Government Funded Feminist Porn
Published September 14, 2009 @ 03:39PM PT
Sweden has famously taken a unique stand on how to end the exploitation of women in the commercial sex industry -- promote gender equality in prostitution. Now, they're expanding that philosophy to the porn industry by using government cash to pay for "feminist porn." But will by-women, for-women skin flicks free the porn industry from exploitation and misogyny?
The idea behind the feminist porn initiative is that porn can be wonderful and empowering for women both watching and acting in the films when it's not driven by a profit motive based in male sexual desires and couched in a culture which views women as sex objects. In other words, give the cameras to feminist filmmakers, fund the project with tax revenue, and you'll have "empowering erotica," not just male-centric porn. The project also aims to end exploitation in the industry, including ensuring everyone who takes it off on screen is at least 18, and no one is there as a result of force, coercion, or desperation. In theory, state-funded feminist porn avoids the degradation and exploitation the mainstream, commercial porn industry propagates.
Sweden poses (as usual) a creative solution to the problem of human trafficking and exploitation of women and children in the porn industry, but one with flaws as transparent as the costumes in these films. First of all, what exactly is "feminist porn?" Just like men in the mainstream porn market demand different things from their porn, so would women as porn consumers. Who gets to decide what makes a feminist hot? Secondly, the success of this initiative is based on the assumption that all women in the porn industry will act ethically and respect other women by not exploiting them. I got news for you Sweden -- women traffic other women and girls into prostitution and porn, too. I wish ending exploitation in pornography were as easy as funding feminists to make their own porn, but the fact is women can commit crimes of exploitation just like men. And finally, isn't there a better use for this money? Out of all the ways we can end exploitation and improve equality for women, is making more porn really the answer? I'm not sure it is.
Regardless of whether or not the porn initiative is effective, or whether Swedes decide that it's a good use of their tax dollars, Sweden's idea poses some interesting philosophical questions. If you could somehow make society gender-equal, would porn cease to be exploitative? Is using tax dollars to fund pornography ethical if the goal of that pornography is to represent a traditionally marginalized group? Pornography, like art, has always been a subjective category. But does that reduce its value in achieving social equality?
This initiative might have a prayer in Sweden, but I can safely predict it won't take in the U.S. Unless, of course, we manage to sneak a provision for feminist porn into the new health care reform bill that everyone's already skimming and arguing about. And that would bring a whole new meaning to Republican complaints of getting screwed by the government on health care reform.
Photo credit: pnoeric
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Denmark Considers Prostitution Ban
-
Congress Writes Letter to Craigslist, Requests "Adult Services" Changes
-
The Philippines Prevents Trafficking Around U.S. Military Bases in S. Korea
Comments (7)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Amanda has been a full-time abolitionist for six years. During that time, she has created reports, documentaries and training materials on human trafficking in the United States and around the world.
Feminist porn - are you kidding? TOO MUCH INFORMATION! I'm more interested in whether a man has empathy and compassion and a magazine isn't going to tell me that.
Posted by Oceania OZ on 09/14/2009 @ 04:50PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
...or a film. Danny does Dallas?
Posted by Oceania OZ on 09/14/2009 @ 05:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There are a few porn mags, sites and videos out there that I think you could argue are not exploitive at all. There are people who finance, produce, direct, and star in their own pornos, and I'm not just talking about home videos. And there are sites that allow anyone to upload and share their home-made porn.
And why spend tax dollars on it when the internet makes it so cheap and easy?
Posted by Cole Burns on 09/14/2009 @ 07:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It seems inconsistent to allow and even fund porn if you're trying to reduce sexual abuse of economically vulnerable people. But they do have that language in the Swedish model about male domination, so I can see how this came about. I was hoping for better, though.
I don't think you can avoid exploitation unless everyone's doing it for free, no benefits whatsoever.
Posted by Anemone Cerridwen on 09/15/2009 @ 11:54AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
By that logic, anything that makes money is exploitive. It's hard to make sure everyone in a porn mag aren't just in it because they're desperate for money and hate it, or aren't being threatened, but that's true for every profession.
It's probably safe to say that most people in the porn industry are being trafficked or at the very least hate it but don't think they can get any other job that pays well enough, but not everyone.
What needs to happen is it needs to be turned around so the majority of people in porn do it because they honestly like it and enjoy it. That doesn't mean doing it for free. That's practically impossible because it costs money to make porn, even if you just put it on the internet.
But like I said, there are people out there making porn and making money where nobody is being exploited. It helps when people aren't doing it solely for the money. Lots of people are doing it because they like porn and feel there's a need in the industry that's not being met.
What really needs to change are people's ideas about sex and women. We can end exploitation by eliminating the demand for porn that exploits people.
But if someone is going to go to the trouble to buy a good camera, solid colored sheets, webspace with plenty of storage, and arrange the lighting just so and all that, it's totally reasonable for them to ask for some money from anyone who's going to be using their bandwidth looking at it. Doubly so for anyone who actually produces a video or magazine.
Posted by Cole Burns on 09/15/2009 @ 12:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That may just be the perfect headline to make Ann Coulter's head explode. Any way we can get Ann to click on it?
Posted by Slim Chance on 09/15/2009 @ 02:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Something I forget to mention earlier. Research has shown that erotica (sexualized media) increases aggression in viewers even when it's not violent. The effect size is bigger than the average for violence. (And yes, this is sound research.) And aggression is something feminists should rightly be concerned about, since women are often on the receiving end of it. So even when porn is fully consenting, it's still a problem because of its effect on society.
I wrote about this on my blog a while back. The refs are there:
http://geniuswithaparachute.blogspot.com/2009/08/lit-review-two-meta-analyses-looking-at.html
Posted by Anemone Cerridwen on 09/15/2009 @ 02:54PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.