The Myth Of Secondary Effects
by Mark Kernes, Senior Editor, AVN
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986), municipalities across America have been given the power to limit the number of adult businesses in a community, as well as to severely regulate their location, hours of operation, floor space devoted to adult materials and several other ordinary business decisions, based on the "secondary effects" which adult businesses are alleged to have on the community around them.
Among the "secondary effects" which adult businesses - bookstores, video stores, cabarets and even Internet servers - are reputed to have are a decrease in property values, an increase in crime and, in some cases, an adverse effect on community health in and around the businesses' locations.
Moreover, the Renton decision allows a municipality to use not only whatever experience it may have with its own adult businesses, but also - or exclusively - studies done of the experiences other communities claim to have had with their adult businesses.
(Full Text of Article at the Free Speech Coalition's website)
AN Australian study has cast doubt on the commonly held view that pornography shows women as nothing more than sex objects.
The study, to be published in the noted international Journal of Sex Research, analysed 50 of the bestselling pornographic videos in Australia to find out whether people were represented as sex objects.
Queensland University Professor Alan McKee, who led the study, said researchers compared the way women and men were represented in each video.
They noted such things as who initiated the sex, whose pleasure was paid attention to, whether people in the videos got to speak about what they wanted during sex and whose perspective the videos were presented from.
“We were surprised at just how active and in control the women were in these videos,” Prof McKee said today.
“This study suggests that mainstream pornography in Australia doesn’t represent women as sex objects, it shows them as active sexual agents.”
The findings are part of a three-year government-funded study - the most comprehensive of its kind - on pornography in Australia.
Interim results released in 2003 on the content of pornographic movies found super-size breasts scare some men, conservative voters love dirty magazines and adult videos have realistic plots.
Dr Alan McKee said those initial results had shattered the “dirty old man in a trenchcoat” stereotype of pornographic consumers.
Of the 320 respondents who said they used mainstream porn, 20 per cent were younger women, 33 per cent were married, 93 per cent believed in gender equality and 63 per cent considered themselves to be religious.
The researchers pored over the same 50 top-selling porn videos to analyse their plots and found most were believable and empowering for the fairer sex.
Most videos were imported from the US and bought through mail order companies in the ACT.
Dr McKee said most respondents were Liberal/National voters, which was interesting given those political parties were anti-porn.
The final results about the content of the movies will be released next year, and written into a popular culture book, with an executive summary to be given to the Federal Government.
(Reposted from Doug Henwood Talks)(Full Text of Report at Find Articles)
“Feminism must not focus solely on what men have done to women. [It] must continuously seek ways in which women can unleash their own imaginary from the constraints that have been imposed upon them through rigid definitions of femininity.” — Drucilla Cornell
Censoring pornography will not only fail in preventing sexual violence but will also restrict the sexual expression of women and halt the progress of feminism. Censorship is a step back when all feminists should be making progress within this patriarchy. This does not mean that all pornography is inoffensive, but that bringing the law into what should only be a question of morality and opinion is dangerous. If it becomes necessary to strictly regulate pornographic materials by law, this will lead to restrictions in other areas of expression. Pornography is not a mind control device making sex offenders attack women. It is a realm, when used correctly, for the expression of a person’s fantasies without them actively participating in things that would be questionable in reality. There would be no need for a paper on this subject if every feminist agreed with the above statements (or found their differences to be slight) and others supporting and branching off from them. The evening news is hardly ever riddled with headlines like, “Top, Bottom, or Both: How Do You Butter Your Toast?” The problem is that not all feminist see eye to eye on the issue of pornography. Even this is a gross understatement when examining the heated arguments over this question.
The debate over whether pornography should be censored has been a significant dividing point among all feminists. There are three main factions within this debate. Anti-porn/pro-censorship, liberal, and pro-sex/pro-pornography feminists differ on what should be done about pornography and whether it is a main cause of sexual violence against women. An attempt to define and promote pro-sex feminism follows. A pro-sex feminist view of the pornography issue must begin with a definition of the word pornography. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, pornography is: “1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. 2. The presentation or production of this material. 3. Lurid or sensational material” (Bartleby.com, [1]). This can be contrasted with the American Heritage definition for obscene, “1. Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty. 2. Inciting lustful feelings; lewd. 3. Repulsive; disgusting...4. So large in amount as to be objectionable or outrageous” (Bartleby.com, [2]). While some feminists may consider pornography to be “repulsive” and “disgusting,” there is a marked difference between the two words. Even further, it can be argued that the distinction between something being pornographic or obscene is simply a difference of opinion.
Full text at Wit's End Zine
The professor appears wholly unfamiliar with the work of accomplished, feminist women who reject her fundamental contentions about porn and sex-work. If she bothered to consider the writings of Nadine Strossen, Carol Queen, Pat Califia, Susie Bright, Wendy McElroy, Sallie Tisdale, Linda Williams, Annie Sprinkle, myself and others, her homework wasn't reflected in what she showed me. Clearly, testimony that failed to corroborate her pre-conceived notions of what porn is "really" about, or what it "really" means didn't register on her radar screen.
I am an R.N., a third-generation feminist and a First-Amendment activist as well as a porn performer with the longest continuous career in the history of the industry. I'm easy to find. In fact, I was in one place for four hours each day on the floor at AEE. She certainly found my husband, writer-director I.S. Levine, (whose videos and magazines appear under the name Ernest Greene). At her request, he granted her a two-hour, on-camera interview in good faith, hoping but not expecting to receive an open-minded hearing. Why did Professor Sun not speak to me? Could it be because she knew that my very existence argues against her core assertions? Where was the honest, fearless intellectual curiousity that is hallmark of the pioneering academic researcher?
Full Text at Counterpunch
