In response to "The Shaping of Things" (Boston Globe, g-section, July 27)
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2010/07/27/the_shaping_of_things/?sudsredirect=true
To the Editor:
The article “The Shaping of Things” (g, July 27) about Gail Dines, author of “Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality” was most alarming. Gail Dines, who claims to have studied pornography for 2 decades, from what I have read, is shockingly ignorant in most matters of the industry and the practice of the educated viewing of pornography.
Dines' work is centered around “gonzo” pornography, described in the article as “an extreme form of pornography that specializes in the degradation of women....” This statement is simply false —unresearched, and ignorant. Gonzo porn has been around for decades, and came into widespread popularity with the advent of the home video. Gonzo porn doesn't “specialize” in anything, except to create short vignettes of sex-scenes aimed at arousing and thereby aiding the viewer in participating in sexual activity, whether alone or with partners(s). Gonzo is generally very low-budget, and, to borrow Dines' comparison, the fast-food of pornographic video. The genre's prevalence on the Internet simply due to its accessible format.
Dines blames the pornography industry as a whole for a cultural shift in how we as a culture view sex in our everyday lives. I beg to differ. I believe the consumer culture in this country changes the way people choose to view pornography: they want it cheap and easy. I say, rather than Stop Porn Culture, we stop fast food culture. Stop Wal-Mart culture. You want to see people who are “in pain, exhausted, demoralized”? Poke your head into an auto-body shop. Stop by a linen-cleaning service. Observe dishwashers in a restaurant. People want all these services, conveniently and affordably. Cheap and easy. The pornography industry is like any other. Yes, they're trying to make money. Yes, they do market research. And yes, what they've found is that the average American is not willing to seek out, let alone PAY FOR quality, high-production pornography.
To continue with the fast food analogy, Dines is quoted in the article, and also writes in the preface to her book, that “if [she] was criticizing McDonald’s, you wouldn’t accuse [her] of being against eating” (a response to critics who label her “anti-sex”). That's exactly right. If she was criticizing McDonald's as a prolific manufacturer of cheap and very accessible, and not-so-good-for-you food, we would not accuse her of being against eating. If she wanted McDonald's banned for this practice we might accuse her of being anti-freedom. We have choices. We can choose to eat fast food—which we can all agree is ubiquitous, or we can choose to eat locally grown/raised organic food products, which is much more expensive and time-consuming. You get what you pay for. We can choose to furtively browse Internet gonzo pornography, or we can find high production titles featuring well paid actors who truly enjoy their chosen line of work. Again, the latter is more expensive and time consuming, and add to that the stigma which comes with viewing pornography (perpetuated by the likes of Dines) and we are left with little choice. We are not forced to search for organic carrots in stores with blackened windows, hoping no one recognizes our cars in the parking lot.
Sex is famously taboo in American culture. Dines says “Pornography is the major form of sex ed today for boys.” Agreed. Is that the fault of the pornography industry? Or perhaps because we're too afraid too talk to our kids about sex? Abstinence-only education and parents fearing that their children are perpetually “too young” for the sex talk—and I mean more than just “where babies come from,” because as we all know, we as a species have a lot of sex that doesn't make, nor does it intend to make, babies—is driving our children to seek out that information in other ways. The internet is the cheapest and easiest way to get that information. I applaud Dines for talking to her son about sex and pornography, but I disagree with her approach. Not all porn is bad, or violent, or low budget, or even chasing the male gaze. Porn can be a wonderful tool for re-igniting one's sex drive, especially since our culture is permeated by a puritanical and negatively skewed view of sex and sexuality. Women still aren't even supposed to want sex and are still counseled to save themselves for marriage. And then there's the popular notion that there's no sex after marriage. Good times.
As for pornography and its role in violence against women, Robert Jensen was quoted as having said that Dines was incensed by “the idea that there is a cultural support system for violence against women.” I agree this culture exists, and I too am appalled. However, the degradation of women is not the fault of pornography, nor is pornography the only perpetuator. The degradation of women, culturally, is global and ancient. It's the Great Chain of Being. It's biblical (Genesis 3:16). And it's everyday television advertising. I am more incensed by a truck rental company advertising their new automatic transmission vehicles by showing a woman in an a-line skirt, tucked-in blouse, high-heels, perfectly manicured and coiffed, climbing into the driver's seat, than I am by images of a woman having sex with multiple partners. In fact, that turns me on.
Most people, unlike Dines, don't spend their lives looking at free Internet porn. Most people use it for its intended purpose—to help them achieve orgasm—and then move on to something else: cooking dinner, taking a shower, driving their kids to school, or making love to their partners. Porn doesn't turn kids into rapists. Arm your children with real life information, and don't forget that just like video games and blockbuster movies, pornography is fantasy, and that's all it will ever be.
EDITED FOR MASS CONSUMPTION:
Gale Dines, “The Shaping of Things” appears willfully ignorant of human sexuality despite her “three decades” of study.
Dines' work centers on “gonzo” pornography, described as “extreme...pornography that specializes in the degradation of women....” False. Its only specialty is short vignettes of sex for viewer pleasure. Gonzo is typically low-budget, and to borrow Dines' comparison, the fast-food of porn.
While some pornography perpetuates women's degradation, this remains matter of opinion. Degradation of women is global, ancient, ranging from the Bible (Genesis 3:16) to television advertising.
Dines blames pornography for shifting our view of everyday sex. I contest American consumerism changes how we view pornography: we want it cheap and easy. Rather than Stop Porn Culture, Stop Fast-Food Culture. The pornography industry, like any other, does research to produce sellable merchandise. Average consumers don't seek quality pornography.
Dines' stigmatization of pornography only makes this worse. Instead of shopping for organic vegetables, we are left with drive-thru buckets of chicken. Why shop for quality behind blackened windows when we can browse free Internet porn?
If Dines' assertion that “pornography is the major form of sex ed...for boys,” this is the fault of parents, not pornographers. Abstinence-only education and parents' discomfort with their children's sexuality drives kids to get information elsewhere.
Unlike Dines, most don't spend decades viewing Internet porn. People use it to orgasm-- then they cook dinner, drive their kids to school, make love to their partners. Porn doesn't make kids rapists. Arm them with real-life information. Never forget that like video games and movies, pornography is fantasy, and that's all it should be.
