XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography (19 page)

If pornography offered only intellectual knowledge, it would be far less useful. After all, women already can discuss any sexual theme they wish and still remain "respectable." So long as the sexual expression remains a scholarly discussion, the law takes no notice of what women say.

For example, a woman can declare, "I am a lesbian, because it is the purest expression of woman's dignity and true nature." Such a statement is not only acceptable, it is often applauded.

But let lesbianism be portrayed in words or images, which are meant to be vicariously enjoyed, and the legal system perks up its ears. Knowing about a sexual preference is one thing.

Experiencing it is quite another. Even if that experience is vicarious.

Some people believe that open discussion should be enough to provide women with information about sex. But a crucial element is missing. Women still don't have a sense of how it feels and feeling is what sex is all about. Sex is not about intellect; it is about emotions. Women who watch pornography acquire emotional knowledge about themselves. By indirectly experiencing a wide range of sexual scenarios, they discover their reaction to them.

If a woman listens to a lecture on bondage, she will learn which activities constitute that subgenre of sexuality. She may come to a conclusion about what she thinks about bondage.

But if she sees a movie in which a woman straps a man down, the images will spark emotional responses. She will move closer to discovering how she feels about bondage.

Perhaps the sight of a man tied down to a bed appeals to a woman who has never felt sexual power. Perhaps she is frightened or repelled by the sight. Even these reactions-usually 76

considered negative-are valuable. They indicate where that woman draws the line dividing pleasure from pain, excitement from disgust.

In an essay entitled "Talk Dirty to Me," Sallie Tisdale gave a sense of the emotional information she derives from watching pornography:

"Not all I felt was arousal. There are other reasons for a hurried blush. . . . I felt a heady mix of disgust and excitement, and confusion at that mix. Layers peeled off one after the other, because sometimes I disliked my own response ... when my body is provoked by what my mind reproves.

"[2]

2. Pornography strips away the emotional confusion that so often surrounds real-world
sex.

It is important to emphasize; pornography is not real. Pornography is words and images. It allows women to enjoy scenes and situations that would be anathema to them in real life.

Women who could never handle the guilt and emotional pressures of an affair can indirectly experience the thrill of one. And feel no shame in doing so. .

Why? Because pornography is fantasy. And fantasy is not just some form of attenuated reality.

Like dreams or metaphors, sexual fantasies cannot be taken at face value; they should not be taken literally. A woman who daydreams about seducing her neighbor might be genuinely horrified if a glimmer of interest appeared in
his
eyes. A prudish woman might fantasize about a wild threesome in which 'She throws her inhibitions into a corner along with her clothes; if such a situation cropped up, she might run, with all sincerity, in the other direction.

A fantasy is a wholly artificial situation. It is artificial in a number of ways. For one thing, there are no real-world consequences. By this, I mean: No diseases are communicated; no romantic spur-of-the-moment promises are made; no marriage vows are broken; no children result; no disturbing intimacy is possible. All the dilemmas of real sex are avoided.

The woman exercises a level of control that is never possible in the real world. If the sexual action in a video distresses her, she can hit the off button. If it bores her, she can fast-forward.

The characters that draw her are just that: characters. They are not real people to whom she must apologize or send thank-you notes the next morning. They are not people about whom she needs to tell her husband. Pornography is innocent exploration.

Pornography allows a woman's imagination to run wild. And nothing on earth is more human than wondering "what if." It allows women to wonder, What if ... I were lesbian ... into leather ...

a virgin again ... ? What if all the worries and criticism of the world fell away, how would I react to sex then?

Pornography can help us become more self-aware sexually. When we are ready to reach out to another human being, it will not be out of ignorance. It will spring from informed desire.

3. Pornography breaks cultural and political stereotypes, so that each woman can
interpret sex for herself.

Women who enjoy pornography are often contemptuously dismissed as "psychologically damaged" by the new feminist puritans. This is especially true if the depiction they enjoy shows something that is considered especially "degrading." The epitome of such a scene is, one in which a man ejaculates onto a woman's face.

But judgments like "degrading" do not come from anything objective within the pornography itself; they come from the subjective evaluation of the observer. Degradation, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

77

For example, when I view pornography in which a woman seems to get real pleasure out of fellatio, it never occurs to me that the woman is psychologically damaged. It never occurs to me that she has fallen in love with her own oppression. I wonder how it feels.

Antiporn feminists undoubtedly believe that my identification with her pleasure is nothing more than evidence of
my psy
chological damage. I contend that the woman who enjoys fellatio represents a totally different interpretation of a blow job than that offered by antiporn feminism.

She represents a different opinion in action.

Pornography can be likened to dreams or other nonliteral forms of expression. Interpretation is extremely personal. Even those sexual acts that are considered to be
prima facia
degrading to women-like ejaculating on a woman's face-are wide open to interpretation. Radical feminism considers such an act to be the quintessential humiliation of women-case closed. It is the subordination of a woman to a man's pleasure, which puts him in a position of power.

But is it?

Consider the perspective offered by James R. Petersen on come-shots: "What makes ejaculating on the outside degrading ... while ejaculating inside ... sacred? Do guys learn to come on a woman from porn or from premature ejaculation? ... For that matter, masturbating guys ejaculate on their own bodies all the time, and not one says, Òh God, I just degraded myself.' " [3]

Many interpretations can be attached to coming on a woman's face. In the introduction to
Perspectives on Pornography: Sexuality in Film and Literature,
Gary Day offers a Freudian (and unsatisfying) analysis: "For what the man does in ejaculating over the woman is in a sense to replicate the role of the mother giving milk to the infant.... [P]ornography does not show, as some feminists have claimed, a hatred of women but rather a desire to become like them. "[4]

Other people-more attuned to the commercial aspects of pornography-claim that come-shots are there purely and simply to prove that the male
did
ejaculate, that he was excited by the sex act.

The woman's response of smearing the sperm or tasting it is nothing more than proof that
she
enjoyed and approved of the act.

Still others observe that women are particularly interested in seeing come-shots because men's ejaculations are generally hidden from them. In "normal" sex, women never see men come. To some of them, it may be as seductively elusive as the glimpse of a breast or lace panties is to a pubescent boy. In this context, the come-shot can be interpreted as almost romantic: The woman wishes to share in her lover's orgasm.

My point is not that any one interpretation is "correct," but that the delightful diversity of human nature allows for many interpretations, none of which are inherently right or wrong. They are all subjective. They are all benign.

But,
if any one interpretation should be given extra weight, I think it should be the view of those attuned to the particular subgenre of pornography being viewed. People outside a subgenre cannot realistically judge its nuances any more than people who dislike cheese can judge Brie.

After all, when fantasies are not arousing, they all tend to seem ridiculous.

For example, I now understand gay pornography only because gay friends went to the trouble of explaining what particular interactions and pieces of dialogue meant. They knew the slang, the body language, the literary/movie references, the rituals of being gay. Until they clued me in, I felt like a tourist who only barely spoke the language. I suspect the same is true of other subgenres, like S/M; they can be best understood and explained by those who appreciate them.

The appeal of S/M cannot be explained by people like me, who cannot get past a bad reaction to.

Scenes like a man licking a woman's boot. I see nothing of the tease and the flow of mock power 78

that's supposed to be there. I only see what the act would mean to me; and this reaction rather misses the point. The point is: not everyone responds the way I do.

When I try to open up to it, I can almost understand the attraction of S/M. I know the appeal of scratching the back of a man on top of you, of biting a shoulder, of wrestling on the floor or making up after a fight. A vast number of people find such mild and harmless "violence"

stimulating. Why shouldn't a small minority of them enjoy carrying it one step farther?

But when a fantasy expresses violence, people hesitate to acknowledge that it can be benign and beneficial. Take, for example, one of the most common fantasies reported by women-the fantasy of "being taken," of being raped.

The first thing to understand is that a rape fantasy does not represent a desire for the real thing. It is a
fantasy.
The very definition of the word distinguishes it from reality. In a fantasy, the woman is in control of the smallest detail of every act: the timing, the setting, the words, and how she reacts to them. She picks a man to whom she is attracted. If the scene begins to frighten her, she stops it.

In other words, the fantasy has no connection with genuine violence, which strips away control.

Rape fantasies offer absolute control to women: They are the opposite of the real thing. To assume that a fantasy of rape reveals a desire to be attacked is like taking a literal interpretation of dreams. Dreaming of a house on fire doesn't make anyone an arsonist.

Why would a healthy woman daydream about being raped? There are dozens of reasons. Perhaps by losing control, she also sheds all sense of responsibility for and guilt over sex. Perhaps it is the exact opposite of the polite, gentle sex she has now. Perhaps it is flattering to imagine a particular man being so overwhelmed by her that he
must
have her. Perhaps she is curious.

Perhaps she has some masochistic feelings that are vented through the fantasy. Is it better for her to bottle them up?

The real question to ask is: Why not simply let women enjoy their fantasies? Why shouldn't a woman entertain the wildest sex her imagination can generate? What damage is done? Who has the right to question it?

There is an important corollary. If women's fantasies cannot be taken at face value, neither can men's. Just as a woman's fantasy of rape may represent a desire to surrender without guilt, so too a man's fantasy may show his desire to conquer without consequence. In her book
Magic
Mommas, Trembling Sisters, Puritans and Perverts,
Joanna Russ speculates: "I think male pornography in which a woman is `raped' . . . may be struggling with a similar problem of permission. Women, after all, fantasizèrape' as the solution to issue of permission and forced passivity; why shouldn't men ... use the other side of the same fantasy?" [5]

In fantasy, anything goes-because everything happening in your own mind is inescapably, and
by
definition,
"between consenting adults."

4. Pornography is the great leveler of shame.

Historically, women have been made to feel ashamed of their sexual thoughts and desires. Those who were not put on a pedestal were often thrown into the gutter. Women who had the courage to pursue their own sexual pleasure were branded as sluts, whores, and tramps.

As recently as the fifties, respectable women were given the sexual choice of marriage or celibacy. Anything else meant ostracism. Women who demanded pleasure in sex were condemned as "nymphomaniacs," much as they are pitied today as "victims of male culture" by antiporn feminists.

As a teenager, I struggled with who I was sexually. (This, despite the fact that my sexual preferences fall well within statistical norms.) I turned to feminism for encouragement and 79

enlightenment. I was lucky. Back then, feminism still offered a vision of sexual liberation, not of sexual oppression and bitterness. Feminism still had a sense of rollick and raunch, which was invigorating. I met women who were as confused as I was by sex, men, and their responses to both. We had late-night sessions over wine during which we hashed it out.

I worry about the younger generation of women who have to go through the same sexual angst that confronts us all. If they turn to feminism, will they find a sense of joy and adventure? Or will they find only anger and a theory of victimization? Will antiporn feminists call their deepest desires "degrading"? Will their fantasies of rape or being dominated be labeled in political terms as "the eroticization of oppression"? How much of themselves will they have to disown in order to be sexually correct?

It is left to pornography to strip away the sexual guilt and confusion that radical feminism heaps upon women who have the "wrong" sexual responses. Antiporn feminists tell women to be ashamed of their appetites and urges. Pornography tells them to accept and enjoy them.