My opinion is that no consenting adult is demeaned by acting in a pornographic movie.
To ask who is a victim in pornography is similar to asking who is victimized by public use of profanity. Usually we think of children. Child prostitution is morally indefensible, according to our standards that acknowledge the profound psychological damage caused on the children. However, prostitution and pornography are not the same concepts, and although pornographic images are sometimes made using child prostitutes as “models†the terms should not be conflated, because there is no direct causal relationship between pornography and prostitution.
To discuss child pornography is only to identify one situation, and should not be the sole basis for opposing pornography as a whole. Think of it like alcohol use. In general, we accept, advertise and enjoy the use of alcohol in the United States. In general, we also vehemently oppose and fear underage use of alcohol. Yet, most people don’t call children victims of most social uses of alcohol, even though children do sometimes become involved with it. My point is that the phrase “child pornography†should be kept separate from “pornographyâ€Â
Anais Nin, the Marquis de Sade and many others write pornographically, while many novelists have sex scenes that would be describe more as erotica or sensual in their depictions. Of course, since the term “sadism†was derived from de Sade’s name, we can guess correctly that many of his books has violent acts associated with the sexual content. Yet, a lot of this diction is tricky, sometimes too vague or ambiguous to be philosophically precise. Does sexually explicit refer simulated (not actual) sex between to well-known actors erotically rubbing nude bodies together, or does it refer to actual filmed penetration or ejaculation of some sort? Explicit in normal usage means “clear or obvious,†rather than implied, so we have to ask if that is the same as actual sex in pornography. The same goes for “obscene.†Obscenity to one person is blasé another.
In 1973, Miller v. California, the Supreme Court tried to clarify obscenity with the following sentences: “material can be judged obscene if, taken as a whole and judged by community standards, it appeals to the “prurient interest†in sex, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value. Whoa. Seems to have some inherently contradictory opinions here. Patently offensive material is obscene? To a virgin, some sculptures of nude men may be patently offensive, but that does not make it obscene to everyone. Lacking political value? You mean that the often-corrupt power struggle associated with government known as politics is considered wholesome (the antonym of prurience?) Give me a break. And to say it is obscene if it lacks artistic merit is to ignore the centuries of works of art that have caused many groups of people to be “patently offended.†(See, for example, the racist depictions of Black Americans in 1800’s-era paintings.) What is prurient interest, anyway? “Marked by arousing or unwholesome interest or desire?†Extrapolate that defintition. Who gets to say what “wholesome†is. If wholesome means not showing sex or violence, then much of adult live in industrial society would be obscene. So, in consideration of this slippery notion of “obscenity,†I would prefer to say that pornography cannot be explained by attaching the vague notion of obscenity to it.
Overall, I would argue that there are very few cases in which victims are borne from use of pornography. I can think on one case, where it can be argued that the vast abundance of pornography made available to use so quickly can be damaging to some married couples. The way some sociologists make this case is that men or women view pornography with such admiration for the physical beauty and sexual talents that they come to either (a). feel less compelled to have sex because of a low self-image compared to porn stars or (b). begin to regard their spouse as dramatically less desirable compared to porn actors, and will therefore sometimes spend hours masturbating to pornography rather than having intercourse with their spouse. But again, if you know most people, they can use pornography without any disruption to their sexual and loving relationships.
1908
