1.  Basic Issues

        Here, as with most of the topics we are considering, there are two types of questions that are important, one dealing with the issue of moral status, and the other concerned with the moral issue of what laws there should be.  So we have to ask:

(1)  Is it morally wrong to enjoy pornography?

(2)  Should there be laws against some, or most, or all pornography?

2.  Important Lines of Argument

A.  Concerning the Moral Status of Pornography

There are three lines of argument that one encounters most frequently:

(1)  The enjoyment of pornography is intrinsically wrong.

        Here the underlying argument may be either that any enjoyment of sexual pleasure that is not connected with reproductive sex within marriage is morally wrong, and intrinsically so, or else that pornography is morally wrong because it naturally tends to lead to masturbation, which is morally wrong.

(2)  The viewing of pornography causes violence - specifically, violence against women, including rape.

        The argument here may focus upon pornography where women are raped, or, more generally, upon the idea that pornography encourages violence against women by portraying women as sex objects to be used by men for their own satisfaction.

(3)  Pornography, even if it does not lead to wrong behavior directed against women, is morally wrong because it exemplifies and recommends such behavior - specifically, the viewing of women as mere sex objects, rather than as active, full-fledged persons.

Comment:  It is important to distinguish this third objection from the second.

B.  Concerning the Legal Status that Pornography Should Have

        The second of the above arguments is the most likely one to form the basis of an argument for the view that either pornography in general, or at least a good deal of pornography, should be against the law.  For if (1) the claim is correct, and if (2) the harm in question is sufficiently common, one need merely appeal to the libertarian claim that laws are appropriate when they are necessary to protect the rights of people.

        Notice, however, that both claims (1) and (2) might very well be challenged.  In the case of (1), the issue is one that requires careful empirical investigation.  It will not do simply to appeal to the possibility that pornography may have the bad effects being suggested, and thus to argue, as some writers do, that if there is any chance that pornography leads to increased violence against women, then it should be legally banned. It is also crucial to be aware of the sort of evidence that is needed - namely, it must be evidence that establishes the causal claim in question, and here it is important to avoid bad statistical arguments, such as:  "80% of rapists have viewed pornography.  Therefore viewing pornography causes men to rape women."

        As regards claim (2), the point is that one must always weigh costs and benefits.  Suppose, for example, that it could be shown that some violence against women is caused by viewing pornography, but that this was a very infrequent occurrence.  Would this suffice to justify a law banning pornography?

3.  Ann Garry's Discussion of the Moral Status of Pornography

        An advocate of the third line of argument mentioned above, with regard to the moral status of pornography, is Ann Garry.  Her discussion deserves careful scrutiny.

        Ann Garry quotes Susan Brownmiller, with whom she is going to disagree, at least in part:  "Pornography is the undiluted essence of anti-female propaganda."

        Ann Garry wants to address three questions:

(1)  Does pornography degrade human beings?

(2)  Does pornography degrade women more than men?

(3)  Must pornography degrade women, or could there be morally innocuous, non-sexist pornography?

        Ann Garry distinguishes two different questions:

(1)  Does pornography cause violence against women?

(2)  Does pornography exemplify or recommend behavior that lacks respect for persons?

 

Ann Garry discussion of the issue of whether pornography "treats women as mere sex objects 'to be exploited and manipulated'" proceeds as follows:

1.  Pornographic films that portray women as wanting to be raped degrade women.

Question:  Do films that portray men as killing people "degrade" men?  What is the principle that underlies Ann Garry's claim here?  Is it that some pornography portrays all women as wanting to be raped - or most women - rather than some?

2.  Garry asks:  "What is the connection between losing respect for a woman and treating her as a sex object?"  Garry says that the traditional respect that men have for women is "an outgrowth of the 'double standard'."  Moreover: "If a person makes two traditional assumptions - that (at least some) sex is dirty and that women fall into two classes, good and bad - it is easy to see how that person could lead people to lose respect for women or that pornography is itself disrespectful to women."

3.  Garry points out that "losing respect for men as a class (men with power, typically Anglo men) is more difficult than losing respect for women or ethic minorities as a class."

4.  Garry contends that one can reasonably object to be treated only as a sex object, without thinking that sex is dirty.  Garry says that one might, similarly, object to being viewed only as a tennis partner.  Or one might object because the other person thinks that sex is dirty.  Or one might object to be treating as an kind of object.

5.  But Garry realizes that the preceding considerations may not be thought to be especially plausible, and she goes on to offer a fourth consideration - and this appears to be one of Garry's main contentions - that there is a connection, in our language, between sex and harm, in view of the fact that sexual terms are often used as terms of abuse.  (Introducing this fourth consideration, Garry says:  "Fourth, and more plausible than the first three possibilities, . . .")

6.  Garry appeals to the contention of a psychoanalyst named Robert Stoller who claims,. in Garry words, that "sexual excitement is linked with a wish to harm someone."

Comment:  This is surely a surprising claim.  Is it at all plausible?

7.  "The sex-harm connection makes clear why it is worse to treat women as sex objects than to treat men as sex objects, and why some men have had difficulty understanding women's anger about the matter."

8.  Garry agrees with critics of Brownmiller that pornography treats men as sex objects, but argues that in view of the active male/passive female point, it is worse to treat women as sex objects than to treat men as sex objects.

9.  Garry refers to only two pieces of pornography.  One is Behind the Green Door, while the other is The Passions of Carol - which was made by a woman.  (It is perhaps worth noting that Garry's article was published in 1978.)

10.  Garry argues that there could be nonsexist pornography, and that it is reasonable to expect that people would be interested in viewing it.

11.  She contends that in moving from our actual society to her imagined case, "the key to making the change is to break the connection between sex and harm".  She goes on to remark:  "If Stoller is right, this task may be impossible without changing the scenarios of our sexual lives - scenarios that we have been writing since early childhood."  She also contends that "the sex-harm connection is deeply entrenched."

12.  Garry describes pornography that seems nonsexist, but she contends that given the attitudes that people typically have in society today, it would still be morally objectionable because of the way in which people would view it.

Comments

1.  The claim that there is a connection between sex and harm is, I think, very implausible.  In support of this claim, Garry cites the linguistic fact that sexual terms are often used in our society as terms of abuse.  I would suggest, however, that what this usage really reflects is simply the view - which was widespread in the past -  that sex is dirty.

2.  The appeal to linguistic evidence cannot be decisive, and the psychoanalytic citation involves no evidence at all - just one person's unsupported opinion.  The crucial question is:  "Would surveys of attitudes lend significant support to the hypothesis that there is a significant connection between the idea of having sex with someone, and the idea of harming someone?"  I think it would be very surprising if the answer turned out to be "Yes".

3.  Garry suggests that pornography is "morally objectionable, not because it leads people to show disrespect for women, but because pornography itself exemplifies and recommends behavior that violates the moral principle to respect persons."  (128).  The "exemplifies" claim is, I think, very problematic.  But the "recommends" claim is a very different one, and even more problematic, and it is hard to see that Garry has provided any support for it.  (If one considers non-sexual behavior, then it is certainly true that it is extremely common in films and books to portray behavior - such as murder, robbery, etc. -that it certainly not being recommended.  So why need the situation be different in the case of sexual behavior?)

4.  A crucial question, if one is arguing for the banning of existing pornography, is not whether existing pornography degrades women, but whether it degrades women in ways that films and books in general do not.  Sexist attitudes may very well still be widespread in society, but unless they are more evident in pornography, then there is something very dubious about attacking pornography on the ground that it often involves, for example, active men and passive women.  Shouldn't one be attacking, at the same time, all literature, movies, etc.,. that involve such sexist attitudes, and arguing for the same response and treatment in all cases?  Why single out pornography for special treatment?

        The situation would, of course, be different if the claimed connection between sex and harm could be sustained.  But I have suggested that there is no good reason at all for thinking that that claim can be sustained.

5.  Finally, the claim that pornography typically portrays men as active and women as passive seems highly suspect.  For I would have thought that many men like women who are enthusiastic about sex, and who approach it in an energetic and active fashion, and if that is so, then it may well be the case that women are, as a matter of fact, typically portrayed as being more active in pornography than in non-pornography.  Perhaps if one surveyed pornographic videos and books, one would find that this is no so.  But Garry's article certainly provides no grounds for concluding that this is not the case, since, as noted earlier, her survey or pornography appears to have been confined to two movies.