"The Price We Pay"? Pornography and Harm (Brison)

pornography definition

violent degrading misogynistic hate speech

my argument

- Altman might respond to Brison's argument by saying that there may be minor harms caused by the production, distribution and sale of violent degrading pornography. However, there has been a net positive impact on society by living under liberal sexual morality, and under this morality, violent degrading pornography is allowed (because of the right to sexual autonomy) - Brison would respond by saying that our right to produce, distribute and sell pornography does not have to be absolute. If there is a type of porn that it negatively impacting society, it should not be allowed. The right to not be negatively impacted by sexual acts (directly or indirectly) is included under liberal sexual morality. Therefore, we can exist in a society under liberal sexual morality where violent degrading pornography is still considered immoral

key points

- Argument: if pornography unjustly harms women, then as a moral matter (not addressing legality), there's no right to produce, distribute or consume it. Believes it unjustly harms participants and non-participants. - Pornography definition - Harm to participants - Harm to non-participants - 4 indirect harms to non-participants - 3 objections - Objecting Altman's argument that we have a moral right to pornography

symptom, not cause objection response

- Even if it isn't a cause, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about it - Ex: there are relatively few female legislators. This is a symptom of a sexist society. Of course, we need to try to work against this - It isn't merely a symptom. It does play a causal role - even if it didn't initiate it, it fosters and perpetuates it

point is to make money objection response

- It is pleasurable and profitable because it is degrading to others - Analogy: sexist jokes are only funny if one adopts sexist beliefs

private matter objection response

- Psychologically implausible to think that we shouldn't be concerned with someone's private consumption - Ex: judge who consumes racist films, humor, etc. at home - we would obviously not think that's okay - compromises his professional reputation

harm to non-participants

- even if all participants genuinely consented, will still must consider how this impacts others - scenario: "slave auction" clubs where blacks allowed themselves to be degraded for the pleasure of white viewers. the financial gain of the "performers" compensated them for the slightly higher risk that they would be degraded outside of their work (due to the prevalence of these clubs). however, those who don't work in these clubs are not compensated for this higher risk - this is not fair

harm to participants

- story of Evelina Giobbe (shows how girls often become trapped in the porn industry): ran away from home, raped, man took her in and took nude photos of her, sold her to a pimp where she was raped and assaulted until she agreed to work as a prostitute, was forced to watch porn to gain experience, finally able to escape by destroying herself with heroin so she was no longer usable - Pornography has provoked a spike in sex trafficking (because higher demand for harder-core porn) - women don't have options, forced into pornography and prostitution - consent given by participants is often not morally valid because it requires *genuine autonomous consent* (and to give genuine autonomous consent you must be able to consider a range of worthwhile options)

3 objections

1) Pornography is a symptom of a misogynistic society, not a cause 2) the point is to make money, not degrade anybody 3) This is something we do in private, doesn't have to affect our public lives/opinions

4 indirect harms to non-participants

1) harms to those who have pornography forced upon them 2) increased discrimination against and sexual abuse of girls/women 3) harms to boys/men whose attitudes toward women/sexual desires are influenced by porn 4) harms to those who have already been victimized by sexual violence - ex: after 9/11, anything that involved a terrorist attack or plane crash was not aired because that would be super insensitive

objection to Altman's argument that we have a moral right to pornography

Altman argues that the right to produce, distribute and view pornography is comparable to the right to sexual orientation. However, in defining a right, we also must define others' responsibilities in supporting that right. Example of 21 year old son who consumes large amounts of porn. Are people obligated to help him gain access to that porn? Is his girlfriend not allowed to talk him out of it if she feels it affecting their relationship? These obvious answer to these questions is no. Shows clearly that if even porn and sexual orientation fall under the right to sexual autonomy, they are on opposite sides of the spectrum. ex: of getting pleasure from eating monkey brains. people have a general right to eat what they choose, but that doesn't mean they have a right to eat whatever gives them pleasure. Same goes for sexual arousal. Study where men were conditioned to be aroused by a picture of a boot. We don't need violent degrading porn for sexual arousal - it can be conditioned.