Sex, Porn, and State Interests

[Written for Feminist Theory.]

While Srinivsan’s students pragmatically decide that legislating porn is a bad or inconceivable idea, and past legislation has proved more harmful, I think there’s a way we could go about thinking of porn legislation that wasn’t highlighted in The Right to Sex. This isn’t me completely discounting the affects of sexual education, however. I think that sexual education is a necessity in the lives of sexual beings for patriarchy to be dissolved, which could be a reason why most of us didn’t have a sexual education in school. With all things that would cause a positive change in society, this is a very complex issue. The questions of sex ed in school come up unanswered most of the time because of its complexity, as well as the countless legislation issues surrounding porn. How do we protect women while maintaining their right to porn? How do we protect our First Amendment rights without indoctrinating our children? Should we even consider the First Amendment in such a space?

On porn legislation, Srinivasan does a good job at highlighting the times in which legislation was brought about but ended or was shut down because of the first amendment; however, I’d like to bring up a new point and recall Kate Manne. Porn has been deemed speech which in the United States grants it a ton of constitutional protections; however, one “type” of porn that is strictly not protected as speech is Child Pornography. Why? It is considered a compelling state interest to protect children. Legislatures have come together and agreed that we, as a society, should protect our children (rightfully so); therefore laws to prohibit expression that endangers children are completely constitutional. My question is: Why is there not a compelling state interest to protect women? Especially in a world in which misogyny is the enforcement to protect a patriarchy in which women are the human givers, why would we not want to protect the people we force to cook for us, clean for us, provide us with comfort and care, and more? Perhaps, feminists of the 70s had the right idea when they claimed that “porn [is] the lynchpin of patriarchy. (70)” We see in The Right to Sex that porn is training us, all of us, not just men. Her students ask how we would know how to have sex without porn; the porn stars talk about the way porn is shaping young minds. Maybe, porn is being used to make us fit the mold of patriarchy even in the most private areas of our lives. Besides, in a world in which Kate Manne’s naive conception of misogyny is widely accepted and misogyny simply is the hatred of women for being women, why would legislatures not actively fight to avoid that moniker and state protecting women is a compelling state interest?

Moving beyond the possibilities, the ways they’ve gone about legislation in the past always seem to come up short. A problem in law making is the use of words and definitions. It’s like a mind game to create the perfect law, a law without loopholes or bad consequences, which seems to me to be the problem at hand. Porn has been deemed protected as speech, and personally, I take issue with that. First of all, Srinivasan discusses how speech is just as dangerous and impactful as action with the famous “shouting fire in a crowded theater” law, and I agree with her. If it is not illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is no danger yet you’ve caused an uproar, why, if porn is speech, can we protect it when it is causing danger and uproar? The men in Srinivasan’s class said they watch the hardcore, aggressive stuff, the free stuff. Second of all, I take issue with the way we protect speech so fervently. Porn is deemed speech and thus is granted First Amendment protection; hate speech is deemed speech and thus is granted First Amendment protection. While the founding fathers might have been accepting of hate speech, they had no clue the evolution of porn. They didn’t know when signing the Constitution that we would have such productions of pornography on the internet for free for anyone to see; therefore, I cannot get behind the absolute protection. Moving next to differentiating violent from non-violent, how do we do that? This issue is incredibly complex and intricate, so we can look to other countries that have tried their hand at legislation. The UK compiled a list of prohibited acts and, if we listen to Rule 32-- “If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions. (67)”-- it’s rather short, and not particularly effective. If the goal is to ensure it’s “constitutional protection” while protecting those involved, women, and children, then who came up with this list? There are a few things on the list that I can only hope everyone can agree are violent, like caning, aggressive whipping (as opposed to what?), physical abuse, fisting (I wish I didn’t read the section on stumping), etc. There are also things that I’m not sure where I stand. Spanking, urolagnia, facesitting, female ejaculation… if we are defining aggressive from non-aggressive,  at what point do we go too far and ban someone’s kink or kink shame? If there are two, or more, consenting adults in private agreeing to spanking, water sports, and female ejaculation, who am I to say “you can’t do that?” Essentially, the list seems aimed to affect those into femdom the most, which Srinivasan points out on page 57, and in a lot of cases, this is more than just a kink or a fetish, this is a financial decision. If the list isn’t accurately targeting the aggressive, hostile, violent porn that we want it to, then who are we protecting with it? Do men need to be rescued from having their face sat on, or should they be saved from the women they’re sexual with actually achieving female ejaculation? She also points out many times in which countries try their hand at the internet porn issue and it is either not enough, shut down, or harms sex workers and LGBTQIA+. So what is the answer? How do we tackle the issue that is widespread, aggressive porn?

The issue of sexual education is one that seems like it would be easy to deal with, but in reality, is littered with questions. What age is appropriate for sexual education? Should schools and teachers be the ones in charge of teaching sexual education? How far is too far with sexual education? Who gets to define these limits and answer these questions? If I’m being honest, I have no idea; however, I think these are things we shouldn’t brush under the rug and ignore. For our society to progress, to end patriarchy, we must be educated on the things used to oppress, and porn is one of those things. On page 44, we are told about Lisa Ann and the people who recognize her in public and the reactions she receives. In the 90s, she only was recognized by adults, who are the target audience in her line of work, but once the internet becomes widespread and available she begins seeing a younger audience recognize her, and they’ve got a certain audacity that is dangerous. She has “twelve, thirteen, fourteen-year-olds coming up… [saying] ‘can we fuck?’” (44)  This is an incredibly eye-opening remark. A twelve year old boy coming up to an adult woman, in public, and blatantly asking her to fuck… a stranger! If the genders were reversed, the young girl would be in trouble, harassed, or worse yet, abused. If these children had proper sexual education, would the interaction have happened? Would the young boy have greeted her differently or would he, at the very least, have recognized the adult woman as an adult woman deserving of respect? I can’t forget the poor student who told Srinivasan that her boyfriend broke up with her because she was “doing it wrong (41).” I cannot imagine the things her exboyfriend was watching to be prompted to end an entire relationship over false expectations, and I hate to think proper sex education would have been enough to save their relationship, but wouldn’t it have? His expectations clearly were far too high because of what he has seen online. What would have happened if he had someone to tell him that it was all fake, that woman is faking it for her rent money, or she was forced into doing that, sex isn’t like that in real life… “I didn’t want the responsibility of shaping young minds. And yet, thanks to this country’s nonfunctional sex education system… I have the responsibility anyway.” (47) A statement made by a porn star who most likely has had the same experience as Lisa Ann. This is an issue that needs to be resolved. I hate to imagine my children learning about sex in school before I tell them about it, but they have to learn at some point so we can reverse what is happening now. We need a form of curriculum that is required for children around puberty age, at least, to spell out what’s happening with their bodies, what these urges mean, what sex is, how to be safe, what consent is, what options are… everything. A sex masterclass! I’m just incredibly unsure how to go about it. Who teaches it unbiasedly? What age is the perfect age? How do you do it adequately? I have no idea.

In conclusion, I feel as though I have no choice but to agree with Srinivasan’s students. While both legislating porn and teaching children sexual education are both incredibly difficult to define and figure out, one if not both need to happen. For the sake of generations to come, women should be considered a compelling state interest or schools should better their sexual education curriculum. This incredibly complex issue can be summed up with two final quotes: “Pornography is the theory, and rape the practice. (37)” So we should be educated better on sex;  however “Porn is powerful. The hope that it can be neutered through education doesn’t take seriously enough the power it has… (68).” Is porn a catch-22 or is it being used as a lynchpin to patriarchy?