coercive pcwvrography, ar~d1 ast given an opportunity tu aggress, the men in the experiment

administered more and greater alecGric shocks Lo the women who

angered them. Those men placed in the same situation who were

shown a pornographic film without coercive content and then given

an opportunity to aggress did not respond 1i ke the clther group,

Dixcm rf~airrtainsthat what takes place in a clinical setting

and what action would take place in reality are two different

E4f Dixon acknccwledges the fact that 'copy-cat * cr i nses have taken place but, in his opinion, they are too incidental. things. Second, he argues that the violence in the material appears to be the prccblens, nut the sexual content. Ete clairr15 that very similar research utilizing porntqraphic material without coercive content actual ly inhibited aggression agai nst won'ten, therefore establishing the benefits of such material.

Dixon proceeds characteristically to draw upon the "Danish

Experience", a piece of research we have already discussed. He draws on this research to argue that the availability of pornography helps to reduce sex crimes, for example, child molesta-

Lion. He adds that other serious sex crimes such as rape slightly decreased. Yet, as others have pointed cut, this is

false. Rape, in fact, increased over the period of the study, i.e. 23 reported cases in 1967, 28 in 1968, 27 in 1'363, and 31 in

197t3. 29

Di xonYs prescriptions fur change include 1> repealing the

Criminal Code restrictinns on pornography, and 21 providing sex education for the young. He argues for repeal because, in his opinion, we have a responsibility to protect pmnographers and

the people who choose to view pornography, However, we can meet and c~xmterthe pornography industry's view of human sexuality,

in Dixon's opinion, by providing thorough sex education in our schools.

Di xonv% desi r e to protect sexual expressi an is admi r abl @ but his analysis is inadequate fur several reasons. First, he never

provides a definition of pornography. He does draw a distinction between 'snuf f' filrns and other pornography, but we never know .just what he includes in the latter, Second, he argues that we

must to1 erat e pornogr aphy because suciet y needs a f ovum for hot h

bad and good ideas. Of course, for a democracy this is an

important ideal. The real i ty, however, is that there has not

been any a1ternative imagery to the pornography industry's view

of sexuality and male-female relations. So, this supposed forum

far cc~ntrastingideas does nut exist. If %his forum existed we

might not have tu be so concerned ahout the content of pornog-

raphy.

Following Dixonvs logic pornography depicting adult-child

sex should be allowed to proliferate because it would help to

decrease direct harm again& children, Huwever, he does not argue

this point. We concedes that visual imagery of adult-child sex

should be pr 05cr i bed,

Di xun admits that the present state of the research on the

use of pornography and subsequent bahaviour is problemat i c.

"Xn general, we take the view that very deep methodolcqical and theoretical di f f icult ies bedevi 1 the experimental work in this area and it wc~uldbe unwise to frarc~esocial policy on the trasis of such barely suggestive results as can be wrung frurn it." C1QGl

But he is nut even-handed in his assessment of research. He

dismisses experimental war k which demonstrates negative ef fccts

. but ispersuaded byexperimentswhichsh~:~wpositiveeffects.In

response to Mal amut h and Danner slei nTs exper i mmt, Di xon

misunderstands the importance c~ftheir explcwation of the fusion

of sex and aggression. The researchers pustulate that constant cultwal messages pai r ing sex with aggression, erotici ze aggres-. siun, a situation which could be potentially danger~=~us.

"First, the coupling of sex and aggression in these pcwtrayals may result in cunditisning processes whereby aggressive acts became associated with sexual arc~usal,a power ful unconditioned stimulus and reinforcer. In fact, current treatment fur sex of fenders Ce.g. Abel , Blanchard, end Decker, 2978). ., are based on the premise that condi t i oni ng may occur by associating fantasies of sac i a1 1y sanctioned arousal and behavi our. (1 38

It is not the sexual activity that is being singled out, as Dixun claims, but the fusion of sex and aggressiun. I would agree with

Dixan though that the present state of experimental work is

inconclusive but, unlike him, I do nut believe this condition therefore means we can confident l y erclbr ac e r esear ch derrionst r at i ng positive outcomes. Most c~fthe exper imental research, whether demonstv ati ng positive or negative effect5, has methodolugi cal prublems and limitations in termas of generalizability.

Dixon argues that a cultural experiment like the "Danish

Experience" is more persuasive. He maintains that this cxperi- merit demonstrated that the pro1 i fer ati on of pornography in that country brought a reduction in scx crimes. Yet, he alsa argues

that no direct causal relationship exists between the use of pornography and subsequent behaviuur . How then can he argue that the use of pornography would cause a change or reduction in some

kinds of behaviour? As with other liberals taking this view, he

does nut take note uf this cctntradictiun. Many l i beral s draw on "The Bani 5h Exper i ence" because this piece of research, as I mentioned earlier, is widely cited as scientific proof that the availability of pornography brings a reduction in sex crimes against women. However, when the data used in "The Danish Exper i ence" (Ben-Veni ste, 1970) was; eval uated by others Cli ke Eysenck and Nias, 1978; McCormack, 1978; Dia~~und,

1980; and Riddington, 1983), they pointed out that the decrease in sex offenses purpcirted by Ben-Veniste were due tea 13 decrirnin- a1ixation of certain offenses c. g. homosexual prostitution which was nu longer being included in the statistics, and 21 a more permissive attitude toward offenses such as exhibit ianism with a cuncomitant reduct ion in reporting. The more ser ictus sexual crimes such as rape it~reased.~'To contrast this study, Iht.trtrs

(1984) research in Hawaii indicates that when controls on pornography fluctuate, so dc~esthe incidence ~f rape. Between 1'360-74 rape rates increased 9QOXy then dropped when controls an pornography were introduced, then rose again when controls were

Ben-Venirjteys work has been soctndly criticized and its ct:anclusions disputed; however, it is still cited by liberals like

Dixm f l984), as an argument for relaxation of controls on pornography.

Last, Di xon recommends t har ough sex educat ion for the young, but there is little or nu discussion regarding what, a "thtxough- going sex education for the young" wight f ook like. Wcruld this education teach pusi t ive sexual attitudes fur both men and wcmen, or would it still embody the old sex stereotypes of the male as active sexual agent and the female as a passive recipient of male sexual i ty'?

In cancluding this chapter, X would like to critically exarftine two impcwtant aspects of 1iberal argument: the idea of corkserst and the not ion of catharsis. Cotsc;et~t is a central feature of 1iberal argurfient and, as has been dermnstuated, ritany l i beral commentators employ the not ion of catharsis to convince their reader of the benefits of pornography.

Clark (19831, in her critique of liberal theory, clairf~sthat the theory promotes a distinction between public and private spheres, maint aining that sexual i ty and the use of pornography take place in the private sphere. The State is said nut to have any right to interfere in these private matters between cot~serst- ing adults. Clark reminds us that women have historically been considered the property of men in this pu ivate sphere and abuses and coercion take place whieh women have not bean able to redress. She asks what sense can be wade of the idea (crf "carxien- king adults" when one persun in the dyad has no right to say no.

Liberals are unwilling to support feminists in their st;ruggle against por nc~grapt~y,according to Clark, because of the c*=rrnrrtit -- went to privacy and the unwillingness of men to give up certain privileges regarding their right to sexual access and to the use uf coercion in obtaining access. Pornography, she clairm, supports and encourages male power aver worrmn and their right to control and exploit female sexual i ty.

A second major problem with liberal argument is the use of the catharsis theory. This theory is based on several unproven assumptions, for example, that men have difficulty control 1ing the sexual ly violent behaviaur natural to their sex, 33 ctr that sexual i ty has a fixed, natural ly given shape. 34 The catharrii s theory has been attacked by feminists like Griffin (1981) as embodying a veiled threat to women -- that if men cannot have access to pornography more rape and sexual assault wi 1l occur.

There is no clear evidence that the availability of pornography decreases rape but this fact does not seem to deter liberals fro~t erftploying the catharsis argument.

Xn conclusion, the greatest difficulty with both the cc~nservative and 1iberal explanat ions is that pornography is de-- contextual ized and discussed as though it exists in a vacuum rather than as a product of the economic and social relations which organize and put~duceit. 35

The canser vat i ve and 1 i ber a1 arguments are very pol ar ired, cane defining sexual i ty and pornography as corrupting and dany- er ous and r ec orttmendi ng suppr essi or?, whi 1 e the other erftbr aces sexuality and pornography and argues for the right of the individual to look at whatever material they might choose. The underlying assumption of both the conservative and 1iberal posi tion, however, is that pornography is about sex, not power.

They neglect to deal with the implications of the sexism that is present in most pornography and they ignore or trivial ize the coercion which is depicted in a smaller percentage of the material. These arguments do not examine the role of pornography in r el ation to our present ecunomi c or seslgender ar r angement s, which might help us to explain why men are the principal producers, distri butor s, and consumer s of pornography, and w13men the principal objects (Winick, 1970; Nawy, 1973; Dan Smith, 1976).

In relation to and as a reaction to the limitations and gender-bl indness of these previous approaches, feminists began to develop a different anal yais. nur ing the past two decades these countcr arguments have been elaborated, both in relatiun to conservat ive and f i beral arguments, and in relation to one mot her, CHAPTER 11 I ENDNOTES

1. Irving Kristcll, "Poroography, Obscenity and the Case for Censorship " , i n ~hg-Ng~-Yprk-~i&gq-fla_ggg-hn_e_,March 28, 1971 p. 113.

4, Walter Berns, "Pcwncigraphy vs. I)enssrcs=uacy: The Case for Censor st?i p " , The_-eyfhL$c-~qtg~e&, 22, 1.37 1 Wint er , p. 12.

5. Ibid., p. 14.

6. Ernest van den Haag, "Is Pornography a Cause of Crime", in E,~c_ggn_tgr_29, Dec . 19G7, p. 53. 7. Ibid., p. 56.

8. George Steiner , "Night Words: High Por nsgr aphy and Muittan Privacy", in &~ggc.mgu 25, Oct. 1965, p. 18.

9. Ibid.

10. Eir k LaPointe, "Video Porn Censorship Wanted, Survey Says", YsqJggygy-S~n, Fcb/March 1985.

11. Berl Kutchinsky, "The Easy Availability af Pornography urr the Incidence of Sex Crimes: The Danish Experience, " in &guts& gf,sgcLgl,lagueg, Vul. 2'3, No. 3, 1973, p. 163-181.

Publishing Co., 1933) p, 175.

14. Ibid., p. 152.

16, Clark, p. ST. She refers here kc* Waft--Ebbing and Freud. 18. Gayle Rubin, "Thinking Sex: N~tesfor a Radical Theory 13f the Politics of Sexual i ty" in Carole S. Vance ted. 3 F)&giaawe-a_Ea D_sn_qgv_ig~;~&gv_Ln_q_"F:gr?.g&e_.-S_?;,r,~+&Lt,y, (Boston : Rout 1edge & Kegan Paul, 19841 p. 275. 19. Paul Goodman, "Pornogr aphy, Art and Censorship" , in Daugl as A. liughe~C ed . Pg1.v_geggt,&v_g~j.-!~n_-~~~~ggca_ehy,(N. Y. : St. Martins Press, 1470) p. 43.

21. l..aura Lederer, "Playboy Isn't Playing: An Interview with Judith Bat -AdaM, L. Lederer Ced. 1 I&g-higk-&hg Niqh&~.~~W_c(@mi~ u_n_-mr~ggrgphy, (N.Y.: Morrow Eookr, 19805, p. 131.

22. Edward Ilont~eusteinin his discussion in Bonnie ElienTs filw "Not A Love Story" (Montreal: National Filrr~Board of Canada, k981).

23. Varda Burstyn, "Political Precedents and Mor a1 Crusades", in V. Eurstyn (ed.1 &~$q~-~g~F~~t-gg~pgr_~hie~(Vancouver: Douglas $4 HcIntyre, 19851, p. 17.

24. Fred Beuger , "Pornography, Sex, and Censorship" , Fbrggqvahy ztn_tl_..a!~gnsursh,ji~, S. Wendell and Dm Capp (eds.) (N.Y.: Prorfietheus Books, 19831 p. 84.

25. Ibid,, p, 89.

26. Ibid., p. 93.

27. Ibid., p. 100.

30. Neil Malamuth and Edward Dormerstein, "The Effects of Aggressive-Pornographi c Mass Media St i mu1 i " , &~~a_~cgr;,Lfi E~~g~&fie~~g&,~ngLg&-~gygh,!2~c~gy,Vol . 15, 1982, p . 106. 31. Ridington, p. 16.

32. J.H. Court, "Sex and Violence: A Ripple Effect", in N. Ma1 amut h and E. Donnerst ein (eds. 1 F'gt~n_qqv_r&y-and &qqn?~g~gg, [Or landu, Fl a. : Academic PYess, 1984:) p. 564. 33. Susan Gri f fin, "Sadism and Catharsis: The Treatment is the Di %case1'i n L. Leder er ted. 1 "i%lr.g-~g~E:-thffNi#>ki-cJg&gn_-pg Pgymgygehy, CN. Y. : Morrow Books, 19801 p. 143.

34. Irene Di amend, "Pornography and Repr essi on: A Hecunsi der a- tion", in EiFgn-t, Vul. 5, 1980, p. 690. CHAPTER IV F_EM_LN_IS_IS In this chapter we will explore liberal and radical feminist posi t icms on pornography. Liberal feminists have writ ten the must extensively on the ncgat ive and derogatory images of women in the mass media, while radical feminists have focused cm pornography. Social ist feminists have only recently entered the pornography debate apparently as a reaction to the increasing eff~pt~asisbeing placed on pornography by radical ferf1inis;ts and the diversion of valuable resources to fight pornmgraphy. Socialist feminists have argued that this emphasis on pornography ignores other more important sc~cialand economic conditions which perpetuate sexiswt. The suci a1 i sit feminist pxtrspect i ve on pornog-- raptly will be discussed in Chapter V.

In this discussion I will be examining the quality of the arguments and the underlying arjsumptions which are advanced by liberal and radical feminists ta explain pornography. As in

Chapter 111, the discussion will be guided by the five criteria outlined in the Introduction. I will be demonstrating that liberal and radical feminist critique is not gender-blind, but both perspectives tend ta ignore or argue away the impXicaticms uf the fact that pornography is produced within a capitalist economi c f u amewor k. However, 1i ber a1 f emini sts pay move attention to economic context than du radical ferfiinists. Liberal and radical feminists acknowledge the social construction of sexuality although in radical feminist critique Ce.y. Dworkin) there is of ten an under 1 ying suggest ion that ma1 e sexual ity is inherent 1 y aggr essi vc and sadi st i c .

Fhg Entrance gf the Fg~~~g~t~ During the 13EOYs the availability and content of pornography was changing. Hugh Hefner of elpybpy and Bob Guccione of emkkpgsp were battling one another over who could reveal more of the fansale anatoruty in the "Pubic Wars" and getwral release filrie were dealing more frequently and mare explicitly with sexual themes 1 . In 1970 the U. S. Pornography Commission recarfiritended relaxation of controls on pornography, and important Court cases like Roth vs, U.S. (195.73 gave pornographers the green light for greater explicitness and exploration of taboo themes.

In 1970 the women's movement began to see pornography as an i mpsrtant issue for w~:~men. The springbctard for this concern appears to have been Eat e Mi l let * s book Spatxtg epl&tig% (19703,

Millet was one of the first modern feminists to link sexuality and cruelty tc~the u~ainterranceof patriarchy, Millet focrtsed on male power and violence against women depicted in the work of men like Henry Miller and Norman Mailer. She discusses this literature as conquest-oriented, demonstrating the male's notion of his right to rjexual domination of the female.

In 1975 Susan Erownrni 1 lev pub1 ished A_gg&~ztQgu_ bJA.,4&, a systematic look at the evolution of rape. In this book she argues that pornography is the propaganda and rape the practice,

Eruwnrfii 11er was the first femini st to demand censorship of pornography, contending that pornc~graphy is the "undi luted essence of anti-f ernale propaganda" (394). She attacks the likteral. posi t icm on par nography, c 1aiming that the sexual expressi on liberals are seeking to protect and the rights they are concerned about are not those of women. Brawnmiller set feminist argument outside of liberal explanation, insisting that it does not serve the interests of women.

From 1975 forward ferftinist debate and political action regarding pornography accelerated. Feminists have written extensively on the subject of pornography, especi aX 1y radical feminists. Boycotting, picketing of video outlets and adult book%tures, and pub1 i c appearances by feminists on tel evision and in pub1 ic forums became standard fare. There have even been bombings of video outlets by women's action groups. 2

A1 though a1 1 f emi nist s av gue that w~mensu f f er f r lrrrn sexual object i Sicat inn in North Amer ica, there is no consensus arncmg them on tho quest ion of pornography. Pornogr aphy has proven tu be a very divisive issue fur the women's rnc~vermnt. Due to the di iferences in explanatiun among fcrnini sts regardi ng the natur e and origins of womens oppression, there is no agreement arne~ng thern regarding the role and functian of pornography or how to deal with it.

Much of what we have already discussed regarding l i beral phi losophy in general applies here as we1 1, except that 1iberal feminists seek to extend equal rights and equal opportunities to women. Although the foundation for 1 iberaf feminism or i gi nated in liberal philosophy, liberal feminists have insisted that liberal ideals be pushed to their logical con~lusicmn--- often challenging liberal principles in the process. 3

Li bcral ferttini sts are cr i t i cal of the ma1 ea-darni nated f ami l y and ma1 e-dominated i nst i tut ions which discri rninate against wlm-len.

They argue that if women were provided with the same education and work opportunities as rwn, the status of women wc~uld be

~ubstarrtially altered. Liberal feminists have directed their efforts at public consciousness-raising concerning sexism, negative stereotyping of women in the wledia and textbook, wtmenrs differential treatment in educatil=~nalsysterrrs, af firmative action programs to pr crrmta the hiring and prowtot i on of wlore wonten, and more recently they have begun to seek legal alternatives for enforcing eq~ality.~The Liberal feminist perspective embodies the notictn that the State is a prsper arbiter of social in- equal ities and that it can be harnessed to work in the interests of women. However, mast liberal feminists recognize that the

State cannot always be relied an to act in the interests of warnen due to the underrepresentation of women in positions of atrthor ity.

ti beraf feminists argue that sexual i ty is an important

function for the human being and freedom of choice about amps sexual behavisur should be extended fully to women as well as to men. Friedan C19633, cane of the most influential liberal feminists, insists that the convent iitnal wctman is "other-- directed", serving men and children, therefore she is alienated from her body and sexual i ty. The ct~l1ege educated, married wctrrran has greater self-esteem and reports higher levels of sexual fulfillment

Liberal feminism is the largest stream in the women's rmvernent and includes cccnservative liberal feminists, if such a term can be used in description of a feminist, such as F-viedan, who demands that discrimination and impediments to personal accarnpl ishment and upward mob1 1i t y for women be r emoved. Other liberal feminists Ce.g. ~idingtonl~will not only argue for an end to sexism but for s~ztrm restructuring or redistribution in the economy to facilitate equality. However, the target of liberal feminist critique is generally patriarchy, not capitalist patuiarchy.

Jaggar maintains that pornography presents a "speci a1 dilemma far liberal feminists because they recugnize the derctga- tory way in which women are depicted in much pornography, but because of their commitment to 1ibcral notions of *mcwal neutralityF and tf~eedsmof speech' they have no political gruunda for c~pposingpitrnugraphy unless they can demonstrate that

------.-*---.------'~idington describes herself as a social democrat (persctnal communicatian1. it directly violates wumenTs rights. "' One way of demonstrating this violation would be to argue that pmrnography constitutes

'hate 1i terature' directed against women. Another method would be

to dem~~nstratethat there is a direct causal link between the LW~ of pornography and subsequent viol ence to women. I f ?harmT could

be established, then psrnogr aphy could be .just i f i ably suppv essed.

Ridington, who will be considered in this chapter, argues both

these points.

A conservative liberal feminist, as I have described, would

be characterized Betty Friedan's positicm. In an early work,

FYi edan discusses serrtral i ty in moue depth than por nogr ephy. She

maintains that women " feel debaged in sex" because of thei r

unequal position with riten in the family, in the sex act, and in

society. Fr iedan argues that the dehumanization of sexual ity and

maf e machismo depicted in the media are caused by the unequal

treatment of women in society. Wtwn women have attained full

equality then sexual 1iberation can take place. 6

FYi edan argucs i n LThg f3ggneng My~g~qgethat the i sol ated,

unfulfilled housewife who has not been allccwed to realize her

full potential as a human being appears to be hungry for sex and

sexual fantasy as a rilethud of escape. This desire for escape

rnanifusts itself in a growing market for romance novels and

wom~en's magazines with increased sexual content. In fact, she

argues the whale of American society has becume more permissive

and preoccupied with sex. "The so-cal1 ed men * 5 magar ines not only reached new excesses in their preoccupa- tic~nwith specific female sex organs, but a rash of magazines blossomed frankly geared to hsmusexual i ty. The most st r i king sexual phenomenon however, was the increased and evidently insatiable lasciviousness of best- selling novels and periodical fiction, whose audience is primarily women. 11 7 She argues that i f women received the same education, encaur age- ment, and opportunities as men women would nut have to escape their empty, unfulfilled lives by reading sexy romance navels,

She argues that the guvernment must make fundamental changes in the education of women. Indeed, the entire image of wonlen in the media and textbook must change to improve the status of women.

No explanati~m is provided by F'riedan as to the growing interest in or changing cuntent of pornography for men. And her remarks about the growth of magazines catering to the homosexual seem ccmdemning. For Fr iedan the 'harm' is gender social i zat i on into rigid sex roles and the negative stereotyping of women in the entire mass media. She is also concerned about the diffeuen- tial education received by women which prevents the majority of them from finding an "identity and creative, satisfying work" out side the home.

between rigid sex roles, sexual repression, and an increase in sexual violence and sadumasochist ic pornography (never defined).

She argues that forcing men and women into rigid sex roles causes excessive dependence, frustraticw, deep resentment, and the failure of individuals (especially women) to realize their full Friedan cant inues, are societ ies where people are not getting their basic human need for intimacy met. These societies will exhibit an excessive preoccupation with sexuality, an increase and prevalence of sexual violence, and sadurnasochi st it: pornography. North American society, she claims, is exhibiting all t h ese sympt cans,

Fr i edan predicts that as the sex-r 01 e r evul ut ion cont i nues into its "siet~nd stage", we in North America will uvcrccmje the dysfunctions descui bed above. Buried in the "last vestiges of the old sex-role order", Friedan clairfss, is the beginning of a new human sexual uevolut i on. " I f excesses of sexual violence and pornography are the pathological end result of sex-role polarization, this fact demonst r at es enor mous cr eat i ve energy to be released in the service of life once the situation is rever~ed."~

In this later work, there is same discussion of capitalist exploitation of sexual repression and frustration (which she claims further i ncreascs a1 i enat ion and sexual vi 01 ence).

However, Fr iedan argues that changes in the fami ly and increasing equal i t y for women wi 1 1 trr i ng greater v espec t atzd f rrl f i 1 rfient fur men and worflen. In her c~pinion, there will be far less sexual

frustration for the capitalists to exploit in the futureC313).

Fr i edan makes no speci f ic recsmmendat ions for deal ing with sadomasochisdi c pornography because, in her view, once patriarchy is dismantled and women achieve full equality, nbjectionable pornography will disappear.

Finally, Friedan argues that we tifiust efffipluy the capitalist system to meet the new needs of wurnen and the family.

"...capitalism surely has enough flexibility to retool i tsel f to meet the new hierarchy of needs, to its own profitW(323?.

Friedan's perspective is unique and demonstrates succinctly the difference in the politics of liberal feminists and socialist feminists. I will return to this point in Chapter V.

In Fr iedanvs explanati on gender snci a1 i zation af young bays and girls into rigid sex roles creates adult men and women who are incapable of real izing their full hurmn potential. The rfiale- durni nated f ami 1y is character ired as oppressive for both met? and women, This oppressive institution results in frustrated, resentful individuals who cannot achieve sexual ful f i lment .

Therefore, women escape their isulatian and loneliness in sexy, r c~mancenovels and men escape into pornogr aphy. Fr i edan insists once women have achieved equality with the cuncowi tant changes in the family, real sexual liberation can take place. When men and worwn find sexual ful filrrrent with one another there will no longer be a market of sexual frustrated people to exploit.

Fr i edan argue5 that sadomasochi st i c purnugr aphy wi l l disappear along with the cultural preoccupation with sex.

FYiedan provides no evidence to support; thi 5 theory. Her entire argument rests on the belief that women are and will aktairt full equality. No comment is made about the growth in the pornography industry a1thcugh the imp1 icat ion is that the desire for pornagraphy increases with the continual demand of wornen for equal status in society. Unlike rnarxists, who argue that a change in the economic system wi 11 cause the dernise of pornography, Fr iedan argues that the cull apse of patriarchy will cause the demise of pornography. In this analysis, capitalist por nogr apheus are just uppor tunists, taking advantage of the sexual frustration and resentment caused by patriarchy. Clearly, neither view is sufficient, These two systems of oppression suppart and reinforce one another.

Ridi ngton, merit ioned ear 1i ctr , does not clai rn that crb jec-- tionable pornography is a result of the women's movement. She is critical of the industry, the carnrnodi ficatfan sf female sexual i ty, and she ackn13wledges the impact of the pornoqr aphy industryys view of male and female sexual relations on the status and safety of women. Ridington, who has written at length on the pornography controversy, chair s the B. C. Per i odi caf. Review

Board. [il

Ri dington advances a legal definition of por nogr aphy which is meant to include only depictions of

a This Board examines all rnaterial corning into the Provincc under the heading of "Adult Sophisticate". This material is evaluated for viol ati ons of community standards and possible violations to Section 159 of the Criminal Code. degrading ur abusive. Ridingtc~ncalls non--degrading acceptable rr~aterial qerotica'. Ridington suggests that we abandon the term

"obscenity", substituting it with pornography. She prefers the term pornography because it includes the nution of prostitution which, in her opinion, recc~gnircsthe corf~mc~ditizationof female sexuality which is involved in pornographic production and sale.

Ridington discusses the concept of harm at some length. She believes that there is a causal link between the use of pornoq- raptly and sexual violence against wortten. She relies c~nreports

f r cm t r an4ti on houses wher e women have rrtai nt; ai ned that; they were forced to per form ac ~EIthat men had seen in pornography. lo She also refers t13 RuIs~XI I19781 who interviewed '333 women, eighteen years or alder, living in San Francisco to determine the prevalence of sexual asrjauf t. One uf the questions participants were asked was whether they had ever been upset by anyone trying to get them to re-enact behaviour seen in a pornographic picture,

film, or book. Ten percent of the woman interviewed reported at least one such experience. L.ast, Ridington draws on recent clinical research which indicates a male will mure readily aggresr; against a ferr~afetav get; when both angered and then shown 11 an "aggressive-pornograpt~i~z'I video.

Ridingtsnps prescriptions are ultimate1y legal ones although this legal approach would only apply to caevcive pornography.

Ridi ngt on a150 suggests caerc i ve pornography couf d be considered

!hate 1i ter aturep in that t his water i a1 promotes sexual aggres-

sion against a speci f i c group, She recommends that feminists czmsi der wur kiny with those groups attempting to awend the sectictn af the Criminal C~dedealing with 'hate literature' in an effort to have gender included as an iderit i f iabl e group. She suggests that while we are waiting far the law to be changed and legislators to deliver, boycotting, picketing, and direct action against retailers of magazines and video outlets can be carried out, Ridi ngton argues fur 1egal r emedi es but she acknow1 edges that relying on the State can be disappointing and risky.

There are several problems with Ridington's cr it ique.

First, she approves of a legal definition ctf pornography which which describes the offending material as degrading or abusive,

Acceptable material is that which is not degrading cw abusive and she refers to this material as *ercrtica< But, the terns degrading can be problematic because there are those who would define nudity in a sexual csntext as degrading. Also, should 'erotica' be defined simply as material which is devaid ctf dcgradatic~nand abuse? More ititportant, nothing is being said here about the overall sexism prevalent in pornography. RidingtunPs critique appears to give material which is not coercive a cleat? bill of health. It may be that she did not intend for this conclusion tn be drawn. If this is the case, it should be clearly stated.

Second, there is very little attention paid to rnaterial cunditians although there is some reference to the industry and the cctrnrr113ditixatior7 of fernale sexuality. Third, Ridington's emphasi s on a causal l i nk bet ween coercive pur nagr aphy and violence against women is controversial and what evidence we do have is problematic. Socialist ferfiinists argue that an i llusion is created by this type of explanation --- i f coevc i ve por nography is suppressed male violence in a sexual context will disappear (Diar~ncmd, l'EI85:49). Finally, in view of recent proposed legislation (Bill C--52) the government is not bringing forward legisrlatiun which uses Ridingtcm,~narrow definition of pornography, but a definition which includes almtust all depictions of sexual activity. 12

Ridington and Lynn King, a feminist lawyer, both state that rwch pornugr aphy is abhorrent . They discuss pornography as a syroptoa of a patriarchal system. King claims that legal reform in the areas of equal pay legiz,latic~nor family law can be beneficial to women but, unlike Ridington, King believes law reform regarding pc~rnography is a dead end. In her opinion, the legal definitions are extuenscly problerrtatic, and even if one is careful, terms like 'degradingy will be interpreted by the State

Ccensor boards, police, and judges) who are not working from a feminist agenda.'

"The vast and complex body of the State is nut neutral, but works along clearly patriarchal lines, It is therefore irratic~nalto expect that same State to adopt feminist principles when dealing with sexual representatic~n.It 13

This is a reasanable statement. However, the State has nut been ccm~pletelyimpervious to the arguments caf feminists, This fact is reflected in the rationales handed down by varictus judges (see

C.C.J. Borins, The Queen vs, Doug Rankine Co. btd. and Act 111 Video Productions, 1'383). Support has also come frcm law enforcerr~entofficials who agree with feminists, like Ridingtun, that there is a causal link between sexual violence and purnog- raptly. 14

King does not provide a definition of pornctgraphy because in her opinion it is a futile exercise. She does nut explicitly discuss her view of sexuality, but in 1 ight of her' rcrrtarks regarding the harassment of gay men and women and her criticism of the Ontario Censor Board's cuts of simply sexually explicit material, it is clear that she feels State intervention into individual sexual practice and the use of pornography is unwar-- ranted and dangerous. The harm then fur King is the harm of censorship itsel f a fami liar liberal stance. King's arguments regarding the folly of censorship are quite persuasive in that she anal yres the actual activities of the Ontario Censor Board.

She discusses both films and books which have been cut or banned by this Censor board. She also discusses actual Canadian obscenity t r i a1 s such as the one i nvdviulg I33d_y eglq&i.g,_ a

Toronto gay journal, which we discussed in Chapter 11. King claims that the law is being used in these irtstances tc~harass gay people.

Characteristically in King's discussion there is a lack af recognition as to huw a capitalist economy creates a framework within which the comnioditization of sex can flourish. In King's analysis the diagnosis is that pornography is a result of patriarchy, nut a result of capitalist patriarchy. Finally, King

111 has put forward no preacriptiorw for change except to ~uggest that we look for other alternatives to legal reform.

The jar problerf~ with liber a1 feminist analysis is its focus an just patriarchy instead of capitalist patriarchy. Can liberal fernini sts explain what purpose pornography serves to a capitalist patriarchal state? They can cogently discuss the irtpact on women of patriarchal ideology such as the negative stereotyping ctf women in the media, including the way women are depicted in parnogr aphy, but one cannot discuss pornogr aphy in isolation from either the nature of the economic framework in which it endures, or the obvious sexism and racism that is reflected and therefore perpetuated in that media. Finally, there is division arrronp liberal feminists as to whether law reforin and censorship can be an effective method of dealing with pornc~graphy wit hout posi ng uther dangers.

!%agf=gL Egg&afst&

Radical ferr~inistsagree with the 1iberal fernini st enrphasi s ctn patriarchy, but they take the discussion of patriarchy and its i rfpli cat ions much further . Human r eproduct ion and sexual ity are very central issues for radical feminism. These areas are considered the locus of women's oppression. Radical fem~inis~~is respcmsible fur insisting that these areas are political.

Cat her ine MacKinnon, a prcrfessior of 1aw, who writes and speaks extensively on pornography, claims "sexuality is the 1inchpin of gcndw inequality". l5 Therefore, radical feminists have cot?-- centrated their efforts at transforrfiation in these areas because they believe this is hc~w the liberation of women will occur.

Radical feminists encourage wumen to bui ld a womanps counter culture. The State cannot be relied on to effect change because the posit i ctcw of authority are cccupi ed by men who will diEL-- criminate against women. Therefore, wumen have to start their awn businesses, create thei r own cjrganizat ions to assist orte another in the struggle against patriarchy. Lesbianism has been pr ornot; ed as the most radical threat to enf car ced het erosexcrill i t y thruugh marriage. By becumi ng 1esbi atrs, women caul d reject ma1 e control of wonsen's sexuality. Having identi f ied the area of sexuality as lme of the central aspects of worrlsn's oppression, it is nut surprising that radical ferf~inistshave focrtsed on pornography and have channel 1ed enormous resources int12 fighting it.

Radi cal tert~ini st s have WY i t t err rfror e ext; ensi vel y than other feminists on ttrc subject of pornography. They insist that parrrography is rrial e propaganda designed to encourage male control ctf female sexuality. This control often involves coercion and rape. They see pornography as the uf t irnate in misogynist idcu- logy. Radical ferrri trisjt argument is the rrmst h~mogenourj12f the feminist critiques. The varicws coameurtatorrs di f fer only in the depth of the argument. For example, Griffin (1981:) dicjcusses the psychological processes which give rise to the desire for pornography while Dworkin ignores the underlying psychological processes.

Dworkin Ci.379) has written a controversial book on pcwnog- r aphy and travels thruughout North America speaking on pornography and other issues. She has been involved in drafting i mpor t ant new muni c i pa1 1egi sl ati on regarding par nogr aphy in the lJnited States. Dwsrkin attempts to describe the systsrf~of male darttinat ion in which pornography can endure,

"Male sexual domination is a system with an idcalagy and a metaphysics. The sexual colonization of wumen9s bodies is a mataria1 reality: men control the sexual and rcpro- ductive uses of women's bodies. The insti tution% of control inc 1ude 1aw, mar r i ape, prusti tution, and pornography, along with health care, the economy, religion, and systemat i red physical aggression againsh women, e. g. incest, rape, and battery. "

According to Dworkin, sexuality in a male dominated society involves danger and violence for wumen. Pornography as a manifestation of male power in a sexual context preaches male domination and conquest of women. Therefore, fur radical feminists pornography and sexual violence arc 1 inked to keep women in a state of ~iubordination. In this way, parnugraphy does constitute a real threat; to women and should be suppressed,

Dworkin argues that pornography is the propaganda of the

~fialesexual sy!%Lent. This systerrt of power is based on the don-iina- tion of wumen and is backed up by the threat or actual use of

farce. And this power and coercion extends to the area of sexual i ty and sexual imagery. Dwor kin maintains that a11 pornug- r aphy is degrading t u wumen. CThi s character i z at i on appears t a be her definition of pornography although she does not speci f i-- cally state this,) The term 'erotica* is silly to DworC::in because all that 'eroticay fftean5 is a better class of pornography, pornography that is better conceived and produced, i. e. using expet~sive sets, 1i gt~ting, ccrsturnes, and attractive female pau-

"As with the call girl and the streetwalker one is turned out better but both are prcl- duced by the same system af sexual values and both per f~ztrm t he same sexual ser vice. 11 17

Pornography is the correct te~rit, DWIX kirk argues, to describe water ial currently available. Porne were, in Greek society, the

most worthlass women. Xn status she was below a slave, she was a sexual slave. Graphos means writing ar drawing about these parne, Dwurkin, using language ~teantto be inflammatory, states

that put in a more contemporary way, pornography is thP graphic

insists that even the terrvt whore or slut only has rf~eaningwithin the male sexual system.

"Men have created the group, the type, the concept, the epithet, the insult, the industry, the trade, the commodity, the reality uf woman as whore. 1, 19

Dwor kin descr i tres male sexual ity as cruel, aggressive, and

exploitative. Pornography, she insists, reinforces the idea that

sexual pleasure far men is to be gokten by humi l iating women.

Wcsrnen are the victims of male sexuality in her account. Dworkin

mai ntai rrs that par nogr aphy is cot~cider ed bad or dirty because

female sexuality, which is its fc~cus, is considered to be dirty,

especially femaf e geni tals.

The vharmy of pornography for Dwor kin includes its very presence, its message, and its actual impact on rnen and women.

Dworkin charges that men came to pornography as believers uf the

1i e abc~utwomen and female sexual i ty but gc~away mi ssi onar i t$s. 20

Pornography, in this view, encourages men to view women as whores, who as worthless beings, can be coerced and violated.

Dwor kin ar gues that as more and rrmr e por nogr aptry f l oocis the

market, and the improvementsi in print and film technology ad-

vance, pornography can become a sl icker , mult i -medi a product, widely distributed and easily available. In this way more men

are reached daily with pornographyvs message, that is, that wtmen

are passive sexual objects who enjoy pain and humiliation with

sex.

Dwor kirr does not rrtarshal l any social scienti fit= evidertce to support her claims, instead, she examines pornographic photo-,.

graphs and fiction, as well as pieces c~fliterature with pornugraphic content. She uses this existing material tc~

demonst r ale her point regarding ma1 e domi nat cd sexual t heme5 and

the way that women are depicted in pornography. Dwarkin is very

selective in what she brings forth as evidence, choosing the wmst

reprehensible material. I arn not suggesting that we ignore the

serious implications of this kind of material, but the bulk pornuguaphy is not cctercive, althuugh it is often sexist.lili

Dworkinrs discussion is often gripping, especially when she

...... a By sexist I mean sexual scenarios. which are male-- iniated and male-controlled focused on fellatio, intercourse and ejaculation. exposing the misogyny in magari nes 1i ke Hyiit&iy, She points to such features as the pictorial lay-out "Beaver Hunters". This is a photograph of two white male hunters sitting in a jeep with a naked, white woman tied spread-eagled to the hood. Her crotch is displayed prominent1 y in the center of the photograph. The caption underneath is a disturbing derr~unstrationof male power and cont empt for women.

"Western spurtsmcn report beaver hunt i ng was part icular1 y goctd throughcut the Rocky Mountain region dur ing the past season. These two hut1 t er5 easi 1y bagged their limit...They told @gs&&%~ that they stuffed and mounted their trophy a% soon as they got her home. I1 21

It is difficult not to be infuriated by such material- And

Dwsrkin uses this rage to demand blanket suppression of purnuy-

raphy. The il ludon which she creates ia that; pornography causes

male violence against women and unti 1 it disappears women will not be safe. She argues that men are arrogant, cruel, and cc~nvincedthat their power over worwn, in this case sexual power,

is just i f i ed because women ar c passi ve and masochi st ic. "The buys are betting nn our compliance, our ignorance, our fear, The boys are betting that we cannot face the horror of their sexual. system and sur- vive. The buys are betting that their peni se~and fists and knives and fucks and rapes will turn us into what they say we are - ..,the masochistic sluts who resist because we really want roore. ,122

In Dworkinvs description women are victirfts in a desolate atld

dangerctus landscape inhabited by cruel, exploi tat ive males who

are by nature sexually violent. Dwurkinrs description of male sexual i ty is dishear Geni ng and distorted. Dwor ki n ignores the fact that wen are also part of the porncggraphic scenarios, The way men are depicted is not always flattering either. It is true that men and male sexuality are presented differently frcm women and female sexuality, Men are most often depicted in a position of control and power. These facts are characteristics of pornoqraphy, not of a11 wen arid male sexcrali ty, Dwor kin also does not ac knc~wledge that not al'l men use pcwnography. Scme wren are repulsed and upset by pornography, as many women are. Not a11 men enjoy slapping women around for sexual pleasure, just as women are not masochists by nature, The truly upsetting aspect of Dworkinys argument is that it quickly slides into a biological accusation regarding male sexuality, i .e. men are vi ol ent by nature. Dwwkin demonstrates nu recognition of the sc~cial construction of sexuality. Her presentation of patriarchy is ahistorical and universal. There is no discussion of material conditions and a disturbing lack of attention to the possible social and psychological processes which give rise to the desire for and use of pornography,

Most recent 1y, a1ong with Cat her i ne PiacKi nnon , nw~xki n has designed the first civi1 approach tc~dealing with parncqraphy, i .e. "The Mi nneapsl i s Or cli nance. " Thi 5 landwar k or diname was passed into law, and many other cities are considering similar civil approaches. This ordinance allows a woman to bring suit for damages and suppressic~nof the material against any maker, distributor, seller, or exhibitor of pornography if the plaintiff can dew~onstrakethat they have been IS ccfercerd or fraudulent1y induced into per forming in porncqraphy; or, 2) have had pornography forced upon them in any pttblic place or in the hort~e; or,

33 have been assaulted ur attacked a5 a result of pornography.

This is the first time in history an individual has ever been given civil recourse against producers, distributcvs, or retailers of pornography. Cole (1989) argues that this type of civil approach should be instituted in Canada because any fines levied do rrot go into the State cof fer but t~athe woman who has been injured as a result of pornography. As well, this type of legislation would empower women, not put mare power into the hands of the police or Courts. However, the Minneapolis

Ordinance was passed by the City Council in 1983 and vetoed by the Mayor. A version of this ordinance did pass into law in 1984 in Indianapolis. The law was immediately challenged in Court arrd struck down as a violaticm uf the constitutional right to free speech. This law is tmw cm appeal to the Supreme Cour t. 23

Another radical fcrriirtist who is often cited in the literature on PIX-nographyis Susan Griffin (19813. Griffin has written a power ful and nsoving book ertt i tl ed F'p~_n_qgrxtphy

•˜.L&gn_sgk C:u__lt;u_.d.g's_ f?gv_g~gg&p&n_st FJgt;gug, Dwor kin and Gu i f fin are often cited (e.g. Soble, 1988:) because their arguments and explanat i crns regarding the presence of pcwnography have been very contruversial . Unlike Dworkin, Qrif f in does demormtrate an understanding of the psychological and social prc~cesseswhich create tension and conflict for men. Pornography, Griffin suggests, plays a role in the construction of gender by reinforcing stereotypes of female passivity and masochism and male aggression and sadism.

Griffin takes us back to the prirr~arycotrnectiun that infant males have with their mother: their first caregiver and love object upon whom they are total 1y dependertt . They cannot at first dirjtinguish themselves frcm~her, they are part of her. 8r.it as boys grow older they become aware through messages disserni nated in the culture, including pornogvaphyps message, that a man, to be a rmn, must reJect a1 1 things feminine including the nnther.

These messages depict women as weak, infer iur , emotional, and dependent. The rejection of the fernirrine by the male puts hirf~ into a basic conflict with himself. In his struggle to suppress or kill this part of himself, he directs and deflects his rage upon women. Me needs to overcume, dorriinate, and cctnquer them to be a man. Griffin sees pornography as a refIectiorr of this desire to dominate and subjugate. She warns that in this struggle, which can never be successful, the need to punish could end in sexual abuse and possible murder. She points tea the appearance of the tstwff filmr as evidence of her conterrtian.

She discusses caw participatiot~in the callect ive "pornogra-- phic mind", although wen and women play different parts, This mind is sexist, racist, and afraid of knowing and exploring real humart eratic feeling and desire. Pornography is not, in her opinion, an indication of growing sexual freedorri but of the need t;cc si let~ceeroticism in mecheni cal , coarse, bruGal sexual activity devoid of feeling, affection and .joy. She refers to pornography as the "poetry of oppression. *12' She attacks pornographers who claim they are champions of sexual liberation, She insists that if one looks at pornography one will see that the messages are not about 1 i ber at ion, but dsminat i cm.

Griffin, like Dwurkin, believes women are a colonized grc~up, alienated from their own experience by a foreign culture, the one imposed by men. 'This male sexual culture dues not include wurnen s exper i er~ce. Femle sexual i t y i si represented in pwnu- grapky as men wc~uld like it to be, not as it actually is.

The sexuality that Griffin discusses is male sexuality which she characterizes as violent and abusive. However, unlike

Dwurkin, Griffin does not fall back on a biulogical explanation.

Griffin agrees that male sexuality is shaped by the individual's experience in the culture- This experience, in her upinion, is influenced by frtessages disseminated in the various media, inclu-- cling the rriessage of pur ncrgr apher s. The pur nogr apher B depi ct i on of sexuality is categorically bad, that is, abusive, coercive and exploitative. Not 01-11y does the pornographer debase male and female sexual i ty, their 1ies about female passivity and masochism is dangerous fur wctrnen. Therefore, the 'harm' once again is the presence of pornography. Porncqraphic imagery does not stay in the realm of fantasy for Griffin. It can always be trat~slated into actual behaviour. Gri f f in argues that "whether or not porncrgu aphy causes sadistic acts, pornography i tsel f is a siadiw- tic act."(lll) Griffin, like Dworkin, uses excerpts from fiction and discusses certain pictorial pornography to suppor t her content ions.

She insists that porncqraphy reflects and reinforces the racism, sexism, and sadism af the \pornographic mindy. She draws on films like &iygz pf bye, which is advertised with a still of two naked black women in chains, A white male with a whip is their keeper. Cir i f fin c 1aims t heriles of dorrti nat i 1x3 and conquest in fuse pornography. Nazi memorabilia is often used to create this theme.

She refers to films like EqLggn Boys pf &he SS, Jl-22 the Wg~gqLf gf $-he gg, and &it?gn gigfie, a pornographic film which eroticizes ccmcentraticm camp atrocities. She insists that if we look closely at the depictions of people of colaur done by racists, or the imagery c~fthe Jew done by anti-semitics, or the depiction of women by the pornographer, we wi 11 see that these "fantasized char ac:t ers r esembl e one another. "2s They are a11 a product of this "purnographic mind. "

"-.,a mind which projects all its fears in itself onto another; a mind which defines i t!wl f by what i t hates. I,%

Griffin never explicitly demands suppression of pornography nor does she make any recurimendations fur change. This lack of a conclusion is ant i-cl imact ic and disappointing.

Griffin never provides a definition of pornography, but, in her discussion, she character ires a1 1 pornugr aphy as degrading, sadistic, and coercive. I am assuming this is her definition. "The actual images of pornography degrade wowten. This degradation is the essential experience of pornography. . .The who1 e value, the thrill of a "peep show" or a centrefold depends on a worrmn' s deqradat ion. .. For she is literally for sale. Her image, printed on a newspaper, is reprciduced countless times, and lies flat under a plastic screen to be had fcw twenty-five ctr fifty-cents by any passi ng man. u27

It is unclear exactly what Griffin is arguing here. 3% it degrading to .be nude, and/or invulved in sexual activity; or to have someone take a picture of you while you are nude and/or involved in sexual activity; or to sell the picture uf a nude woman involved in sexual activity'? There are also a great many nude men indulging in sexual activity in porncqvaphy; is it also degrading for them?

Griffin deals in universals. C.13 Male sexrmlity is aggressive and coercive due t13 infantile rage. (23 W~men arc victims sf male sexual aggression. C33 All pornography is sadistic and exploitative with heavy sexist and racist uvertunes.

First, not a1l men are aggressive, nor do they a11 exhibit; an aggressive sexuality. Yet, this is a generalizatictn regarding male sexuality seen repeatedly in radical feminist critique,

Sctmething is rotten in pornography, according to radical feminists, and that rotten thing is male sexuality. Pornography is discussed as instructictn in how tu deploy male sexuality, the penis is characterized as the weapon, Wornten, rn the other hand, are just tvictiw~s.yGriffin does not provide any evidence ta substantiate her claim that male sexual 1ty is aggressive and coercive due to infant i 1e rage, Son~ewurften exper i ence vi oX ente by men in a sexual cc~ntext. But, many women do nut. We must recc~lgnizethat women are nut a1ways victiNI% and some wornen do have satisfying sexual relationships with men. Griffin's desu-- late landscape denies wumenFs pleasure in sex.

Griffin characterizes all pornography as sadistic and cuer- cive. The facts are that not all porn~xyaphyis coercive. If we look to actual content analyses which have been done, researchers tell us that in the case of video, coercive themes only comprise

6% crf the material they looked at (Paly's 1'384:Gl--63:). What I am suggesting here is that, as Pal ys argues, i f we are concerned about violence and/or sexual violence, we may be looking in the wrong place. He claims the horuor/sci fi genre has a rfluch guealeu incidence nf violence towards wcirncn. It is true that films like

Jlig "&db~zPlg~@%rs au Hlpgdiiyik&q E~fakndepict women being rnut i 1at ed and mur der ed, somet i riles wwi t h sexual avert cmes. For example, in the Lg~f'hx Pl'hrdgrs just prior to the central charac-- ter being murdered by a man with a nai 1 gun, she removes her clothing and takes a long, sensual bath. This movie is not rated adult or triple xxx. One dms nut have LID go to a special video outlet to procare it, Xt can be rented at any local video store.

I am not suggesting that we ignore coercive pornography, simply that we maintain perspective and be aware of the facts, There is certainly more support for Griffin's cantentic~nregarding the sexist and racist overtones of pornography (Smith, 1976). Final 1y and characteristically there is no di!iiicus!iiii~nby Griffin of the economic framework within which the pornography industry endures and how that industry might be shaped by the ssocial relatir~nsand processes uf an advanced capital ist , consumer-or i ented system.

Griffin appears to be arguing that we are experiencing the c~m- mctdi tization of sexual i ty because of the needs of male sexual i ty.

Griffin's characterization of poynography as the idectlctgy of cultural sadism is picked up and expanded upon by Barry C1984).

Barry, a socialogist, has investigated the ki dnappi rkg of women and forced prostituticm internat ionally. She subsequently pub-. lished her research findings in a book entitled F%gg&,g Sgzy&

!3l+yg~y. In this book Barry discusses pornography and its connect ion t o sexual vi uli ence against wortten, Her e por nogr aphy i s definitely the propaganda and rape the practice.

Any discussion in North American culture of sex or the sex drive, according to Barry, means male sex drive. Wc~men are alienated from their own sexuality through socialization and male control. Women live in a masculinist culture in which whatever sexual expression is af lowed is an expression of male sexuality, not fc?.male sexuality. Women are taught frorft a yccung age that their. sexuality is 'different and subtle*(255). Male sexuality is characterized as explosive and difficult to control. Permis- sion is given only to boys to experiment sexually. If girls chctose t o i gnctr e sanc t i ons against sexual expr essi an, they wi 11 pay a social price, i.e, become 'soiled goodsy, Therefore, Barry argues, adolescent boys learn early on that they have a strc~nger sex drive which must be satisfied and they have a right to take from the more passive sex what it is they need.

"Learned, impulsive, uncontrollable ado1escent ma1e sex dr i ve has become fur many men the mode of their adult sex behaviuur . Xt is arrested sexual development.. . It explains the sel f- centred, exploitative, and bullying behaviuur that characterizes pimps, procurers, rapists, and wife beaters.

For Bairy, sadism which is the overriding message of pornography, is a mani festat ism Of arrested male sexual development.

She agrees that pornography is an appeal to fantasy and a mode of entertainrnent for men, but in its distortions of reality it has political intentions,

'I.. .an attempt to create at1 irmge of women that is consistent with the way men want to see and use them. ,129

This sadistic message tu men regarding the nature of their sexual relationships with wmen is accomplished, according to Barry, in three ways. 1) Women are depicted as enjoying pain and humil ia- tiun; 2) sadism Cmalel and masctchism Cfemale) is presented as a part of human nature, and last 3) although sadism involves coer- cinn, lacerations, and bruises, pornographers are careful not to show arty marks or cuts on the skin which might upset the viewer or interrupt the sexual excitewent by calling into question the humanity of the act. Barry points to the cctntrf~on practice in video pornography of averting the camera away frcm the face if discomfort or pain is registered. "Far the sexual sadist it is the best 04 both wcwlds,. .while the victirf* becomes invi si trl e, the cotssurner enjoys the br u- tality of sadisrr~guilt-free, a5 he ever has to see the consequences of it . "5 The *harm* for Barry is that pornography reinforces the ideology of male sexual power, teaches methods of sexual conquest, and worse, shows women enjoying this conquest. She argues that the arrested sexual development of males and the ideology sf pornography create a very dangerous situation fur women. She discusses the growing incidence of incest, rape, and abuse. For

Barry, there is no quest ion as to the connect ion between the ideology of pcvnugraphy and sexual violence aqainst women.

Barry argues that it is not just in slavery brothels, one of the subjects of her research, that coerciun takes place, She nmi ntains por noqv aphy by i ngs sexual sl aver y and sadist i c sex right into our homes.

"The most pr evalent theme in pornography i 5 one of utter cuntempt fur women. In rmvie after umvie women are raped, e jacu- lated on, urinated on, anally penetrated, beaten, and with the advent of Csnuff f i 1ms' , murdered in an orgy of sexual 11 31 p 1 easllr t?.

Porncrgraphy, she states, no lcttzger depicts what a man can do with a pr~xtituke,but what he can do with his wife, lover, even daught er t2051. Here pur nogr aphy is descr i bed as the scr i pt for cuer c i un and dnmi nat ion of women.

A1 t ho~rghBar Y y dr aws luts the wl=ir k of r espec t ed sexologists like Kinsey (1'3531 and Ell is (1'342) to support her arguments regarding the cotwitruct i on of maf e Caggresisi ve) and female ipassi ve) sexual i ty, she provides no soci a1 scienti f i c evidence to support her contention that there is a direct causal relationship bet ween the use of pornography and subsequent coer cive behaviour. She admits that male use of pcwnography dc~esnot account for a1 1 acts of sexual abuse, bu%, 1i kc Brownmi 11er , she argues that pornography contr i butes to an overall cultural climate which denigrates women and tolerates images of their sexual degradation.

Barry clairrts part of the reason why pornography has not been taken more ser i ousl y is due to the 1970 Pornography Ccmrni ssion s

findings. Barry criticizes the Commission research for its

liberal bias and subsequent lack of objectivity. She claims this predisposition to apologize for pornography meant distortions of the facts would have to folluw. She maintains that the rrtethodul- ogy in sons@ of the irkfluevltial experiments was highly suspect especially those involving sex offenders. For exar(~ple, in

GoXdstein" tlli970) war k he attswpted to explore the 1irrk: between rape and pcwnography. Sex of fenders and a control group were sur- veyed for their exposure to pornography- The control group could not have any history c~fsexual deviation and was matched with the

sex offendevs for age, sex, and education. The first probf em, according to Barry, is that the FBI had csnfirmed that prc~bably only one in ten rapes is repvted. There is therefore a signi-

ficant number of rapists at large in the so-called Cncwrml

population.' So, the control group could very well have contain-

ed rapists. The second problem was with the interpretatiun of the data. The researchers made these claims.

"These data show that as curi~paredwith non-sex of fenders, sex of fenders and sexual deviants have cumparati vel y little experience with 'erotica' during their ado1escence. 11 32

They wiacle this statement even though 62% of the rapists reported exposure to pc~rtmgraphy. This is hardly "little experience" with pornog~apkry, Barry goes at1 in this fashion attacking the research methodology and i nt erpretat ion of data unt i 1 she has dispelled any doubk about the bias of the 1970 Clt.r~missior?. She clearly demonstrates the obvictus suppression car distcw tion of negative effects from the use of pornography which took place,

She cimmands the research data well and is must convincing when

she is dealing with the iscierrtific facts.

Barryv%prescriptions for change involve a re-considerat ion of the present values of North American society and the genera-

tion of new values based st1 equality and respect. Qnc place to begin, according ta Barry, is with the valueless individualis@

promotad by liberals. She argues that as a result ctf this value--

1ess individual ism we have pcwnogr aphy which prortlotes hatred

agairrst wurrten, She attacks 1i beral cornmi tment to abstract ideals

even when it is clear we are suf feritq from an overextcnsictn of

these ideals, promoting a philosophy that it is 0•‹K. fur people

to get their sexual kicks in any way they choose. Barry insists

.------..------'Barry describes this value1ess i ntlivi dual isrn as asserting that there is nu right or wrung and pursuing one's own needs above a1 1 else. that hidden in liberal argurrtent is the desire to protect the freedom and sexual expression of men at women's expense. She also attacks conservatives for creat ing confusion in values. She insists that conservatives will tolerate marital rape and wi fe battery far more than ho~tosexuality~Barry claims the liberals, reacting to conservative traditional rmrality, have gone too far in the other direction, taking US from false values to total val- uelessness. Liberals are basically promoting a philusclphy that states "it is wrong to determine right or wrangUf264). She insists we need to decide and dcfinc new values based on what celebrates and enhances human beings over and against what is de- meaning and degrading. Once having made those initial decisions,

Barry argues, there is no quest ion that pornography must be done away with, as it blatantly prormtes hatred and dcmination of one gr oup by another. Hawever, no recommendat i ans are made as to how pornography can be done away with.

Barryr s analysi s does ackrrowledga the social constructi on of sexual i ty thrnugh gender social ization. Barry argues that the wale Csadist; and fensale Cnsasochist ) archetypes irr pornography reinforce already existing gender stereotypes and notions af male superiority and female inferiority, Men, who use pornography, are being described here as sexual sadists.

Like so many others, Barry pr ovi des no def i rti ti on of por rrsg- raphy. The term pornography, Barry claims, suits her work well because she is cancerned with forced prostitution. Much like

Ridington, Barry approves of the term because its origins in Latin mean writing ablxtt whores. But, ctnl i ke Ridington, Barry

desicri bes all pcwnography as viol ent , Therefore, 1 assume, this

is her definition.

Barry*s anal ysi s carmot explai n why some men do not exhibit

an immature, aggressive sexuality. In this account, once again,

worr~en becon~ethe victirrrs of mala sex~tality;exactly what they

have been toid by the culture that they are. Worrren are nut

deticr ibed as having choice ar agency. In Etarr y' s analysis, wornen

are not depic fed as understanding and struggling against their

oppression, they are just tvictims. The fact is that wornen par--

ticipate in patriarchy and they are often the socializers of

young chi l dr en. Ther efau e, women must assume r esponsi hi1 it y for

their own part in perpetuating notions of female infericwity and

sexual passivity.

Radical feminist critique has been very important tu the

pornography cuatrsversy. The radical analysis made the presence

of pornography a very serious political. issue. Their claims re--

garding the ccmnect ictn between pornography and victlence to women

spawned a new wave of cX inical research and a new bady of cormen--

tary. Radical feminist critiqi~eis lirrlited in its presentatian

of patriarchy as ahistorical and universal, its portrayal of

women as "just victims", the lack of attention paid to material

conditions, and when, in certain instances, (e.g. Dworkin), male

sexuality is discussed as inherently violent and a!jgressive.

Although radical f ernini st cri t i que suf fevs f rorn these

limitations, it has been a very influential bady of curnmentary. CHAPTER 4 ENDNOTES

U.S. Commission cm Obscenity & Porncqraphy (19703 Part 111, Reports of the Panels, I. Traffic S( Distribution of Saxcrally Oriented Materials in the U.S., p. 93.

Ibid., p. 182.

Ibid., p. 180.

Betty Friedan, "Sex, Society, and The Female Dilerr~ma", in S_g&u_d_+y-R_gy&gw2: 1-- l Je1 1'375.

Betty FYi edan, l%e-Sg~p~@-~$aqg,CN. Y. : Surmi t Books, 19813, p. 310

"Pur nography i s a pr eserbtat i on, whether 1i ve, si mu1 ated, verbal, pictorial , filmed or videotaped, or otherwise reprc- sented of sexual behaviour in which one or more participants are coerced overtly or implicitly, itsto participation, or are injured or abused physically or psycho logic ally^ or in which an imbalance of power is sbvic~us,or implied by virtue of the immature age of any participant or by cantextual aspects of the representatictn, and in which such bshaviuur can be taken to be advocated or endorsed.

Ibid.

Graham Fr aser , "MPFs See Porn Law St i f l i ng Fi 1KI-wtaki ng, Cl oaki ng Ar t Wor ks" , ~hg-q&~~g-afida~L,Tucs . , Dec ember 1, 1987, A10.

Lynn Kirrg, "Censorship and law Refarns: Will Changirbg the Laus mean a Change for the Better?" in Varda Eurstyn Ced. 1) &z~g~ &q&,~&&n_sgysh~&!(Vancouver, E. C. : Duugl as % Mc Int yre Ltd., 1985) p. 84. 14. Mark Harrtiltun, "Police Juat Scratching the Surface", N2~th Shg5e-Ngy2, September 5, 1986.

15. Jaggar, p. 105

17. Ibid., preface.

18. Ibid., p- 200.

19. Ibid.

20, Ibid., p. 202.

21. Ibid., p. 26.

22, Ibid., PI 224.

23. Donna Tuu l ey, "The Feminist Debate on Purnogr aphy: Art Unor thadox Xnt erpretat ion", gpc~a&&q$.F?Ry~gg, Vol . 16, 1986, p. 83-84.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

29, Ibid., p. 209.

31. Ibid., p. 206. CHAPTER V

In this chapter I will discuss the marxist and socialist

feminist perspect ivez on pornography. This discussion wi 11 be

guided by the five criteria ctiitlined in the Introdi~ctisn. I will

be demonstrating that in contrast to conservative, liberal and

most feminist analyses, marxist and socialist feminists, who

analyze pornctgr aphy, st r esa the i nprsr t ante of mat er ial

conditions. They are critical of a capitalist, cctnsumer-oriented

society which exploits human beings and sexuality for profit.

Both perspcct ives acknowledge the social construction of

sexuality but the purpose that cotw=truction is said to serve is described differently by the two perspectives. Gender is a

component of both mar xist and socia1 ist feminist analyses al-

though the treatment of gender by marxists can be prciblematic. I

will argue that the socialist feminist perspective appears to

provide us with a useful theoretical framework within which to

examine pornography and the pornogr aphy i ndust r y.

A1 though there is agreement between mar xists and s~z~cialist

feminists regarding the importance of material conditicms when

examining pornography, there is considerable debate among them

r @gardi ng not on1y the si gni f icance of pornography, but whet her

class relations or gender relations are more appropriate for

examining and explainirrg the prevalence of pornography. Marxists

insist can the primacy of class relations in explaining pornca4--

uaphy. Marxists have considered pornography to be a result of the psycho1,rrgically destructive ef fectsj of capital ism, which they believed would wither away in a cormunist state.' Soble SI033&), who will be considered in this chapter, claims he wrote on the subject c~fpornography because, as he states, mar xists have largely dismissed pcwnagvaphy.2 Soble maintains that capitalism damages male sexuality as a resiult of the atomistic, repetitive work men are required to do in the workforce and this darnage has negative consequences for women (sexual objecti f icat ion), This obJectification manifests itself, in part, thrc~ughpornography.

Sob1e argues in consrr~unism ther c wi11 be no sexi st, coer c i ve purnugraphy. Stewart ( lW7) argues that capital ism created pornography and the phenomenon will not disappear until the economic system is transformed. McNall S l9EJ83>sees pornography as an ideological mechanism used to maintain patriarchy. The subcwdinaticcn of women serves the interests of capitalism.

."""--"...""---Mar xist s Marxists believe that personality traits and character structure are sc~cially constructed (Reiche, l'Xi8). Whatever shape this constrrtcticsn may take in any particular society can be traced to the requirements of the prevailing mode of pruducticm.

In our time, capitalism, a specific type of economic system, requires workers with a certain temperament. This temperament has been described as "submi s!si ve and irrat ictnal " . The r epres-- sian of sexuality is described as the mechanism by which these character traits are developed SW. Reich, 19451. Sexual repression serves capitalism by producing a worker who is more easily controlled and dues not recognize his class interests, and a consumer who, due to sexual frustratiot~and a lack of sexrdal

ful f i ltirent within mor.togamt=rus nsarr i age, is a target fur pornography and advertising with sexual overtones. In the marxian model, pornography in capitalism is mass-produced by economically c oerc ed wage 1abour . There are a great many assumpticsns under lying these cl aims that are nut clearly expressed. 11 The economic system requires the repression of sexuality; 2) institutions, such as the

Church, assist in this repression; 31 the repression of sexuality creates a certain kind of temperament and this temperament is the same far everyone, e.g. men and wamen; 41 all individuals are sexually unful f i 1 led in monogamous maur iage; 53 individuals du not st r uggl e agai nst sexual repression.

In contrast to the need of a capita3ist society to repress sexuality, a communist society would not require the repression of sexuality. Therefore people would be allowed a "natural" free sexual i ty. Pornugraphy, as Soble points out, has been considered by marxists as an unhealthy symptom of a damaged society.4 It has been argued that in a corhmunis.t; society porntrrguaphy would nod exist (W. Reich, 19451. 50, rather than offering prescriptions

for dealing with pornography the ultimate prescription in the marxist view is to overthruw capitalism and then pornography will

disappear, or as Soble argues, be replaced with acceptable

imagery which is not produced by eccmomic cctercion. Marxists have general ly not considered pwnugraphy an important area for pol it i cal analysis. Sex and procreat i on have been seen as a relatively unchanging phenomena confined to the sphere of the family, which is based on a *natural9 sexual division of labc~ur.~This area was not considered a place where analysis and action could lead to signi f icant social change. 6

This fact stands in stark contrast to the position of radical feminists who believe sex and procreaticin are the central areas for political analysis and action.

Sob1 e, who has written at7 important book on purnuyraphy, tries to present a coherent and embracing mar xist expf anat ion, He takes except ion with aspects of the preceding mar xian explana- tian, which derives largely from the writing of Wilhelm Reich, but generally agrees that capitalism is responsible for the type of sexual it y and por nagr aphy we are present 1y exper i enc i ng. The difference in Sable's argument is that he believes acceptable por nogr aphy , i .e. rron--sexi st, nun-coer 1: i ve tr~ateri a1 , coul ci exi st in a sex--positive communist society.

Slrrble argues that the term *pornography' is the rr~ust useful term and he provides this definition of pornography. "Pornc~graphyrefers to any 1i terature or film Cur other art techntzdogical form) that describes or depicts sexual organs, preludes to sexual activity, or sexual activity Cor related organs and activities) in such a way as to produce sexual arousal in the viewer, and this effect in the viewer is either the effect intended by both producer and consumer or a very likely effect in the absence of direct intent inns. "7

Ssble also discusses the utility of the terrrt "erotica" as advanced by feminists. We argues that the term "erotica* just makes fur more confusion and conjures up the notion that sex must be presented in the context of a loving, meaningful relationship tu be acceptable.

Sobleys argument regarding pornography rests on his description of male and fernale sexuality within capitalism, which he claims are atornistic and holistic respectively, Male sexuality is characterized as visual, genital, objectifying, and dismembering, with an ertsphasis on the separation of affection and lave, exhibiting a preoccupation with sex for sexys sake.* Women have a hdistic sexuality because they are involved in work in the reproductive sector, i.e. childbearing and childrearing. Female sexuality is characterized as tactile, affectionate, and nan- ub jecti fying. These di f ferent sexual i ties are a rcsul t of the sexual division of labour.

Sable charges capitalism with the desensitization and desensualization of males which results in penile hypers;ensi- tivity Ca preoccupation with erection and ejaculation rather than affection and sensuality). This desensualization is due to the atomistic, baring, repetitivt. work men are required to do in the product ive sector. Stsble argues that worr~etr 5uf fer frcm alienation/ disrf~emberment syndrcme as a result of male sexuality within capitaliwrt.

The *harmy for Sable is the harm done tct male sexuality within capital ism. The needs of male sexuality produce negative consequences for women, As a result of this damage to ma1 e sexuality, ubjectionable pornography will cctntinue to flourish in contemporary society as a way far men to recoup power in a fantasy realm. He seems to suppc~rtthe catharsis theory when he states that given the present situation, if wen don't have access t12 pornography, they might try to recover lost power by actually physically coercing women. One could point aut that men have access to a wider range of pornugraphy presently than ever before and rape statistics continue ta increase, It would be more theoretically consistent for him to argue for suppression of pornography in that suppression would r ern~>veatr out let far f r us-- tration, which might theM lead to a venting of this anger toward the economic system.

Sot,le refers to social scientific research like that of

Wigqins et a1 i19E81 where he claims there is partial ccwfirma- tion of menys pyefevence for fvagwtentatian of the female body, e.g. "tit-men," or "leg-men". Soble discusses haw men's experience in the workforce, with an emphasis an performance, shapes male sexualityi703 but, there is very little hard evidence produced to support his cot~tentians, Soble refers to research, like that of Gagnon & Simon (19733, which calls into question the nation that men completely separate affection from sex as Suble aim Gagnon & Simlon argue that due to the fact that most sex c~ccurswithin marriage, men do seem to be able to attain both sex and affection to some degr ee, Soble disriti sses this suggestion, claiming that men grow bored with their wives sexually and need pornography and prostitutes, He suggests that the very existence uf pornography is evidence of men's visual, abJectifying, genital sexuality, Fur the rimst part, Sable relies on a wide range af philassphical carmentary, especially feminist commentary.

However, mtuch of the literature Soble draws at? is selectively chosen tct supper t his content ions.

Soble, pursuing his argument regarding the cotmect i on armnq capital ism-male sexual i ty-pornography, maintains that portmgraphy serves as both a stabili zing and de-stabi lizing phenomena,

Pornography serves the ecsnomi c system as a cornrilodi ty which is highly marketable, as an industry which CY eates .jotm atsd br i rigs in tax revenue, and as entertainment for men which acts as a ctivernion to relieve the frustration of alienating wtsrk and munoyamiceus marriage. On the other hand, with pctrnography*s emphasis on recrcat i onal sex, group sex, homosexual i ty, et c., i d under mines the present saci a1 order based on heterosexual, monogamous marr iaye. Rut what SobXe over lads is that while male homusexual material is available, produced by gay men for other gay men, the maJority of the material available is hetero-

sexual .lo Scenes of lesbian sexual ity du occur in hrrterosexual. pornography, but are general ly a ri~aleconstru& ion of what lesbian sex is actually like. (Smith, 1.376; Bunch, 1380; Valverde

& Weir, 1985).

Suhle suggests that given the present content of pornography it is "pernicious enough to warrant some restrictions, even censorship, " C2) but he does not explain what maker ial sho~rldt:,e restricted and which censored. Sob1eys irltirnate thesis is that once capitalism is replaced with communism, pornography will be pr~:~drrced, consumed, and en joyed under di f fer ent social and economic cundi tictns. These conditions wi 11 nut coerce indivi-- duals into participating in productinn, and people will nut consume pcwnogr aphy out of frustration and repression,

Sub1 ess emphasis un rnater ial condi t i c~nsis an i mpruvement over previous perspectives Ghat ignore the economic context,

But, there are numerc~usproblems with Sable's analysis. First, his definition of pornography is problematic and vague. Hater iaX that describes or depicts sexual organs could be sel f-help or sex educational rr~aterial. And what exactly is meant by "preludes to sexual activity" --- that could mean material that depicts kissing?

Soble argues that ma1 e sexual i ty is damaged in capital ism due to men's experience in the workforce. Women, who arc at home, exhibit a nurturing, tactile, not?--shjectionable siiexuality,

Suble ignores the fact that aver half of all married women are in the wlxkforcei1 and that warnen are rncrre subject than men to repetitive, boring, low status and poorly paid work. Fullowing Sable's argument, these women should exhibit sexual ubjectifica-- tion of men. Soble is aware of this puoblem but claims that although many women are in the workforce, they are still nur- turers of children and men and therefore their sexuality remains holistic, Also, he claims that if wcmlen are in the wcwkfurce their .jobs are usually of a nurturing kind so their experience is really different than men's. We insists that as more women flood into the labour n~arkctirr non-traditional .jobs we shouf d expect to see fernale sexuality exhibit the same properties as male sexuality. He clainis there are already signs that this is happening, but provides nu evidence.

I have stated that Soble draws on a great deal of philosophical comrrrentary to sxtppsrt his cctntentions, He refers to and is critical of ferrtinist avgurnerrt, Much of his cri ticisrrt seems contrived. Far example, he clairws that pornography does not transmit political ideology as some feminists claim,

"It is rarely political speech; it is manuf actuued to induce sexual arousal, not philosuphically intellectual ac-- tivity.~~'2

This is di f ficult to accept if one has looked at much pornug- raptly. Pcwnoyraphy can be used to transmit messages regarding ntale power arrd domination of women. I refer here to filnss such as &yn_q.-c-7c~d.-~b,g~gd,(available at Red Hot Video). In this video a young couple run out of gas in a desertnd area and the nmn goes

for help. TWOmen, who came upon the young wornan, abdttt::t her and

Lake her to a shed. They strip her and force her tci engage in oral sex. Then they rape her while bellowing "all girls want to be raped." The men ignore the unman's crying and disccmfort, instead w~ocki ng her. The woman is then dragged t u her knees and anally raped while one man beats her across the buttc~cks. The woman is screaming SO the other wan forces his penis into her mouth and eventually pulls aut and ejaculates in her face. This type of scenario eroticiner; violence and hurniliation avld it is no accident that men are the aggressors in the scenario and a woman the victim. Goblers remarks about the lack of political intention in pornography seems a csntradicticm of earlier discussiun in which he claims pornography is about recouping male power.

Soble seems to anticipate this kind sf criticism when he quickly adds that fantasizing about raping zisrrteune and actual.1 y raping sameone are twu different things. Suble ignores the fact that there are real w~=rmenbeing abused in this type of fi1n.c to provide the voyeur with sexual pleasure. As well, even th~ugh the viewer may feel confident that the women in the film ou pictorial are "just acting", we have first hand accounts from porn actresses, bike L-inda 1-..ovelace, that she was ~ftencoerced at gun point into the sexual acts she performed in big box office hits like Ihge,Ihrna$n How can we be sure when we are viewing a video like the one described ahuve that what we are seeing is consensual activity?

Boble nsai rttains that pl=rrnography i r3 a destabi l iring i nf luance undermining heterase~ual, monogarimus marriage by pr csrmt i ng recreational and homosexual sex. Cant r ar y to what Sob1e suggests, por nugr aphy does not under mi ne sexism, a f eature of our present economic and social system. Pornography must often reinforces sexism tSmith, 1976; Malamuth and Spinner,

1980). As Suble admits pornography is a medium largely fur the expression of ma1 e sexual power.

'The way Soble deescr ibes the impact of capitalism cm male sexuality and the subsequent consequences of that sexuality for woraen is problerhatic. Children learn about their sexuality, what is and is not appropriate, in what ways sexual desire may be satisfied, long before they enter the workforce. Sc~bleappears tu argue that adult male sexuality is shaped by the male's experience in the war kfurce and female sexuality by worr~en's experience in the home. Pt is far more plausible to argue that socialization by family, peer group, church, school, and media, all af which are affected by the prevailing made of production, shape sexuality. However, this shape is not fixed and predictable in every individual ur by gender as Soble would have us believe.

Sable does try to explain, in very ccmcrete ter~~s,why he thinks pornography wi 11 exist in contnrtrnisrn and how it will be different. He also undertakes a discussion of how the pornography i ndustry serves our present eccrnorr~ic system. Soble1s treatise i s not gender blind but in his explanation women become "just vict irtts. " Again, they do not struggle against sexual repression.

Unlike Scble, Stewart C1977) devotes his entire paper to demonst r at i ng the impor tarrce far a rr~avxi st explanat ion of the distinction between obscenity and pcwnography. Acccwding tu Stewart, a capitalist economic system is responsible for the

cv eat ion of the pt.ret~sneutonpor nogr aphy, St ewar L descr i bes por nog-

raphy as a recent histur ical phenomenon cctncerned with per for--

mance and fragw~entation. tlbscenity, on the other hand, is material which has always existed. He defines obscenity as the

desire to represent sexuality in a very public way, especially in

the theatre, where such a display or expression wctuld be con-

sidered a violation of cormunity standards of the time. He describes obscenity as parody and satire exhibiting a kind of

"unideological anarchyW<395),Obscenity, in his opinion, expresses nut contempt for sexual i ty but arr~usement. Obsceni ty,

for Stewart, represents sex as natural and makes no attempt to analyze or understand its mechanisms. Pornography, unlike obscenity, is contrived, ".. .Sex (in pornography:) is neither.. . nat uraX nor is the dr i ve sex f -- explanatcwy, but is a learned and highly skilled activity.. .I# 13 Stewart argues that with the advent of Cl el andFs F%cny-Y&&&

--"",----CC-ondon,J~~~:r a definite change took place in literature with sexual content. It was at this time that Stewart clairr~spaunoq- r aphy was born. Thi s mater i a1 was di f f erent than previ uusl y

available mater ial in that it strung sex~ralscenar icrs together

for the sole purpose of sexual arousal and orgasm.

Sex, for Stewart, is basically a natural good that should be

left to its f:awn devices. Pornography is disgusting to Stewart

because the producers try to force sexcnali ty into a pre--packaged, furmula-r i dden set of iw~personal sex~talmachi rrat i sns, a1 1 very sterile and predictable, Pornography, according to Stewart, is a product which the consumer can rely on to produce a certain state of mind conducive to orgasm. He calls this relationship the

total l y caught up with per forw~anceand achievement, which clearly reflects the values of the capitalist system.

"Modern capitalism has produced not just pornography, but "pornographic man, " a creature only too ready to judge hirnsel f and others cm the standard of "longitudinal" prowess, by telling him that all his other life functions are so .judged in the marketplace so how could he be exempt on this scale of values and validity as well'?"15

Further, Stewart argues that the 1anguage of tho pi eces he considers is di f ferent than earlier material clearly indicating how capitalism began to shape the content of pornography, The characters in Fkg~y-YL&k discuss the value of their bcdi es and sexual skills in the marketplace and the contracts they may enter into with their clients. Stewart insists that pornographic material presenting people as performers or the sum of their sexual organs was not possible before the Industrial Ruvc~lutican.

"...the modern flood of parnography.., tells us less about the problems of our sexuality.. .than it tel l s us about the deep lesions in our soul created by the effects of the,., "free markett' ecar-rorny in areas no one ever wanted to admit are economically conditic~ned.t1 16

Like Soble, "harm" for Stewart, is the capitalist system.

Capitalism has created this objectic~nablematerial and neither the industry nor the material will change until the system changes.

Stewart ' s discussi on regarding obscenity and pornography i s confusing, Obscenity he claims existed largely in the past, mostly in the farm of theatre. Sex was presented as a natural, humorous part of life. After the Industrial Revolution and the advent of capitalisw~,pornography is born. Pornography is described as a contrived media preoccupied with mechanical sex and performance. There is certainly validity to Stewart9s descri~r-- tian of modern pornography, but to say that no parnography existed before the Industrial Revolution is to ignore material

1 i k e Lhg,l,a~ciykgg%-Hyeg!;r_iggL a p i ece di sc ussed by the

Krcmhausens. This piece was written in the 1700's. The story is completely concerned with mechanical sex, makes no attempt to explore sexuality ctr emotion in a serious or humorous way, and was certainly constructed for one purpose anl y, i.e. sexual arousal. %he scenario includes the defloration of a yctung virgin fewtale with the assistance of the young woman*s mother. Also, to claim that only the "obscenity" of the past can be humorous fails to take into account a whole segment of conteru,porary pornographic material, especially film, which is quite cclnsciotnsly produced as parody of general release films, For example, a distributor will produce a film 1i ke f?.~k,Lgggaa which is a satire of Et3~ge~agpp~ the famous Erouke Shield's film. The whale piece is a sexually explicit satire. This criticism simply does not hold.

Stewart insists that the cctntent of pornography produced within the capitalist system reflects the values of per fornance and achievement. It is not difficult to accept Stewart's claim that the content and language of modern pornography could be shaped by the prevailing econ~micsystem or that the nature of sexual r epr #sent at i on has changed t hv ough t i me. However, he ignores the sexist and racist dimensions in pornography. These are also features of our present economic and social arrange- ments.

St ewar t pr esents almost rm evi dence t cr suppou t hi s pssit ion except for reference to material he claims dermnstrates the existence of obscenity an the one hand, and pornography on the other. And he neglects to put forward any sr.rggestion!s for actictn ur change, The implicit conclusior? is that only the Rrevoltrtic~n~ can bring the required changes. This position makes it impos-- sible for anything to be done about porutagraphy right now,

A marxist who does not take the position that we must twait for the revolutiony is McNall i1983). McNall, an educator and sociolcqist, defines pornugraphy as material "whether visual or graphic, that degrades women through the fact of their sex",

Pornography presents women as inferior and may portray imp1 icit or explicit violence against thei,~."l tEroticay, which McNall feels is art important distinctictrt to make, is about "equality ctf erotic experienceUC195).

Far McNalf, pornography is an ideological mechanism which helps to reproduce certain rjc~cialrelations of producticm, in this instance, female subservience, The message sf pornography, McNall claiws, is that sex is under male control and that the wuman as an active sexual agent is threatening. The woman must be dominated and her sexual pleasure subordinated. McNal l also argues that the "free marketT idea in a capitalist sctciety means that war kers are seen as selling their labour power freely without c~=lercictn. This lack of coercion weans, for those involved in the pornography industry, that any woman who suf fers harm or humiliation as a result of her invalvement in pcvna- graphic pruductiun, should not elicit compassion, as it was her choice to participate. In this way, the consumer is absolved of any r esponsi bi i t y toward the per sons i n the por nogr aphy they purchase.

McNall sees women as a cl ass discu i minat ed against because of their biology. A fcwm of this discrimination is porncqraphy which depicts women at out--of-.-cantrol , passive and i trfer ior . Pwncqraphy helps to contribute to female sexual a1 ienat ion and increases the maf e c~t~sun~er5' sense of power , cantr a1 , and super'--- ioPiky.

McNall maintains that in m~odeut~society nten have been a1 lowed to express their sexual i ty and women have not. Because sex is under male control, domination and coercion aye constant; themes in pornography. Fur McNall , the ?harmT frart~pornography is that it is "part of the process of mystification whereby people ccme to internalize rimdes of dcmination and subordina- t ion. " l8 The! harri~i 5 the presentat inn of wcrrnen as nowpeople.

He argues, like Snble, that pornography is concerned with fragmentation presenting wc~rnen as the sum of a series of budy parts rather than active, thinking, feeling sexual participants with needs and desires of their own.

McNall presents anthropological data from primitive cultures to demanstrate how an idec~logicalsystem suppcir ts and perpetuat es male dorfiinance and female subor dinat i on, FCW example, he di s- cusses the Mbum Kpau society of Africa. Men control female reproductive capacity through "exogamy, patr i 1ineal descent and a system of exchange"C187:~. Fines for pregnancy before marriage and ttridewealth at the tiwe of marriage are paid to a particular patri 1ineage in cash or 1ivestsck. Women become a camrnudi ty equated with rrisney or food. Wornen are socialized rtot to want to eat "chicken" because they are like the "chicken", i .e. domesti- caked animals who have no ~or~t~ctlover their reproductive capacity and have their "eggsi1 taken from them by men who then can produce wealth as each child brings a payment from the woman9s family. Tct McNall , the fact that wc~men do nut eat

"chicket~?'and are equated with the "chicken" demonstrates syw- bol ic subordinat ion. Modern p~wnography for McNall is a symbol ir derrmnst r at i ori of the same mal e contu crl . Por nogr aphy i s part of a patriarchal ideological system which develops tc~mediate cun- tuadictions Ireal or perceived loss of power) and to perpetuate the status quo, that is, capitalist patriarchy. In this area,

McNall makes an interesting case for the power of superstructural eleroents in constraining or shaping th~z~ughtand behaviour.

McNal 1 r ecummends that we expose por nogr aphy' s sexism through public education. He feels that in doing this we will be challenging a whole range of practices and attitudes towards

"For us, to challenge pornography as a system of syritbol i c dami nat i43n is to challenge our society's CI pression of women in all its forms." 16"

McNaXl* s arraf ysis ia power ful but there are di f f icul t i es with it. We have already explored the problems with defining par rrogr aphy as degrading. McNall defines pornography as; rrtater i a1 which degrades wc~rrten through the fact of their sex, But what is rr~eartt by tdey~adingthrough the fact of their sex*'? This statement is confusing and could mean that it is degrading to show wornerr naked and involved in sexual activity. McNallys defivrition of 'erotica' is also left unexplained. What does "equality of eirt~tic exper ience" mean? These terms need el abor ad i an.

Second, a1though McNal 1 discusses haw pornography serves capitaXiwn by reinforcing male dominance, the focus is an patri-. archy and not c~nthe industry -- and there is no explicit class argument being made, unless one is willing to accept the notion that women are a class exploited by men as a class. There is a gsl~ddeaf a€ contrcrversy atsout; using 'class* in this rr~anner, thereby suggesting that, for example, working class wortten have more in common with middle and upper class women than with working class males.

Fi t~all.y, McNall * s r ecomnsendat i on that we expose the sexi sm in pcwnography thrc~ughpub1 ic educat ion is i rnpurtant but, a gc~d deal more will have to be done to change a ten billion dollar a year industry.

The mar xi st emphasis on water i a1 conditions in understanding por nc~graptly i s i mpor t ant atld there i s usual 1y some ac knawl edge-- ment of the di fferential treatment of men and women in pornography, even i f that treatment is problematic. The overr id- inq problem with marxist analysis is the claim that pornography wi 11 ei thw disappear in communism or be unobject ionabl e, because it will be produced under dif fsrent social and economic conditions. The problem is that we have no way of testing this hypothetical vision. If patriarchal rebations are ignored or trivial ized, and the subsequent consequences fnr women left unaddressed, it cannot be assumed that a communist society wi 11 be sexually egalitarian ar that sexist imagery and ideology will not be present. Further, communist states, m~has China, have not succeeded in establishing a sexually egalitarian society

Eal t trough irr~port ant i nroads have been made) nor have they er adi-. cated pornography. 20

Mar xi st argument has expanded our under st andi ng of purnog- raptly, by placing pornography in its economic cantext and insisting that we explore the implications of that context. They have examined content and discussed the power dimensions displayed in this media, McNall insists that pornography is patriarchal idealogy used to mediate cuntradictisns and protect the status quo. Marxists insist that within capitalism, sex is cxploi ted as any other marketable cc~mmadity. Never the1ess, there is no speci fic class argument being made. Sc~blecomes closest, cr it i cizing capita1 ism f or the desensit irat i on and desensual i zation of males in the workforce, which distorts their sexuality and produces negative consequences for wowen. None of these cummentators takes wealthy industry mogul5 1i ke Hugh Hefner cw

Bob Eucci one and demnnstrates how they expluit the wor ki nq class, male and female. Surveys tell us that the largest purchasers of bo~lrksand rriagazines in adult bs~~kstoresare white, w~iddle-class, married, educated, white collar males21 . Data collected during the research f ou the 1970 Pornogr aphy Cammission suggested that models fur pictorial magazines were often middle class, single, feniaf e csllege students rtot mewtbers of the wur ki rtg class Froor. A woman cul lege student turned porn mc~del, when interviewed, claimed women participate in production generally because it is

"easy wcwk" and pays well. This particular model stated she was i nvolved became of an artistic intere!%t.22 A cummcln myth scwm to be that prostitutes make up a large percentage of the models fw pornography, yet the same researcher stated that prostitutes were not very likely to be wm3el.s because they could make more mcmey elsewhere. So, there is same doubt as ta whether an explicit class argument can be made an the basis of the available data. We simply dl3 not have a sufficient or ccmtemporary database from which tu make these arguments, Weir i1987) argues that certain struggles do not lend themselves to a simple class reduct ioni st argurutent . Porrtography appears to be one of t; hese struggles. gggka&&s~.-Ee&~~L~ts

Socialist ferrtinists argue that clsr;sism, sexism, and racism are all interrelated systems of oppression in capitalist society,

None of these systerrcs i s titoy e f ut~dawenta1 or deter riti ni nfg t hat1 another. Women's oppression can be traced to both the area af product ion and reproduct ion. In the area of product ion wcmen have provided a cheap reserve army of labour. Within the home, the av ea of r epr oduct i on, women have been Y espunsi bl e for

1) reprciducing a labctur force, i.e. childbearing and childrear-- ing; 25 consuming; 3) providing specific needs for males. These spec i f ic needs have been identi f ied by Jaggar (1983) as emoticmal and physical con'lfor t Iincluding recreat iorral sex) and sttpport to counterbalance the frustratictns of a ccmpetitive workplace.

Socialist feminists reject the liberal view that sex is a private matter for the individual, arguing instead that we have a cuflective interest in sexual freedom, the regulation of sex, and the use of sexual materials, They also reject the tvaditional mar xist view that sex and procreation are not arenas for human c:level crpment .23 Soc i a1is% f emini sts argue that procr~ati ve and sexual activity are socially constructed, therefore alterable, and that transfar~itingthe organizaticm of these human activities could bring about signi ficant change in society in general,

Soci a1i st feminists have on1 y recent 1y ent ered the pornography debate. Most socialist feminists, who have written can this topic, are found in what is referred to as the anti-censorship camp. They ctppose State regulation uf pornography. They $el ieve supporting the use of censorship is ultimately dangerous for feminists, as the same State censorship cuulct be used to suppress feminist and gay publications or presentations. They also are deeply concerned with the alliances that are being made by feminists with conservatives and "New Right" groups. These "New

Ri ght " gr oups have .joi ned f; he anti-pornography campaign for very di f ferent reasons, they be1 ieve sex is potentially dangerous and corrupting. Burstyn (19851 argues that valuable resources are being used to fight pcwnography when these resources w~l~ldbe rfiore effectively spent improving Ghe economic and social corrdi- t i cans of wc~men. She argues that censorship i s danger uus because it puts more power into the hands of the State. Diamond f19851 also opposes censorship because, in her opinion, we need freedom to expl ore our rjextsal ity. Diarmnd argues; for af t ctr nat i ve non- sexist, non--coercive irnagery. Wuhin < 1984) argues for a relaxation of all cwttruls our sexuality and pornography. Rtrbinys cuncer n i s with sexual repression especi a1ly sexual har assment of horrlusextnals, She believes a radical theory of sexuality needs to be develc~pedt c~exami ne sexual behavi our and sexual var i at i on cross-cul tural 1y.

Socialist ferftinists, like Varda Burstyn (19853, insist that the central fccus for the wcmenPs rrrovement should nut be pcwncl- graphy but sexism, Burstyn edited a very controversial book advancing the anti-censorship feminist posit ion. She also agreed to an interview in fbr-grtt w~agazinet.Septentber, 19851 pub1 iskted by

Bob Eiucciorte of Pget;hggsge Er~uu_~is a nsagarine in which readers write in about their own sexual experiences. In this article,

Bur styn el abor ated her ant i --censorship vi ews, Her appearance in this magazine infuriated many rnerslbers of the w~:~rlmen~s community. Bur st yt~ contends that the ant i-par nogr aphy moverfterrt , ai wed at eliminating pornography through censorship, is a waste of femi nist energy and r esources. She ar ryues that "sexi st por nag.- raptly is a product of the economic and sc~cial conditions of our mxiety. . ."24 and that is what must be addressed. These ccmdi- t ions then are what must be changed before sexist pornography will disappear.

",.,Sexist pornography will go away when women no longer need to sell their sexuality and men no longer need or want to look to sexist pictures to find out about sex, to learn what they are suppose to be and want as men, and tc~support their need ta feel superior to women. ct 25

Bur styn dermnds that we exercise extreme caut i on in ucji ng the "punitive, tap-down structure of the State" in controlling sexuality and pornography. What we rteed to cia, in her opinion, is to use pub1 ic resources to teach yccung people sexual responsibility. But, at the sawre tinle, if wstutet~ are not allowed and encouraged to became self-supporting, autanumous individuals, none of the prabl ems women are pr esent 1 y exper i enci ng, i ncl ding ubiquitous sexist pornography, will change ar improve.

Burstyn does not provide a definition of pornography, It can be gleaned from her discussion that she is describing must pornography as "loaded with sesi st vaX ues, " C 17) But, she a1 so makes reference ta acceptable, nun-sexist material. She describes non-sexist material as imagery which depicts sex as fun, outside of marriage and not necessari 1y heterosexual - She points out that these are the characteristics of pornography that conservatives find so threatening. She makes a distinction betweerr sexist and non-sexist pornc~graphy, but does not fully describe or provide examples of ei ther .

Burstyn argues that sexuality is State atxi fftafe-cor~trolled.

She points c~uthow ctstabl ished re1igion has maintained authciri ty and influence in this area. She rerr~indsur; that patriarchal Yudaect-Chr i st i an ideas about sex are important to c~m%ider . She asks us to consider the notions that are promoted by the Church, e.g. the Catholic Church, with regard ~CIsexuality, wc~men9splace in society, the use of cantracepticm, access to abortion, etc.

"Codified in the patriarchal civilization of Jerusalem and Rarne, these ideas reflect a profound rejection and fear of wumenPs autonomy and a sons quent degradation of women's sexuality." %

Burstyn insists that we musit build and contribute to a new sexual culture fused with feminist, noh-sexist , nan-coercive images. She argues for creat i ng a1 t ernat i ve sexual imagery whiuh partrays sexual activity in a positive and egalitarian light,

free of coercion. It is impossible, in Burstyn's opinion, to rehabilitate the existing pornography industry, but possible to courrter its negative and sexist message. "We must work to effect change in the very forrtts of culture that organize and transrtsit

information about sexuality. We have to reclaim our right to a sexrml cul tare, shaped by us, for us. "27 Nurstyn coot inuousl y speaks sn behalf of sexual plurality and the need to encourage nut only mut uaf r es~tect bet ween men and women, but mutual r espect between heterosexual 5 and homosexuals.

Fur Burstyn using censorship as a n~eansof dealing with pcwnography is harmful. She suggests that making pcrnography rather than sexism the focus for the warnen's N~oveNkctlt is dangerous and divisive. She argues that we must work for "eccmornic and i nst i t ut i unal change. is 28

Burstyr? supports her corrterrti(ur~sregarding the dangers of censcwship by presenting a histcwical discussion of the growth of

feminist struggle and the way that censorship has been used to control feminist dissent and dissent i ti general. She demon-

strates how conservative groups and individuals, li ke Mary Brown,

Chairperson of the Ontario Film and Review Board, use existing regulation to suppress gay and feminist material as well as sexually explicit material they cctnsider corrupting. This Board has tried La remove hooks they consider inappropriate from

libraries and to block the use of these bc~oksin the classruom, e.g, Margaret Laurence*s Ih9,Qklih~grs. Burst yn' s historical discussion demonstrates the possihl e danger in current a11 i ances

between feminists and cctnservatives. These coal itions align

feminists with individuals and groups who do not share feminist goals against other feminists. As Hearn i11X?7:B suggests, these

events could be seri otts, car.asing divisi on and cosptation. The

pornography controversy is ctnly one battlegrimnd of the fight

bet ween the gruwi ng @'New Ri ght " and liberal , feminist and socialist forces.

" .. .we have a majoy current of cunservat ive forces, symbolized. ..in Canada by the poli-- tically ambitious Mary Bruwn...For these people, the censorship/legal reform/sucial control strategy is cowfortable, traditional and necessary ....Representative af their increasing strength in Canada is the recent series uf attacks can 1iberal and profeminisit artists; re entless prosiecut;ions of gay publi- cat ions.. . " k

Bur st yn insists that we nsust crront i nu* t o f i qht agai nst sexism can every level, to resist using pornography as a focal point, and abandon censcwship as a way of dealing with poruro-

Burstynrs treatise is pr=rwerful in that it has historical depth, at least as far as censorship is concerned, and she does place pounsgraphy within a capitalist patriarchal framewor k. She argues fur econami c and i nst i tutiunal change, but spends very

1i ttl e time developing that uecornrneutdat ion. A1 though soci a1 i st feminists claim to be camrnitted to an examination of class, gender and race, there is no discussion in Burstynrs treatise of the racism depicted in pornography, In this regard, radical feroinist critique is stronger. Both Dworkin and Griffin discuss the racism prevalent in pornography. Br.nrstynps di~4cus~jicanof sexual ity overcomes the problems in radical feminist analysis by derwnstrating a concern with female sexual pleasure as well as danger. This concern is certainly novel in discussions about pornography. Hawever, she spends sca much time describing the dangers of censorship that she really does not discuss poynography in any depth. As Cole 619893 argues, rmst of the

ra~hy.~'Cole points out that Burstynys appearance it? F"g~rt@ is more dangerous than the possible a11 iances of ant i-porn

feminists. Burstyn, in Cole's opinion, is being openly coopted

Sara Diamond is an exception to Cole's criticisri~regarding

the trivializatiun of pornography in these anti-censorship treat i ses, because she does discuss por nogr aphy . Di arn~md is an artist who speaks and writes on alternative sexual imagery.

Diamond insists that pornography is a cornplex phet~onsenctn with a number of dimensions.

",,,it is a product to be sold by a multimillic~ndollar industry; a set of coded messages about sex and male and female voles in this culture; and a specific form af sexual and cultural activity. "3'

Di armnd asks that we %hink about pornography as a form of adver- t ising for male power, as a form of informat ion abuut sax, and as

a method of having a sel f -sexual experience. Here Diamond i 5

arguing that pornography i s about both sex and pc~wer. She feels

the ivrdustry is selling risen a version of what wale sexual ful fil-

ment entails. Of ten the industry view is durninat ion and cuntrul

of women, Diamond argues that other cultures have produced

interesting and arousing sexual imagery which is nut about power

or control. Her point is important artd would be much more

persuasive with evidence and examples. Di arnc~nd never defines her use of the term *porncqraphy*,

She does discusti the fact; thak not a11 pcwnography is violent and that most purnugraphy is sexist, but she prcwides na definition.

Cier main focus is arguing agairrst censorship and fctr alternative sexual imagery.

Di amand be1i eves sex to be a human gotxi. Pornography, she claims, however objectionabl e, does depict women as sexual beings, She argues that women need to reclaim their sexuality and initiate dialc~gueregarding sex and sexual imagery both within the women's wtovement and without.

" .. . we must wsr k tc~repossess our sexual i ty, through tiex education and the production of sex-posi t ive irfiagery, and through changing the econort~icand social pusi t i an of women and men -- steps that will undermine the de-- 11 32 mand f I:I~ sex i st i mager y .

Di anrond also bsf i eves that non-soxxi st;, non-cowci ve? pmnogr aphy cc~uldbe an acceptable adjunct to sexual life.

The 'harm9 far Diamond is in using censorship as a way af control 1ing ar suppressing pornography. Because we need freedom to explore and express our sexuality we must not put move power intct the hat~cfsof the State. This increased pccwer will only lead, in Di anmt3dvs opi rtion, to hay assment and repressian t:by social control agencies heavily influenced by the conservative view. I)i amond does not approve of sexi st and/or vi ol erst pornography, but tihe believes that pornography only reflects as much sexism as is in the culture, Pornography, she claims, reflects already existing prejudice and discrimination and is used by men to cwercome their fears and insecurities.

Diart~ond rmintaitlss that porrrography 1%a v~en's issue which men should be dealing with, as they are largely the producers, distr ibutora, and consumers. Porn is about ma1 e sexual farttasy, not female sexual fantasy, and women do not buy much pornography.

When you examine the content of pornography it is not difficult to understand why wsr(~en do nc~tbuy rrruch pornography. The erw phasis is on ma1 P sexual arausaX and orgasm not or) exploring areas of possible sexual arousal for wc~men. And, women are uften depicted in objectionable ways, For example, in the film yg&

F%qk, a woman performs fellatio on one man while being vaginally penetrated by another, These acts take place with the wcrrnal.1 kneeling an a curved, wnoden park bench. It is clear the woman is uncomfurtable and experiencing pain. The canleva is quickly averted if too much discm~fortis registered, and the scund track is overdubbed with Musak, The video ends with both men ejaculaf-- ing in the womans face simultanec~uslywhile she grimaces disgustedly,

"Far women, watching porn can draw us into a complex knot af pleasure and discsmfcwt. While we may be aroused by the sexual activities depicted, must of us cannot avoid identification with the woman...Whatever pleasure we experience is often mixed with anxiety about our own sexuality being so di f ferent from that shuwn and anger at being forced irrto a role that does not reprcsetst who we art? and what we need sexual ly. 1133

Diarmnd dues not use much research to suppor t her arguments, but rather r el i es on cormon sense regarding the schism bet ween image and actual behaviuur. She ignores the problem that real women are used, and sometimes harmed, in the product ion of film and pictorial pornography. Her argument that pornography is

"mer el y i rnager y" i snFt very per suasi ve.

Diamond's strength is her description sf pcwnography as a compl ex phenomenon. Rather than ar guing for censor ship and repression, she stresses the need for fveadum in exploring sexuaX i ty, Even i f there are object i oesatrle i rnagezi of wornen available in our scciety now these can be offset and challenged by f emi ni st irf~ages. Diamond ul t i mat el y argues that the resawces of the wcmenYs movement would be better spent gaining access to the media Cshe suggests a woman-contra1 led television station).

Once this access is accomplished, the media could be used to disseminate alternative feminist ideas and imagery, In Chis way, the sexist and sometimes violent message uf pornography could be contradicted.

Pinally Di amurrd, 1 ike Burstyr?, argues that what is requi red

gani zati on bud, she does not expand on t hi s st atemerbt . Di arr~crnds prescriptions are: 13 public dialogue and educaticcn an sex and pornography, and 2) the pruduction of feminist a1 ternative i mager y . Diartmndps ar gumtent at tempts to transcend the stagnated censorship di 1emma and explore other issues and a1ternatives.

She also places pornography in its economic and social context and asks us to consider the implications of its presence, arguing that it is a complex phenctmenon which is cctncerned with both sex and power. However, Diamondrs analysis is not without flaws. In the first place, ;he never provides a definition of pornography, although it is clear from her discussion that she recognizes that much pornography is sexist and a 1imi ted amount cc~ercive.Second,

Ui amand argues that par nagr aphy on1y ref 1ect s as much sexisrn as is present in the culture. In her view, pornography does not have a trajectory of its awn. This is difficult to accept. The enorrmus growth in the industry since World War I1 is evidence that the industry is creating a market for pornography which did not previously exist. The fact is that pornography fi11s a need for sexual expev i ence and i n f or mat i on whi lc h cannot be f i 1l ed elsewhere. This 1eaves the average individual, especi a1 1y young peopf e, open to the pounopr aphy industry's view of sexuality, male and femal e sexual relations, sexual practice, etc. The pornography industry can myst i f y sexual re1at ions by depicting male sexual aggression, for .rl-xample, as normal 34 and/or making r ather uncarmon w+rrual pr acti ces, e. (3. group sex, appear corr~.-- monplace CZillman and Bryant, 19823. Pornc~graphyis not just a reflection of cultural attitudes and beliefs, it is an active agent in perpetuating a wide range of ideas about sex and sexual r el at.i ons.

Finally, Diamond*s recornmendation that feminists gain access to the media is important but, .just as Bw~tynhas clearly dens~xrst~ated,prevai 1ing I2ensor Boards Ce-g. the Ontar i ls Fi ln.1

Review Bc~ard)are likely to go after ferninist productions. Gaining access to the media and being able to fund serious alternative projects will be very difficult. These difficulties do not mean that we should abandon the project, but making a1ternat i ve irlsagev y a r oaX i ty and as widel y accessi ttl e as porn~~g- raphy wi 11 be an enctrmous task.

Of a11 the irr t i cles appearing in Bur stynPs book, Di arrlondr s is the must satisfying analysis. Mowever, both Eurstyn and

Diamond spend a good deal of time warning against the dangers af censorship. Cr iminal sane t ion, Custums regulation, and Censor

Boards have been the methods employed by the State to deal with parnography. These methodc are Xikely to be utilized whether we approve of them or not. We can continue to warn against the dangers of censurship, but the chances are that this method will cant i nue and social i st f emini st s wi 11 have no i nput i rbt u pr opcrsed legislatictn or the language of prupused lugislatinn, leaving

i nput f r ortt the women9% rtlovetrrent open to other st r earlis of

feminism, such as radical feminism. I question the wisdom of this stance,

An interesting sub-group of the anti--censorship camp is what

Heart1 C19871 refers to as the pro-sex camp. feminists from this

sub--gr oup, nlost not ably Bay1 e Rubin, argue far an aut sr7icmous theory of sexuality. In Rubinvs earlier work, such as

"t~af~&~.-tr_?-Wgg!gr_?L. she developed the concept of a sex-gender system and argued far i trj fundamer~taland deternii ni ng i rr f luence on the individual, a position which is cc~nsistentwith the

%mia1 ist fen~inist theoretical Cramewmk. But she argues that neither mar xisrn nor Feminism are adequate theories to deal with sexuality.

Rubi n aygues that sexuality is a realm imbued with conf lict and pc~lilicalsignificance. She insists that in some historical periods sex has been more politicized than in others. She points to the 19th century sscial ~lovementsaimed at el irninat ing

I1 vice. "35 These rnor a1it y crusades apai nst mast wbati c:m, pros-- titution, obscene literature and abortion have left scars and uncomfortable, anxious attitudes about sexuality. Rubin rewinds us that in the not so distant past, i.e, the 1950'5, this mar- ality crusade centred an homosexual panic. During this time the label of "sex of fender" was created, with a concarnitant burst of new leyislation to protect the public. These new laws gave psychiatrists and pal ice more power over sex variants.

Rubin maintains that beginning in the late 1970's we began to enter another period characterized by attacks on sexual behaviour by conservatives and re1 i gious fundamental i st s. She argues that there has been an increased crackdown on prostitution and obscenity. Public panics arc; creaked avcturkd issues such as

"child puunography" followed by restrictive legislation. She claims as a result of a scare around homosexual recruitment sf the young in 1977 some States have brc~ughtback laws against both nudity and sexual activity, especially if it invulves the young,

These laws actually make pictures of nude children in anttirs-- plnlogy texts or educational filmr; illegal. 4-55 well, instructors could be technically charged for showing the films ta any one under eighteen. Rubin warns that much of the legislation that is produced as a result of these moral panic% is "ill-ccmceived and misdirected"\(272). As well as undermining or rerrlaving sexual freedoms, these laws will have far-veachiurg effects on sexual freedom in the future. She claims that the "New Right" is now involved in the stuugple around sexual freedom, includirrg the use of puvncqraphy. The "New Right" has a frightening political agenda. The Ri ght wi 11 attack organi zat i ons, 1i ke PX armed

Parenthactd, and try to remove funding, because they believe these organizations are part of a communist conspiracy to undermine the family and the moral fabric t::~f North American life.36 The Right has discovered that issues like pornography can mobilize huge numbers of individuals. She refers to the growth of the Moral

Majority in the United States and the Citizens for Decency in

Canada. These organirations have Large memberships and extensive f inanci a1 resources. They can use these resources to influence public s~pinicmand/or public officials, lobby congress for legislative change, and block passage of bills like the ERA, tu which they are opposed.

"Periods such as the 18€30Tsin England and the 195OVs in the U.S. recodi fy thc r el at i ons of sexual i t y. The st u uggl es that were fuught leave a residue in the f~rrmof laws, social practices, and ideologies which then affect the way in which sexuality is experienced long after the immediate conflicts have faded. 1137

Rt.rbin realizes that ik is very difficult to informed dec i sictns about sexual i ty and pornography when there is such a lack of develc~pedradical thought in this area. She, like many others, conspl ai ns that a theory of sext~alit y has not been developed and integrated inta existing theoretical perspectives.

According to Rubin, pol it ical analysis of sexuality has been marginalized, overlouked ccmpletely, or denigrated in existing soci a1 themies. She criticizes 1i beral themy, mar xism and mainstream fsminisrn for their lack of attention to this area.

Rubin recuw~mertdsa model for a thy ee-par t def i ni ti ors of pornography, legal, historical, and sctciological. First, she claims, ptxnqqraphy is illegal, that i s, pornography is bei ng described in legal definitions as sexrmlly explicit material whose sole purpose is to arouse sexual desire. The point she i.5 making is that in North America, material with a clear sexual aim is not cmsidered 1egi t i mate and wi l 1 not be extended const i tutiunal protecticm as speech, ie.g. Roth vs. U.S. (1957). The historical segment of the definition would attempt to contrast current pounugraphic material with past farms, for instance, rather than nude paintings cof lecked by wealthy individuals for private showing, we now have mass-produced, commercial sex in the

form of the "cheap, dirty book",38 film, video, and periodical.

Last, pornographic production takes place within an established

industry utilizing a specialized group of sex wurkers producing a specific kind of product with recognizable conventiunsi, sold in certain places in particular kinds of ahsps, etc. Rubin insists

that pornography can be described in concrete sociological terrnti.

Rubin criticizes grclups who define pornography as violent That way they avoid having tu answer the empirical questiun of how much pornography veal ly is violent. ".. .i f you walk into an adult bookstore, ninety percent; of the material ytx& will see is frontal nudity, intercourse, and oral sex with no hint of violence or coercion. It 39

Rubinys position on and khauacterizatiun of sexuality is complex. She calls for a re-evaluation of sexual hierarchy in hlorth America, According t;o Rtrbirt, this sexual hierarchy is one we are a1 1 knowingly or unknc~winglyperpetuating. She refers kwre to the hierarchy that puts good, normal sexuality at the top, i .e. heterusexual , married, rnunogammus, procreative sexuality [she adds here the couple also does not use pornography). From this ideal sexuality there is a gradual dawnslide starti ng with hetercrsexual unnlar r i ed coup1es; heter usexual , prumi rcuuus individuals; monogamous, homosexual coup1 es; and event~rally i t~tothe "outer 1imi t s" of bad, abnor ma1 , sexual ity where promiscuot~sbclmctsexual s, transvestites, sadornasochis2;~, etc. reside.

This sexual hierarchy is reinforced by other institutions in

Nmr th Amer ican sac iety. Same re1igions hold procreative marvi age to be the single ideal form of sexuality. Psychology, Rubin argues, prctmates heterosexual i ty. She also maintains that social theory such as feminism or marxism does not challenge this single ideal sexuality. She calls fur increased anthropological work in this area to create understanding regarding sexual variation-

Rubin insists our culture treats sex with suspicic~n,sexual variation with panic, and appears to need an excuse Crtiarriaye, romantic love, or procreation3 to indulge in sex.

The *harm? for Rubin is multiple. Harm steins from our rigid, anxious sexual attitudes which cause sexual panic and persecution of humusexuals. Groups or individuals in fused with this panic often initiate or promote i 11--car~eivedand dangerous legislation. There is alsc~harm in the feminist anti-pornography movemenl, especially when they argue that i f we got rid of purnugraphy we will get rid of violence against worfien.

Rubi n, urtl i ke alrrs~atany at her co~~ti~errtator focuses; on sex research (c.g. Einsey, 1'353; Weeks, 19773 and the budding schol-- arship on sex, Ce.g. Faucatnlt, 19783, According to Rubin, this is the type of research we need to be doing. She insists that we must escape frcm "sexual ecseetrtt i a1i ~m", €sex as a t r anshi stari -- cal, unchanging, natural force) and work toward a description of sexual i ty, not as the dermrsi c, ctt~cut~trol1abl c force of 1i bi do, but as a social cunstructicm which can change thrc~ughtime and with corrtext.

Rubi nV s pr escr i pt i uns are myr iad. She argues that the existence sf pornography at least creates some area of sexual freedorti, even if the material itself is sexist. She calls for a relaxation of all controls on se:t;~.tal behaviour, including age sf consent laws, and a11 controls on pornography. She calls for increased tolerance for sex variants and a commitment to sexual pluralism. Rubin supporls efforts to create alternative non- sexist imagery, sex education, and more pub1 ic dialogue from women about what they want and need sexually. But, she maintains, these constructive measures are not the ones being promoted by anti-purnography f eminists.

In Rubin's opinion, pornography should be about sexual freedom, variation, and experimentation and i f it does not challenge sexism, racism, or homaptmbia, then it is not the liberating force it claims t13 be. Atld, Rubin insists, if it 1% violence we are concerned about we are 1odking in the wrong place. Rubin insists that we can not ,just focus on the purnography industry, we have tu 1oak at the way the en* i re fhass media functions to reprc~ducesexism. The novel element in Rubin's analysis is her emphasis st? the develc~pmentof radical sexual theory. Shc suggests, in very concrete terms, which researchers and theorists might be drawn upon tu lay the conceptual ground- work, develop critical language, and provide historical depth.

Rubin argues that feminism cannot continue to confuse sex with gender. She asks us to remember that just as marxism cannot proper 1y explain and addr ess gender i nequal i t y, because i t was nett designed to du so, neither can feminism answer properly questions regarding sexual it y.

Rubin's histcsvical discussion of sexual repression and moral panic are illuminating, And, her warnings regarding the activities of the "New Wight" are important, Rlthc~ughRubin pruvides a rrtodel to use in developing a satisfactory definition of pornography, she does not make it clear what purpose this type of definition would be serving, Would it be a definition for legal purposes, for discussion, for research3 It is difficult to evaluate the usefulness of a definition i f one does not know what purpose it is meant to serve. And she has not made it clear what type of material she would include in the category "pornography1*.

Finally, her claim that pornography is illegal is perplexing.

Fornography is widely available, not illegal. Her ~4eaningand intent is entirely unclear.

Rt.rbin9s call for a relaxation of controls on consent laws ir; disturbing. It appears that Rubin is cccndsning adult-child sex.

Rubin also argues that we car? not .just focus cm pornography, we have tu understand the way the entire mass media reproduces sexism. The problem with this approach is that pornography gets

~;rivj.alijred.~'How %exism f~~nctionsin the mass media is impor-- tant to the wc1menps rmvement, but that dues not make a critical examinat i an of pornography point less. Last, Rubi n argues that neither marxism ncw feminism as a theory can adequately address sexuality. It is unclear how sexuality could be looked at adequately without examining it within the ecot~orrric and social context; af the particular historical time frame in which it is being considered. It may be that sc~cialistferr~inisrn is not in a posi tiorr, as Weir f i987> argues, to get irtvolved with sex research, but an analysis of sexual pal it ics can be provided.

However, social ist feminists have not yet ful ly integrated sexual politics into the existing theoretical framework.

The devel oping soci a1i st femi ni st; analysi s i s i rftpor t ant and promises to advance and broaden our understanding of pornography. Als13, because of socialist ferninitit ccmmi tment to examining the re1at ionship bet ween class, gender, and r ace, t hi s per spect ive cca.tld overccme the limitations of radical feminist and scme marxist analyses, which have carrcerrtrated on either gender or class, rather than a consideratictn of all three. Also, because they oppose state regulation of sexual i ty and psrnogr aphy, socialist feministsr analysis is nat attempting to marshal1 facts or produce evidence ta further exacerbate the censorship con-

flict. Further, they are committed to both exploring female sexual pleasure, and contributing to the creation of female

SCIV;L~~culture, and exposing the exploi tat ion of wc~men in clmkern- porar y p~rnogr aphi c imagery and product ion, But, however prclmising and challenging the developing sctcialist feminist

critique is, it is not without shortcomings and there is ifsore ICE be done.

First, socialist fen'linisits get caught up in warning against the dangers of censorship and neglect to explore pornography.

And, although they are concerned with material conditions, a full analysis of the industry has not been done. We need to under-

;it and the pol it i caf economy of pounogr aphy bef or @ we can develop strategies for change. As Currie (1'38'3) suggests %he censorship

debate has diverted socialist feminists from developing a critique c~fpr~ductictn. Last, their "no-censorship" at all stance is not entirely convincing with regard to coercive pornography

Cinvulunt ary bondage, physical assault , rape, murder, and

adult/child sex). They have not sufficiently dealt with the ser i ous quest i on of the cant i nued pro1i f eration of this ial. Socialist feminists have only recently entered the cantroversy surrounding pornography. They, as a group, have been making significant contributions to the areas of wcmen's labour, the reproduction of mothering, and the develupment of a feminist psy~::tmanalysis. One underdeveloped area has been that of sexual i t y and pornography. Thi s t~eglec t has 1 eft thew unprepared to deal with the tier ictus imp1 icatictns of the anti-pwt~ography movement. Therefore, they have been drawn into the debate as a reaction to explanatiuns and prescriptions generated by radical feminists, rather than in a position of leadq?rship.41 Tt7i.s underdevelcspnseurt has left the terms of the debate and strategies

for change open to others, such as the radical feminists.

1% is hard to distinguish 4ljocialis.t; feminists from liberal

feminists in the anti-censorship rhetoric. Socialist feminists appear tcl be involved here as generic They have made alliances with liberal feminists and civil libertarians as a tactic to muunt a successful response to prescriptions of conser vat i ves and radical f emi ni st s, However impart ant these alliances my be at the public level, it should not prevent us at the analytical level from developing a critique of the pornog-- raptly industry as a capitalist, patriarchal institution with certain aims and vested interests. As Valverde states "we have tct understand what pornctgraphy is, how it came to be deveiuped, when, where, and why, and what purposes it serves in tho larger social scheme...then we will be in a better position to criticize pornography.. .and lay the foundation for its absl itiun and r ep 1 ac emend " .43

I will draw on Weir's mudel of sexual politics in Chapter VJ to suggest huw we might incorporate a critical examinat icm of por nugr aphy and the pornography industry i nt a a theory of sexual politics. CHAPTER V ENDNOTES

A1 an Sob1e, Pgy~ggyaphyi_Marzkzris~~.-Efn~i"t?.L2~~-511d,-t;hg~~~g&qy~-~$ Sexu_gf&t_y, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986) p, 57.

Ibid., p. 2.

Soble, p, 12.

Ibid., p. 10.

Ibid., p. 50.

fbid., p, 105.

Har ol d Nawy , "The Er ot i c Mar ketpl ace" , L~g,h_~~.c_g~-~~eeg~:$$"-g~ thn-M~LXm!&izf ns-c!sr?_Ohsc.t~~ik~-a~clclf"~u_~~~~r~~~h~~-~h~-.~~~k~~~: p&g~g;,,E~~ir&gg~-S_t,g~Lgs_~Vcrl . 4, 1968-70, p. 163. In Sat? Francisco Nawy identified 47 retail outlets for 'Ladult sexual1y-or iented ma-S;eri dl, Only thy ee stores catered tu the ma1 e hormsexual . However, apart f ram nine stures which carried nu homosexual material the ather stores had a

1ine of male nude maga-'.G x nes.

Margrit Eichler, "Women, Families and the State" in Joan Tur twr anrj l...oi 5 Emery (eds. 1 ~gcgegctk~s-u,n_n_n_~grng~rrhn_n_ttlcr;. &28PLg, (Winnipeg: University of Manbitoba Press, 1983) p. 113.

Douglas Stewart, "Puunography, Obscenity, and Capitalism" in J71g.-&~tLc(~-%e_v_tgw_ 35 CFal 1, 1'3'771 p . 398.

Ibid., p. 398.

Ibid,, p. 396,

Ibid., pa 398. 18. Ibid., p. 182.

19. Ibid., p. 200.

20. "War Declar ctd on Obscet~eMater i a1s" , &egjhp,_Eqy&qy 31, August 5, 1985, 28, p. 8-9.

rdr. C Nawy, p. 180-81.

24, Uar da Bur styn, "Pol f t i cal Precedents and Mor a1 CYusades: Women, Sex and the State", in Varda Burstyn (ed.:) &xne~ g,(Vancouver, B. C. : Doug1 as t MC In t yr e Ltd., 1'3851 p. 24.

26. Ibid., p. 21.

28. Ibid., p. 30.

29, Ibid., p. 16.

31. Sara Diamond, "Pornsgraphy: Image and Reality" in Varda bur st yn Ied. 3 ~~ggfi-fiqa&~j~t-C~~s~~~hke

32. Ibid., p. 40.

33, Ibid., Fr- 49.

34. Ibid., p. 42.

36. Xbid,, p. 273-274,

37. Ibid., p. 274. 38. Gayle Rubin, Diedre English, Amber Hollingbaugh, "Talking Sex: A Convey fiat ion on Sexual it;y and Femi ni fim" in Eipgjws~&zg Egyjz 58, 1981, p. 56.

39. Rutiin, "Talking Sex.. ." p, 57.

40. Cole, p. 145.

41. Lorna Weir, "Socialist Feminism and the Politics of Sexual i ty" , in Meg Luxtun and Heather Maruney , FpmjfiLs~ignc~ F_g&~t~g~L-~c_~r,qg~y,(Qnt ar i o: Met heun Pub1 i cat i ons, 1'387 3, p. 77.

43. Mar iana Valverde, "Purn~x~rapkry",in C. Gr.ibeurvtan and M, Wol fe (eds.) blIr,_Sqfg_PLPgg, (Toronto: Women's Press, 1985), p. 135. CHAPTER VI

In this chapter I will be discussing the outcome of ctur critical examinat ion of the canservati ve, 1i beral , feminist , and marxist/socialist feminist perspectives on pornography. I will reiterate the results of our discussion of definition and then proceed with a brief summary of the manner in which each perspective deals with the matter of definition, the characterizatiun of sex, the way in which harm is defined, the evidence which is prodrsced to suppor t contenticma, and the prescr i pkicms for change. I will argue that none sf the explanations is satisfac-- tory, but that the socialist ferrtinist theoretical framework appears useful for examining psrncgraphy and the pornography industry if, as Weir argues, a ~iex~talpolitics is integrated into sucialist feminist theory. I will suggest how a critical examinat ion of pornography miyht be incorporaled into this model.

i>gfifl"tkpn,

It is clear, after a consideration of the use of definitiurr and terminology by the commentatctrs from the di f ferent perspectives, that the problem of a definition of pornography and the indiscriminate use of di f fevent terminctlctgy make useful discussion of the issues di f ficult and the implications of much research uncl ear . The probl ems with t ermi no1 ctgy and def i ni t ion appear to derive from carelessness and a serious lack of consensus. There does appear tt=t be agreerrtent that the term tabscenityp is obsolete and should be abandoned. The term par nogr aphy has been i dent i f i ed a5 the move appr ctpr i ate t erm for material currently available. The speakers we have considered seem divided aa to the usef~tlneriisof the term terotica.x X have suggested we build on the terrft qpornography' using demarcations,

1i ke coercive pornography, when necessary. s%~~;ndru-af-th~-..!3~~1?.ec~i..vd~

The conservat i ves character i 243 both sex and pornography as potentially dangerous and therefore in need of control. Sex is descv ibed a5 an uncontrol lable natural fcwce, The conservatives we have considered do not provide a definition of pornography therefore we do not krtow what rrraterial. is included or excf uded in their use of the term. The harm for conservatives is the anti- social behaviaur and attitudes which result from the widespread availability of pornography. Cc~nservativosprovide very little social scienkific evidence to support their clairns, but rely on impassioned rhetoric ctften cc~uchedin re1 igious notions of the sanctity of sex within rrtavriage. Conservatives do not examine porncqraphy in i ts ec~nc~mic context, and the arguments are both gender and race bl i nd. Conrservat i ves general 1y argue for blanket suppression of pornc~graphy.

Liberals, in an attempt to overcome the condemning attitude uf conservatives toward sexual i ty and pornography, argue that sexuality and sexual expressiion are irvtplxtant and must be protected. However, sex is often characterized as a powerful, natural farce which mrrst be expressed cw ser imrs scic i a1 con-- sequences wi 11 r esul t for the individual and society

(e.g. Eronhausensl. Only one of the liberals we considered provided a vague def irtit ion of pornography. The harm fur liberals is censorship of pornography because it violates constitutional guararttees to free speech. They argue that censorship can alscl endanger other mater ials. L.iberals uf ten provide social scientific research tc~support their claims which makes their overall posi ticin persrmsive. A1 thc~ugh1 iberals oppose censor ship, sorf~e1 i berals Ce. g. Di xon 1 do condone srrppr es-- sion of adtrl t-child pornography or visual material in which it could be proven that participants were physical 1y harmed. The

1i beral perspective is an i mprovernent over that of the conserva- t ive. St i 11, liberal analyses are often gender and race--bl irtd and they ignore material conditions.

Conservative and 1iberal perspect i vas discuss pornography as concerned with sex, nut power, and they do nut deal with the implications of the sexism prevalent in pornography. Liberals often get caught up in discussing the evils of censorship, even arguing that censorship creates the desire for "sadistic" por nog-- raptly (Goodman, 1970). Very little is said in ccmservative and liberal analyses regarding the commodification of sex and/or the pornography industry.

As a reaction to the lirnitatiorrs of conservative and liberal argument, feminists began to develop a different analysis.

Li her a1 feminists argue that por nil7rgr aphy, because i t per pet uates the sexual object i f icat ion sf women, impedes the progress of wcmten to improve their status in seciety. Some liberal feminists

Ce.9. Ridington3 argue that there is a connection between coercive pornography and violence against wcmen. Li her a1 femini sits believe sex at~dsexual expression ta be an inkportant human gctod, but they argue that freedom in sexual behaviuur and sexual expression has not been extended to wlmen, liberal feminists are divided on whether or not censcwship is an appropriate method ctf dealing with porrrography. Liberal fentirti stsy desire to expose the sexism prevalent in pornography and the imp1 icat ions fur wtmer? of the continued presence of pornography, is an i~provement over liberal argument. But, liberal feminists neglect material candi tions and the racist dimensions in pornography.

Radical feminists insist that pornography is the propaganda and rape the pr act ice, Far them, por nogr aphy i s misogyni st ideology used by men to keep wamen ir~a state of subordination.

Pornography is said ,to teach men how to dominate and coerce women. In this way, pornography poses a real threat to women's safety and should be suppressed. A1 1 por nogr aphy is char ac-- terized as violent, no definitions are provided by the radical feminists, and worwn are portrayed as the victims of ma1.e sexuality. Male sexuality is characterized as inherently aggressive and sadistic, In the radical feminist view, women's pleasure in sex is denied. The radical feminists discussed in this thesis, exawtirte actual pieces of pornography to support their claims, occasional ly drawing on social scienti fic research. Much of the pcwnography they discuss is selectively chosen ~CI support their arguments, Both Dworkin arkd Griffin discuss the racist overtones in pornography. Last, radical feminists ignore material conditions and discuss patriarchy as i f it is ahistorical and universal.

Marxists, like Soble, argue that capitalism shapes male sexuality and that shape (objecti fying and genital ) has negative consequences for women. Sob1e argues for sextral freedorit, but believes that a "natural, free sexuality" will not occur in capitalism. Only in communism could non-objectionable pornography he generated because it would nut be produced by econcmi-- cally coerced wage labour, Ml~stof the ntarxists dealt with in this thesis did provide definitions 05 pornugraphy albeit prohle--

~nakicWWS, The harms for rrtarxists are the economic system and its damaging effects on the huriian being. Marxists generally do not recorrttrrend cerrsor ship, a1t hsugh Gobl e st at es that some rrratevial (never speci f ied) might warrant suppression. Marxists dc~ not recurrtw~er~dcensor ship because t hay are suspicious of the

State, which is often characterized as an arm of the duritinant cl ass. Mar xi st s do not exanri ne the porriogr aphy industry, sex workers, clr the economics of pcwnography as one might expect.

Mar xist s do ccmsi der gender. in thei r cr i t iques, but the racist dimensions in purnugraphy are ignored.

Soc i a1 i st f emi ni sts di scuss pornography in i t s soci a1 and economic framework. They deal with ritaterial csndi t ions, gender, and race, However, on1y Diamand esplicitly ackrmwledges racist tfi ner~sionsi t-r pornography, Because of soci a1 i st f erni ni st commitment to examining the relationship among class, yendar, and race, this perspective could overcome the lifftitaticsns of radical

feminist and sctme mar xist analyses which have concentrated on

either gender or class, However , the areas of sexual ity and pornography are underdeveloped in suc i a1 i st feminist theory. It

is only recently that social ist feminists have entered the "sex debates" and the pornography controversy. Socialist feminists

argue that sexuality is socially constructed and therefore a1 terabl e. They maintain that sexual i ty and sexual expression

aye impor tant and a1 1 individuals, whet her homosexual or het er o- sexual, shctuld be extended tolerance and freedom in this area.

Pornography is seen as a mani festation of the sexism already prevalent in society. Socialist feminists argue that the focus

for the womenps muvement should not be on pornography, but on

changing the social conditions which produce sexism. However

c~bjecti.onablepolrrrography is, they argue, it sti 11 depicts worfierr

as being sexual. They suggest that a1 ternative feminist imagery

can be generated to contradict the negative view of male-fermfe

sexual relations depicted in much pc~rtmgraphy. None elf the

socialist feminists discussed in this thesis provides a defini-

tion elf porncqraphy. Rubin suggested a model far a definition,

but not a definition, Because socialist feminists have focused on

censorship and sexual repression, they provide histor ical data

and arral ysis to s~tbstanti ate %heir content i orxi regarding the

dangers of repression. Due to this preoccupation with censorship they tend to neglect an examination of pornography. The harr13 for socialist feminists considered in this thesis is using State intervention as a way of dealing with pornography. They insist that censorship will cmly be used to suppress gay and ferrtinist rnater ial as we11 as other material deemed undesirable by pal ice and censor boards, e.g. Lbg Divingys,

Although a gocd historical case can be made fcw the folly sf censurshi p, the socia1 iut femini st "no-cet.rsw !%hip at aX 1 " stance is troubl ing with regard to coercive pornography. Their argu-- rnents tend to ignore our social obligation to prevent harm. If we are striving to be a non-violent, egalitarian tiociety, valuing choice and cunsensuality, it is difficult to .justify allowing this material to proliferate. By alltlwing coercive pcwnugraphy to be distributed, we appear to condone the actions depicted.

These acts are illegal and we prosecute individuals for cormit- ting them. The claim could be made that the violent acts depicted are simulated or that the participants agreed to the treatment. If people (often women) in videos, for example, are being pushed down, slapped, and forcibly penetrated, this is not sirmlation. The question for us, as a society, is do we allow this material to be circulated because the person, for whatever reason, agreed to the abuse. Wendel 1 C 1983) and Di xon ( I6Xb?) recormend that if participants can prove that they were harmed during product ion of pornogr aptly, the mater i a1 can be suppressed.

Wendell has suggested that i f the pub1 ic is c~ncernedabout certain pornographic material, the producers and distributors certain pornographic material, the producers and di%tributors should have to prcive that the depictions in question were simulated and/or that participants were of legal age. If these producers could not provide these assurances, then the rnater ial should be suppressed. Another way to prot ecL sex wor kers wolsld be to help organize them into guilds. These clrganizakiuns c~=luld warn members of potential danger, boycott pr uducers who are generating coercive material, ar help workers to lay charges if they have been harmed. Last, there is no discufision in socialist feminist critique regarding pornography that depicts adult /child sex. These depictions are the graphic pwtrayal of child sexual abuse. It seems i rrespunsi bl e to i gmx-e kiddie porni1, HCIW can we generate alterrtative irf~ageryto ccmtradict the nsessage of

"kiddie porn"?

Finally, sacia1 ist feminists have the necessary theoretical framewcwk to examine pornography, but they have yet to prcwide a comprehensive analysis. Weir claiwts this fact is due to a lack of integration of sexual politics inkc1 sclcialist feminist theory.

Weir, a lesbian, is acutely aware of socialist ferltinist reluctance to deal with lesbianism and sexuality in general, the fear being that identificaticm with lesbianism will lead to marginalization. Socialist feminism has seen its responsibility as elucidating the connect ion kbetween class relatic~nsand gender relations. As a result of this preoccupation with wclmen's labcur in and out of the workforce, a sexual politic has not been articulated and has largely been left to liberal and, especially, radical feminists. It is only since 1'382, Weir clairns, that socialist feminists have entered the "sex debatesn and the pornography controversy, largely in reaction to the analysis and rec~:mmendat ions put forward by radical feminists. In these debates and in di scussi on5 st.,trr oundi ng pornctgr aphy, soc i a1 i st

feminists argue like generic feminists. In the area of purnog- vaphy ~iociafistfeminists were looking for alliances with liberals and civil libertarians to blcick anti-pmrtmgraphy forces.

Therefore, sacial i st ferni rti st5 m.tppress t t~eir sccia1 i st agenda sc*

as not to be avoided by possible allies on "anti-socialist grounds" (77).

Weir argues that the ti me has come fur sctc i a1 i st f ewi nists

tci claim sexual pol it ics fur socialist feminism and provide dir ect i on for the women s movement in debates on p~:w nogr aphy and sex regulation and help an "ailing lesbian feminism" (831.

f nterest ingl y, Weir argues that saci a1 ist feminism must be able to accomrmdate both class and non-class issues, or what she calls "popular dcrwtcratic struggles", i.e. those not directly ccmtrol led by capital . She be1 ieves being involved in these struggles pvuduccs cross-class all iances which strengthen the wc~rfien's movement, politicize, and broaden socialist feminist reach and effecti vetless. She r efers t o st r uggl es around r eproduct ive r ights, daycare, sexual harassment, etc.

Weir maintains that an explanation of sexual pdit ics should

include a considerat iun of five important areas: 1) sexual repr esentat i 12n Cscxual art , womenr 5 romances, soap opeu as, and por nogr aphy; 2) sexual violence against warnen Crape, incest , sexc-tal harassrr~ent, international trafficking in wcmen% bodies;

3) sexual pleasure; 4) service trades (prostitution, pornography production, phone sex); 5) sexual minorities. She states that all of these areas need development. Weir's suggestions give us a place to begin conceptualizing how we should apprcectr research and analysis. But, that is all it does; provide us with a sketch.

Building on Weirps rrmdel, I suggest that in areas (1) and

(43 a critical examination of pornography could be integrated.

In the area of sexual rqwesentatic~nwe could provide a history of pornography, data on cross--cultural variation, and content analyses, which are desperately lacking in all spheres, i.e. f f ction, fi lrnand pericdical , In the area of sexual reprer;etrta- tion we could ccmtitrue to (13 explore pornography as patriarchal ideology and the various ways that its sexist message can be cc~ntradicted; and (2:)the contention that coercive p~=trnographyis connected to sexual abuse (e,g. Ru%sellvswork). Area (43 could incorpccrate a political ecotrorrly of pornography: product ion, distribution, and cansumptian. There is data produced by the

Tr af f i c and Dist r i but ion Panel fcw the 1370 Parnclgr aphy

Comlrtissiovl in the U.S. , which attempts to dexri tre segnserkts of the industry Ce.g. sexplc~itationfilm prc~ductiotr)and the costs and profits of this segment. An evaluation of this data w~>uldbe an excellent place to begin. However, this data may accurately describe the status of the irrdustry irr 1970, but twenty years later there cc~trldbe r;ubstan2;ial changes; examining the shi fts and changes rftight tell us a great deal. The pornography industry is made up of discrete segments which have different needs and requirements Csee Figure 1). Fur example, in the area of film and vi dco pr sduct ion, the producer must have technicians, cas- tumes, lighting, sets, sex workers, etc. These needs would nut be the same in the area of pornographic paperback fiction.

Further, the marketing and distribution sf filrtts or periodicals are different,

------II I Video I I Periodicals I

L "dl

films I I Figure 1.

Within each segment, prciductiun, distritrutiun, sales, and the status and treatment of sex workers would have to be cc~n~idererj to produce a comprehensive analysis. Second, very 1 ittle is known about sex wcwkers; who are they, how are they recruited, what is their experience in this labour market, and what are the econmics involved? We need more and contempcw ary informat ion about consumers; who are they, what are they buying and why, and what is the corftposition of this group (e.g. class, gender., race, age), and is this compctsi t ion changing through time? The must

i wtpovt ant of these uecsritrlmendat i ems for sot i a1 i st f eri~inist s i s the devclapmant of a pol i tical ecctnumy of pornography which has not been done. Recauwi? they have focusied t heur y and analysis on the relations sf prodr..tction, socialist ferrtinists seer($well suited to this task. Me need to initiate and stimt,tlate dialogue on this project. Bachy, Victor. IvDanish Permissiveness Re~isited.~~Journal of Communications, No. 1, 1976, p. 40-43.

Barry, Kathleen. Female Sexual Slavery. N.J.: PrentiCe Hall, 1979.

Bart, P.B. and Josza, M. ItDirty Books, Dirty Films, and Dirty Data." Lederer, L. (ed.) Take Back the Niqht: Women on Pornoqrawhy. N.Y.: Morrow, 1980.

Bartky, Sandra. ttNarcissism, Femininity, and Alienation." Social Theory and Practice, Vol 8, No. 2, Summer 1982, p. 127-43.

Ben-Veniste, Richard. Vornography and Sex Crime: The Danish Experience." Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornoqraph~,Vol. 111, 1970.

Berger, Fred. 9?ornography, Sex, and Censorship." Copp, David and Wendell, Susan, Fornoqraphy and Censorship. N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1983.

Berns, Walter. ItPornography vs. Democracy: The Case for CensorshipN. The Public Interest, 22, Winter, 1971, p.12.

Brownmiller, Susan. Aqainst Our Will. N.Y.: Simon 4 Schuster, 1975.

Bunch, Charlotte. mIntroductiontg. Buildinq Feminist Theory: Best of Quest (ed.) Quest Staff. N.Y.: Longman.

Burstyn, Varda. (ed.) Women Aqainst Censorship. Vancouver, B.C.: Douglas & McIntyre Ltd., 1985.

Butler, M. and Paisley, R. ItThe Consciousness Scalet1. Women and the Mass Media. N.Y.: Human Sciences Press, 1980.

Chodorow, Nancy. Motherins: Psychoanalysis and the Socioloqy of Gender. L.A.: University of California Press, 1978.

Clark, Loreene. "Liberalism and Pornography." Copp, David and Wendell, Susan. (ed.) Pornoqraphy and Censorshie. N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1983.

Cline, V.B. (ed.) Where do You Draw the Line? An Exploration into Media Violence, Pornoqraphy, and Censorship. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1974.

Cole, Susan. Pornoqraphy and the Sex Crisis. Toronto: Amanita Publications, 1989. court, J .H. Vornoqraphy and Sex Crimes: A Re-evaluation in the Light of Recent Trends around the World." International Journal of Criminoloqy and Penoloqy, 5, 1976, p. 129.

Court, J.H. ttSex, Violence: A Ripple Effectw. Malamuth, N.M. and Donnerstein, E. Pornoqraphy and Sexual Aqqression. Orlando, Fla. : Academic Press, 1984. Currie, Dawn. The Socioloqy of Censorship: New Questions for Old Answers to the Problem of Pornoqraphy. Unpublished conference paper, October, 1989. Davidson, W.P., Boylan, J. and Yu, F.T.C. Mass Media: Systems and Effects. N.Y.: Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1976. Diamond, Irene. "Pornography and Repression: A Reconsiderationw. Siqns, Vol. 5, 1980, p. 690. Diamond, Sara. "Pornography: Image and Realityn. Burstyn, Varda (ed.) Women Asainst Censorship, Vancouver, B.C. Douglas d McIntyre, 1985, p. 40. Dixon, John. B.C, Liberties Association Submission on pornography to the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution in Canada. Vancouver: B.C. Liberties Association, 1984. Donnerstein, E. "Aggressive Erotica and Violence Against Womengt. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholoqy, Vol 39, No. 2, 1980, p. 269-277. - and Hallan, 3. "Facilitating Effects of Erotica on Aggression Against Women." Journal of Personality and Social Psycholoqy, Vol. 36, No. 11, 1978, p. 1270-1277. - and Malamuth, N. Pornoqraphy and Sexual Aqqression. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press, 1984. Dworkin, Andrea. Pornoqra~hy: Men Possessinq Women. N.Y.: G.P. Putnam and Sons, 1979. Eisenstein, Zillah. Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism. N.Y.: Monthly Review Press, 1979. - Feminism and Sexual Equality. N.Y.: Monthly Review Press, 1984. Eysenck, H.J. and Nias, D.K.B. Sex, Violence and the Media. N.Y.: Harper Colophon Books, 1978. Faust, Beatrice. Women, Sex, and Pornoqraphy. England: Melbourne House Publishers Ltd., 1980, FeTqUBOn, Ann. 9?atriauchy, aexual Identity, and the sexual Revolutionw. Signs, 7, (I), Autumn 1981, p. 158-72. Finn, Geraldine. "Patriarchy and Pleasure: The Pornographic Eye/Iw. Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, Vol, 9, No. 1-2, 1985, p. 81-95. Friedan, Betty. The Feminine MyEiti~ue, N.Y.: Dell Publishing, 1963. Friedan, Betty. The Second Staqe. N.Y.: Summit Books, 1981. Fulford, Robert. "Dream World of the Sex Magazines.lt Saturday Niqht 77, 1961, p. 7-19. Gagnon, John and Simon, William. Sexual Conduct: The Social Sources of Human Sexuality. Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1973. Garry, Ann. "Pornography and Respect for Womenw. Social Theory and Practice 4, 1978, p. 395-421. Goldstein, M.J. et al. nExposure to Pornography and sexual Behaviour in Deviant and Normal Groupstt. U.S. Commission on Obscenity and Pornoqraphy, Technical Reports VII, 1970, g. 10. Goodman, Paul. "Pornography, Art, and Censorshipw. Hughes, Douglas (ed.) Pers~ectiveson Pornoqra~hy. N.Y.: St. Martin's Press, 1970. Griffin, Susan. Pornoqraphy and Silence: Culture's Revenqe Against Nature. N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1981. Hart, H.L.A. Law, Liberty and Morality. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1963. Hearn, Alison. the Feminist Debate About Pornoqraphy in Canada. M.A. Thesis, Communications, Simon Fraser University, 1987. Henslin, James M. and Sagarin, E. The Sociolos~of Sex: An Introductory Reader. N.Y.: Schocken Books, 1978. Holbrook, David. The Case Aqainst Pornoqra~hy. Lasalle, Ill.: A Library Press Book, 1973. Noward, James L., Reifler, Clifford B., and Liptzin, Myron B. wBffects of Exposure to Pornography1I. Technical Reports of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornoqra~hv, Vol. 111, 1970, p. 97. Hughes, Douglas. Pers~ectiveson Pornosra~h~.N.Y.: St. Martin's Press, 1970. ~yde,H.M. A History of Pornography. N8Y.: Farrar, Btraus, and Giroux, 1965. Hymn, Stanley E. "In Defense of ~ornography.'~Hughes, Douglas (ed.) Perspectives on Pornoqraphy. N.Y.: St. Martin's Press, 1970. Jaggar, Alison. Feminist ~oliticsand Human Nature. Sussex, England: Harvester Press, 1983. - and Struhl, Paula. Feminist Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical Accounts of the Relations between Women and Men. N.Y.: McGraw Hill, 1978.

Kaite, Berkeley. "A Survey of Canadian Distributors of Pornographic Materialw. Workinq Papers on eornoqraphy and Prostitution, Report #17. Canada: Dept. of Justice, July, 1984.

Kallan, R. and Brooks, R. ItThe Playmate of the Month: Naked but Nice." Journal of Popular Culture, 8, 1974, p. 330.

Kappeler, Susanne. The Pornosraphy of Remesentation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986. Keating, Charles H. "Report of Commissioner Keatingw. The Report of the U.S. Commission on Obscenity and Pornoqrauhy. N.Y.: Bantam, 1970, p 578. Kristol, Irving. nPornography, Obscenity, and the Case for Censorshipe8. New York Times Maqazine, March 28, 1971, p. 23.

Kronhausen, D. and P. Pornoqrawhy and the Law. N.Y.: Ballantine, 1964. Kutchinsky, Berl. "The Effect of Easy Availability of Pornography on the Incidence of Sex Crimes: The Danish Experience." Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 29, No. 3, p. 163- 181. LaBelle, Beverly. 'ISnuff: The Ultimate in Woman-Hating". Lederer, L. (ed.) Take Back the Niqht: Women on Pornoqraph~, N.Y.: Morrow, 1980, p. 272. Lacombe, Dany. Ideoloqy and Public Policy: The Case Aqainst Poenoqraphy. Toronto: Garamond Press, 1988.

Lederer, Laura (ed.) Take Back the Niqht: Women on Pornoqravhy. N.Y. : Morrow, 1980. McCormack, Thelma. "Machismo in Media Researchn. Social Problems, Vol. 25, No. 5, June, 1978. McKay, H.B. and nolff, n.3. "The Impact of Pornography: An Analysis of Research and Summary of Findingsw. Workinq Papers on P~rn~qra~h~and Prostitution, Report #13. Canada: Dept. of Just ice, 1984. McNall, Scott. "Pornography: The Structure of Domination and the node of Reproductionw. Current Perspectives in Social Theory, Vol. 4, 1983, p. 181-203. Malamuth, Neal and Spinner, Barry. "Longitudinal content Analysis of Sexual Violence in the Best-Selling Erotic Magazinesn'. Journal of Sex Research, 16, 3, 1980, p. 226-237. - and Donnerstein, E. HThe Effects of Aggressive Pornographic Mass Media Stimuliw. Advances in Experimental Social Psycholoqy, Vol. 15, 1982. Maroney, Heather and Luxton, Meg. Feminism and Political Economy: Women's Work, Women's Struqqles. Ontario: Metheun Publications, 1987. Miller, Russell. Bunny: The Real Story of Playboy. London: Michael Joseph Ltd., 1974. Millet, Kate. Sexual Politics. N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970. Mitchell, Juliet, Psychoanalysis and Feminism. N.Y.: Pantheon Books, 1974. Morgan, Robin. Goinq Too Far. N.Y.: Random House, 1977. Mosher, Donald L. HPsychological Reactions to Pornographic Films". Technical Reports of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornoqraoh~, Vol. VIII, 1970, p. 255. - wSex-Callousness Towards Women". Technical Reports of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornoqraphy, Vol. VIII, 1971. - and Katz, Harvey. wPornographic Films, Male Verbal Aggression against Women, and G~ilt.~Technical Reports of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornosraohy, Vol. VIII, 1970. p. 357. Palys, T.S. "A Content Analysis of Sexually Explicit Videos in B.C." Special Committee on Pornoqraphy and Prostitution, Workinq Paper #IS. Canada: Dept. of Justice, 1984. Penrod, Steven and Linz, Daniel. "Psychological Research on Violent Pornography to Inform Legal Changew. Malamuth, N. and Donnerstein, E. (eds.) Pornoqraphy and Sexual Aqqressfon. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press, 1984, p. 247-273. Polsky, Ned. Hustlers, Beats, and Others. Chicago: Aldlne eublishing, 1967. Pornoqraphy and Prostitution in Canada: Report of the Special Committee, Summary. Ottawa: Department of Justice, Communication and Public Affairs, 1985. Prspper, M.H. @'Exposure to Sexually-Oriented Materials among Young Male Prison Offendersn. Technical Reports of the U.S. Commission on Obscenity and Pornoqraph~, Vol. IX, 1970. Reich, Wilhelm. The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Resulatinq Character Structure. N.Y.: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1945. Reiche, Reimut. Sexuality and Class Struqsle. Germany: Verlag Neue Kritik, 1968. Richards, David A.J. The Horal Criticism of Law. Encino, California: Dickenson Publishing Company, 1977. Ridington, Jillian. Freedom from Harm or Freedom of S~eech? A Feminist Perspective on the Regulation of Pornoqraphy. Discussion paper prepared for the National Association of Women and the Law, February 18, 1983. - Confrontinq Pornography: A Feminist on the Front Lines. Vancouver: B.C., 1989. Rist, Ray. The Pornoqraphy Controversy - Chanqinq Horal Standards. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1975. Rossi, Lee. Whore vs. the Girl-Next-Door: Stereotypes of Women in Playboy, Penthouse, and Oui." Journal of Popular Culture, 9, 1975, p. 90-94. Rubin, Gayle. "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the Political Economy of Sexw. Reiter, Reyna (ed.) Toward an Anthropolosv of Women. N.Y.: Monthly Review Press, 1975. - ItThinkinq Sex: Notes for a ~adicalTheory of the eolitics of Sexualityw. Vance, Carole (ed,) Pleasure and Danqer: Explorinq Female Sexuality. Boston: Routledge t Kegan Paul, 1984, p. 267. - English, D. and Hollibaugh, A. "Talking Sex: A Conversation on Sexuality and Feminismw. Socialist Review 58, 1981, p. 52. Russell, Diane. "Pornography and Violence: What Does the New Research Say?" Lederer, L. (ed. ) Take Back the Niqht : Women on Pornograuhv. W.Y.: Morrow, 1980. sargent, Lydia. (ad.) Women and RWolufion: A Discussion of the Unhappy Marriase of Marxism and Feminism. Montreal: Black R~~~ Books, 1981. Schipper, Henry. nFilthy Lucre: A Tour of America's Most Prof itable Frontier". Mother Jones, April, 1980, p. 31. smith, Don. "The Social Content of P~rnoqraphy.~Journal of Communications, 26, 1976, p. 16-24, Soble, Alan. Pornosraphy: Marxism, Feminism, and the Future of Sexuality. London: Yale University Press, 1986. - "Pornography: Defamation and the Endorsement of Degradation1'. Social Theory and Practice, Vol. 11, No. 1, spring, 1985. Sontag, Susan. "The Pornographic ImaginationN. Styles of Radical Will. N.Y.: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1966. Steinem, Gloria. Outraqeous Acts and Everyday Rebellions. N.Y.: New American Library, 1983. Stewart, Douglas. Vornography, Obscenity, and Capitalismn. Antioch Review, 35, Fall, 1977, p. 389-98. Stoller, Robert. Perversion: The Erotic Form of Hatred. N.Y.: Pantheon Books, 1975. Sunderland, Lane V. Obscenity: The Court, the Conqress, and the President's Commission. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprises Institute for Public Policy Research, 1974. Tong, Rosemar ie . "Feminism, Pornography and Censorship1I. Social Theory and Practice, 8, 1, 1982, p. 1-17, Valverde, Mariana. ''Pornography. Guberman, C. and Wolfe, M. (eds.) No Safe Flace. Toronto: Women's Press, 1985. - and Weir, Lorna. "Heterosexism and State Regulation: A Problem not for Lesbians OnlyM. Burstyn, Varda (ed.) Women Aqainst censors hi^. Vancouver: Douglas & HcIntyre, 1985. - Sex, Power, and Pleasure. Ontario: The Women's Press, 1985. Vance, Carole. (ed.) Pleasure and Danqer: Explorinq Female Sexuality. Boston, Mass.: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984. vivar, Mona A. "The New ~nti-Female Violent Pornography: is Moral Condemnation the Only Justifiable Response?" Law and esvcholoqv Review, 7, Spr inq, 1982. Walker, Eugene. "Erotic Stimuli and the Aggressive Sexual Offenderw. Technical Reports of the U.S. Commission on Obscenity and Pornoqra~hv, Vol. VII, 1970, p. 91-147. Wendell, Susan and Copp, David. (eds.) Pornoqra~hyand Censorshie. N. Y. : Prometheus Books, 1983. Weir, Lorna. "Socialist Feminism and the Politics of Sexuality". Maroney, H.J. and Luxton, H. (eds.) Feminism and Political Economy: Women's Work, Women's Struqqles. Ontario: Hetheun Publications, 1987, p. 69. - and Casey, Leo. "Subverting Power in Sexualitytt. Socialist Review, 75/76, May-Aug, 1984. - and Zaremba, Eve. "Feminism and Gay Liberat iontv. Broadside, October, 1982. Wiggins, J., Wiggins, N. and Conger, J. "Correlates of Heterosexual Somatic Preferen~e.~Journal of Personality and Social Psycholoqy, 10, 1, 1 (1968), p. 82-90. Zillman, Dolff and Bryant, Jennings. ttPornography, Sexual Callousness, and the Trivialization of Rape." Journal of Communications, Vol. 32, 4, Autumn, 1984. s55za=~l~-., . _Rope Burn 1/1-56 Teenagers In - Bonclaqe, 3 2 - 54 00 APPENDIX II

lQ8.5- For information call: 1-213-462-6745 NEg? B&D PLEASURE presents ... C.all TO]l Free1 1-800-826-7703~~r<~rrs o,,~~.,

- . . , EL,t..;! 8 . Toi?t~tmant! pml. U S& M FUN Rai:etl 8 -- 35 minutes of spanking anti q 0 ,_,~~...,yr:i h 50 rn~nutesof exciting actioil. S89 plus $3 for post- tit wilipping. Plus :20 minutes of the best of the B&D S line. . . $59 plus S,3 for postage and handling. 0r. 9,' age and handling.

ouv 1 - yen. nuv 3 - :!fi,?? ANY 6 - S30.00 ANY I2 - S55.00 R.B.L. SALES BOX 39434 ANY 24 - S99.95 ALL 36 - 3139.95 Los Angeles, CA 90039

please ,nclude shlpp,ng chalqes 01 SI D[I lor each (tern to nlaxinlum $11 00 Please double Z ANAL BABES 3 GlRL LOVING GIRLS 0 LICKING LESBIANS lo, a,, lomax,mum 527 00 AII lo~elgnolder8 must include shlppln9 cme~o(5200 r ASS PARADE ;HANGING BREASTS 0 MILKY MAMAS ,tern doublPthese lor air ATTENTIONFOREIGN CUSTOMERS.payment accepted InU.S.dollars only. . :BLACK GlRL REVIEW :I: HEFTY MAMAS ;1 POPPIN' MAMAS BLACK & LUSTY TI HOT LEGS 0 PUSSY POKING ACCI NO BOTTOM 3 HOT WET PUSSYS 0 ROOMMATES CHUNKY ASSES 3 KINGSIZE 0SHAVED .DILDO BABES LATIN BABES 0SNATCH 0 VISA s AMOUNT OF ORDER S L ERECT NIPPLES 0 LEGS & ASSES 0SPLIT BEAVERS :7 FANNY C1 LEGS-LEGS-LEGS 0 STRIP TEASE :FINGER FRIGGIN' 3 LESBIAN GIRLS 0 SULTRY BLACK DOLLS SHIPPING CHARGES 5 :7 FLOPPERS 0 LESBIAN LOVERS 0 TIP TOP FOI C 0 U ': ': GEISHA GIRLS 0 LESBIAN SEDUCTlOir TITS 4 U APPENDIX IV

Partial list of available magazines

Mayfair Chunky Asses Hustler Sweet Ass Bust Parade Sweet Asses Cheeks T.V. Queens Bottom Big Bust Vixen Fanny Hanging Breasts Legs and Asses Kingsize Legs Boobs Lingerie Tits 4 U Hot Legs Tit Hangers Standing Tall Ass H~les- Legs Legs Legs Leg Parade Hot Wet Pussies Leg Show Hefty Mamas ~ipTop Floppers T.V. Treats Erect Nipples The Queens Busting Out Drag Queens Anal Babes T.V. Switchers Strip Tease Les Femmes Crotches Skirts Up Latin Babes Tease Ladies in Lace T.V. Lovelies Ass Parade Knockers & Nipples Split Beavers Foxette Shaved Gent: Home of the D-Cups Geisha Girls Club International Melons & Mounds Celeb Milky International H&E Monthly Milk Fiesta T.V. Action Adam Naked Nymphs Men Only Hot Buns Torso (for men) Eros Mandate (for men) Skinflicks Blueboy (for men) French Pussy Penthouse Female Flesh Playboy Baby Face Peach Fuzz Pussies Rapier B. Kaite. "A Survey of Canadian Distributors of Pornographic Material". Working Papers on Pornography and Prostitution, Report #17, Department of Justice: Policy, Programs, and Research Branch, July 1984, p. 59.