Two items posted this weekend on the Gatemouth Blog Facebook Page proved themselves through discussion to be worthy of more than a passing glance.
The first linked a Josh Gerstein piece from Politico about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s performance at a 1993 Conference at the University of Chicago called “Feminist Legal Perspectives on Pornography and Hate Propaganda. ”
A description of the conference in Nadine Strossen’s “Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights,” makes clear the conference’s title was redundant, as its organizers considered pornography and hate speech one and the same (perhaps they’d read Mailer’s “The Time of Her Time,” where the heroine achieves orgasm only after being called a “dirty Jew”).
Now, I’ve been having a field day making fun of right wing critics alarmed by Kagan’s supposedly radical left wing history, and left wing critics who find her lacking in sympathy with their agenda.
Gerstein’s article pulls a neat trick in uniting both kinds of criticism, by associating Kagan with a fairly disturbing element of the loony left–one which will raise questions among other leftists (and some moderates like myself ), questions about her commitment to fundamental constitutional rights.
On the other hand, most right-wingers, other than some libertarians, will probably not be too distressed–some may even be elated.
The article, indicates what appears to be Kagan’s sympathy to the positions of groups like “Women against Pornography” (WAP). I find it truly disturbing, and while it does not necessarily prove anything, it does raise concerns about Kagan’s commitment to our First Amendment rights.
I don't necessarily mind collateral attacks on pornographers; If one is to believe Linda Lovelace, porn often involves many despicable violations of the penal (perhaps not the best choice of words) code and labor laws; those laws should be enforced.
I think that the State can constitutionally regulate child porn; the law has always allowed special protections where children are involved.
I also think one can put reasonable limits on public display–people need not be made involuntary consumers. Porn on the side of a bus–or non-sexual sadistic violence on the side of a bus–is an invasion of my personal space. Brandeis’ "right to be left alone" cuts both ways here. While I do not think we need go overboard to protect eggshell-thin sensibilities, regulations about public display are, within limits, constitutionally permissible and legislatively desirable.
No one has a right to regulate what I masturbate to in the privacy of my home, but I probably have no desire to see what most other people masturbate to, and even if I did want to see it, I would not want it displayed in places where I have to see it unwillingly and my child has to see it at all.
Beyond that, if the actors (where there are any–many times it is just words on a page) and the readers are consensual; and if parents are given the means to control their TVs and computers, then whose business is it?
But the thrust (perhaps not the best choice of words) of the Conference was not about reasonable exceptions. The Conference Kagan spoke at was not primarily about regulating display, it was about the right to print and distribute, which, in the age of the internet may truly be a matter which does not impede on the general public's right to be left alone. It is, rather, exactly about regulating the right to what I jerk off to.
And, at my age, I need whatever help I can get, even (or perhaps especially) in those instances when company is present.
The slogan of the Women Against Pornography types was "Pornography is the theory; rape is the practice."
While I will admit pornography is mostly a means to an end, it seems clear that anti-pornography activists have no idea what practice pornography is used to facilitate.
Or perhaps they do. Perhaps that is the point.
The two intellectual pillars of “Women Against Pornography” were Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon. In her book, “No More Nice Girls, radical, but anti-censorship feminist Ellen Willis noted:
In Andrea Dworkin's moral universe the battle of the sexes is a Manichaean clash between absolute power and absolute powerlessness, absolute villains and absolute victims. The foundation of male power, ''the prime component of male identity,'' is violence, physical and psychic. Men are predators, women their chief prey. To men, sex means rape; the penis is an instrument of power and terror. Pornography expresses, enforces, is male power: ''The woman's sex is appropriated, her body is possessed, she is used and she is despised: the pornography does it and the pornography proves it.
'The power of men in pornography is imperial power, the power of the sovereigns who are cruel and arrogant, who keep taking and conquering for the pleasure of power and the power of pleasure.''
McKinnon, explaining why pornography is not speech, said:
“It is only pornography, not its ideas as such, that gives men erections that support aggression against women…An erection is neither a thought nor a feeling but a behavior [Rapists use pornography] not because they are persuaded by its ideas…but because they are sexually habituated to its kick, a process that is largely unconscious and works as primitive conditioning…It is used as sex. It therefore is sex.”
Dworkin’s revulsion against male sexuality and most female sexuality is manifest in her book “Intercourse,” which posits the proposition that the kind of sexual subordination depicted in some pornography was the sine que non of the experiences of heterosexual sexual intercourse for both genders, and that all heterosexual sex was therefore coercive and degrading to women (“only if you‘re doing it right“ said Domestic Partner) and sexual penetration may doom women to inferiority and submission, and possibly "be immune to reform."
According to Wikipedia, Dworkin also argued that “depictions of intercourse in mainstream art and culture consistently emphasized heterosexual intercourse as the only kind of "real" sex, portrayed intercourse in violent or invasive terms, portrayed the violence or invasiveness as central to its eroticism.”
As Willis noted:
“The misogyny Andrea Dworkin decries is real enough – it is just not all of reality. Between women and men (often the same women and men) there is love as well as war. This may be an impossible contradiction, but it happens to be the contradiction on which our social order rests. A world view that defines male sexuality as pornography as rape leaves no room for mutual heterosexual desire, let alone love; yet a feminism that does not take heterosexuality seriously can neither comprehend the average woman's life nor spark a movement that might change it. If relations with men offer nothing but violence and exploitation, most women's apparent desire for such relations must mean that either men are so diabolically powerful as to have crushed even passive resistance or women have been so brutalized that we have lost the will to resist. Where in this scenario is the possibility of struggle?”
So, the theoretical underpinnings of the Women Against Pornography are at best specious. The idea pornography, even violent pornography (though one should note that by Dworkin’s standards almost all pornography qualifies as violent) leads to violence against women has never been proven empirically, unless one counts examples based upon the logical fallacy known as “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”).
And yet, from the mid-80s to the early 90s, such ideas were on the move. As Willis notes, in her book “Don’t Think, Smile”:
“In 1984, MacKinnon and Dworkin drafted an ordinance…that defined pornography as sex discrimination. In 1991, the Senate considered the Dworkin-MacKinnon Victims Compensation Act, which, had it passed, would have allowed sex crime victims to sue creators or distributors of sexually oriented material that could be “proved” according to the preponderance of the evidence standard for civil cases, to have been a “Substantial cause” of the crime (opponents promptly dubbed it the “porn made me do it” or “rapists’ liberation” bill).”
The idea of legislation where someone can sue a publisher because some lunatic read a depiction of rape (probably the one kind of frivolous lawsuit right-wingers support), is virtually unprecedented in law–unless some murder victim's family can sue Oliver Stone because of "Natural born Killers." Stanley Kubrick and some of his droogs surely had a lot to worry about, as redeeming social value and artistic achievement do not mitigate “proof“ “by a preponderance of the evidence” of “substantial cause.”
The Conference was one more manifestation of the WAP phenomena. As Strossen noted “it included only a single feminist perspective on pornography and eschewed rational, academic discourse….feminists who disagreed were brushed aside or insulted away…Feminists who disagreed with the procensorship perspective were consciously and viciously reviled by speakers throughout the proceedings. On conference attendee, who left reprints of an article criticizing the procensorship feminist position on the information table, was spat upon by conference participants, who ripped up the reprints. Madonna’s book “Sex” was also ritually torn to shreds, and speakers trumpeted–to cheering crowds–that no evidence that pornography harms women was needed as a prerequisite for censoring it, since “we know it causes harm.”
Strossen later noted: “You weren’t invited there unless you shared a certain viewpoint…It was an exclusive conference.”
So what do we really know?
On a video of a panel discussion at the Conference, Kagan is seen saying, “We should be looking for new approaches, devising new arguments.” According to Gerstein, she seemed to count herself among “those of us who favor some form of pornography and hate speech regulation” and told participants that “a great deal can be done very usefully” to crack down on such evils. “Statutes may be crafted in ways that prohibit the worst of hate speech and pornography, language that goes to sexual violence. Such statutes may still be constitutional.” Gerstein says she also pressed for “new and harsher penalties against the kinds of violence against women that takes place in producing pornography, the use of pandering statutes and pimp statutes against pornographers…perhaps the initiation—the enactment of new statutes prohibiting the hiring of women for commercial purposes to engage in sexual activities.”
Gerstein says Kagan’s legal writings show some disagreement with MacKinnon’s most far-reaching proposals, “if not her goals.” But, at the Conference, Kagan endorsed MacKinnon’s claims that speech can cause harm. “Catharine MacKinnon has powerful points when she talks about how speech acts,” Kagan told the audience. “People think about obscenity now in a way that reflects everything the anti-pornography movement has done.”
In the Gerstein article, law professor Cathy Crosson expresses concerns, putting together what Kagan said about the conference with Kagan’s recent argument before the Supreme Court to ban animal crushing videos, Crosson says:
“What eventually dawned on me…is that she wanted to use that case as a wedge to broaden the concept of obscenity—to start using obscenity as a bludgeon to start sweeping in other kinds of bad and worthless speech….It’s dangerous,”
Crosson further noted that in a law review article Kagan said “Regulation of obscenity may accomplish some, although not all, of the goals of the anti-pornography movement,” Crosson said Kagan also pressed the notion that pornography is “low-value speech” and that new ordinances aimed at restricting it should be enacted. Kagan also implied that eradicating all pornography and hate speech would be a laudable goal, saying “Such efforts will not eradicate all pornography or all hate speech from our society, but they can achieve much worth achieving,”
Joan Berlin of the National Coalition Against Censorship expressed alarm “I have trouble with the references to low-value speech…The notion that low-value speech can be dispensed with, that you can even determine what is low-value speech, is disturbing….There’s, I guess you could say, cause for concern, but the picture is pretty murky.”
Except in totalitarian societies, where one may actually be jailed for expressing opinions everyone agree with, one does not need First Amendment protection for mainstream expressions–First Amendment law is all about Nazis, Stalinists, pornographers, flag burners, pushy bicyclists and Jehovah Witnesses
What Kagan is alleged to have advocated may or may not have encompassed things like Dworkin-MacKinnon type tort legislation. We don't really know exactly what she supported then, and know even less about what she supports now, and it would be nice to know, no matter how one feels about the answer.
But you know, I’d like to defend porn.
Not aesthetically. Most of it is crap. And those in the industry seem mostly to be little more than sleaze. I myself prefer written depictions to pictures, and that usually does the trick in matters of the law; though it did James Joyce little good, and would not have saved a publisher or writer from a Dworkin-MacKinnon based lawsuit.
Porn is fantasy. It is fantasy that reflects our highly imperfect society. Our porn’s rough edges do not cause our society’s imperfections–our society’s imperfections cause our porn’s rough edges.
Women have rape fantasies because we are a repressed society, and such fantasies allow a way for the mind to experience a sex fantasy without accountability for transgressing repressive norms imposed by others. Men have rape fantasies (as both aggressor and victim) for those reasons and others seemingly less excusable, but for the overwhelming majority of both men and women, fantasies are all they are. With rare exceptions, no one wants to actually enact them, except as role-playing.
Yes, in a better, more healthy society, we probably should have better fantasies; or maybe, no fantasies at all. But making people ashamed of their fantasies, and other aspects of their sexuality has not proven over time to be the key to society’s improvement. Rather, it has mostly made things worse.
Many of the WAP feminists seem dedicated to delegitimizing what some women find to be a turn-on, saying it is a false product of a misogynistic paternalistic society that needs to be changed.
It boggles the mind that anyone who calls themselves a feminist would ever dare to try to delegitimize the most intimate sexual feelings of another women and make her ashamed of them.
Yes, our oppressive patriarchal society needs to be changed–for the good of men, as well as women. But, in the meantime–hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, I want to have it my way.
But, I'm not sure the idea that porn is primarily about oppressing females is even accurate; accoring to Google, a search of "female domination" produced 3,040,00 results, while "male domination" produced only 542,000.
In contrest to solo sex, partnered sex requires compromise (is that the derivation of the term “compromising position”?). The main (and perhaps only) virtue of solo sex is that one only has to please oneself.
Pornography is one means to that end.
And that end, for most people, especially women, is a condition precedent for partnered sex ever really becoming satisfying.
But here, I’m going to invoke Andrea Dworkin in a positive way.
As I noted, Dworkin argued that “depictions of intercourse in mainstream art and culture consistently emphasized heterosexual intercourse as the only kind of "real" sex.”
But for some people, masturbation is all they’ve got. And even for those fortunate enough for the situation to be otherwise, it never really ends.
I remember a college friend named Marty Rubenstein sagely advising me, “you may think that once you start getting laid, you’ll jerk off less, but the opposite is probably true. Once you start getting laid, you probably want to do it even more. You‘ve got so much more information to fantasize about”
But, then again, that makes the need for pornography somewhat less acute.
But for some, it may be the only outlet.
This month, NYC mourned the death of Harry Wieder. Harry was many things; an activist (both locally, on the Lower East Side and Citywide), a gay man, a dwarf, a person with severe physical handicaps.
I first met Harry in 1995, when I was delivering testimony before a City Council Committee hearing on the subject of Adult Entertainment Zoning.
A difficult subject, now made far easier, because in the age of the internet, anyone can shop for this stuff, with free previews, from the privacy of one’s own home.
But back in 1995, such establishments tended to be an attractive nuisance and a quality of life problem.
The City’s response was to try to zone them virtually out of existence, basically restricting them to waterfronts and industrial areas. In the current NYC waterfront renaissance, it is hard to believe that, not so long ago, the City conceived of our waterfronts as a dumping ground for waste transfer stations, big box stores and porno establishment.
Ironically, the legislation was going to move such establishments into areas where they were not wanted, while some discrete establishments in heavily gay areas which caused no complaints were going to be victimized by the proposed law.
Up to testify came Harry. He was charming, he was funny, he had one of those voices that just oozed.
He opened by telling the assembled panel how handsome they were. Everyone laughed, perhaps because Walter McCaffrey was chairing the hearing.
Harry then explained that as a gay man with his physical condition, his options were often quite limited, and access to pornography was essential for him to have any semblance of an erotic life.
I nearly cried.
Perhaps some member of the Senate Judicial Committee should ask Elena Kagan what she would say to Harry Wieder.
*******************************************************************************
Let us now switch from talking about one kind of Kinks to talking about another.
If they'd never made "Well Respected Man," the Kinks would be remembered today as a great pre-Freakbeat band, with many "Nuggets" worthy cuts, but one lacking the instrumental virtuosity of the Yardbirds or the Creation. But with that cut, and "Dedicated Follower of Fashion," they began a transition which eventually led to four remarkable albums (“Face To Face,” “Something Else,” “Village Green” and “Arthur“) and many wonderful non-LP singles (like "Days") which distinguished themselves as thoughtful celebrations of the joys of the most trivial and parochial aspects of British life.
“The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society” is what I imagine the British equivalent of Americana sounds like (as opposed what the British channeling Americana sound like–that would be "Muswell Hillbillies"). Song by song, both "Face to Face" and "Something Else" are better listens, but “Village Green” is something so much bigger.
After that, there were moments of brilliance. “Lola” was a fabulous single, but rock bands doing concept albums about the treacheries of their business are a dime a dozen. “Muswell” was a brilliantly atypical concept album (incorporating by fiat many songs in the style of their golden era) but the concept albums which followed on RCA were mostly empty vaudeville.
“Sleepwalker.” “Misfits,” and “Low Budget” began a return to power rock/pop, plus a less subtle form of social satire, which continued until their burn-out. During their post-great period, they produced many classic tracks, some hits, and some buried treasures, but it was never the same after "Lola"
So, what can one say about a bass player for a band whose greatest achievements were songs about subjects like village greens (“The Village Green Preservation Society”) hand-rolled cigarettes (“Harry Rag“–not a reference to the first part of this article), and buying a fancy new hat (“She Bought a Hat Like Princess Marina“)? A band which produced two different songs about the joys of drinking teas?
A band which produced the remarkable"Waterloo Sunset," a song about a loner whose life revolves around looking out his window and watching and fantasizing about the romantic life of a couple he regularly sees in a completely drab train station (perhaps a fantasy both Elena and Harry could agree upon)?
I think this obit sums it up best in a couple of places:
"Born Peter Alexander Greenlaw Quaife on Dec. 31, 1943, he went to William Grimshaw Secondary Modern School in North London…"
"After leaving the Kinks, Mr. Quaife played briefly with another band, Mapleoak, and worked as a graphic artist in Denmark and Canada. He was found to have renal failure in 1998, and documented his experiences in cartoons collected in two volumes of books titled 'The Lighter Side of Dialysis.'"
God Dave the Village Green, God Save Pete Quaife, God Save Ray and Dave Davies, and God Save the Kinks!