What is interesting is the psychological claim that the filmmaker is claiming:
First and foremost, I want to make sure that everyone knows I'm not trying to incite another Charlie Hebdo incident. But [our four scenes] basically represent different women from different regions in the Middle East, different kinds of ideas. [We're] trying to be a little titillating, obviously, with the different kids of traditional dress. But I started the video by [thinking]: For Middle Eastern women, veiling is not just a way to suppress her sexual freedom, it's a symbol for all the human rights violations against these women like rape and domestic violence.Vice wasn't very impressed with the effect. "At its core," the judge, "the film is a prime example of banal ignorance fueling bigoted imagery."
[It's about] taking the veil off.
I obviously haven't seen the film, and don't intend to. However, it strikes me that Vice isn't well placed to judge the impact of the film. Clearly the filmmaker is right about the effect of the veil as it is experienced by women in the region. Some may experience the veil as Islam claims to intend it to be experienced, as a liberation from the tyranny of continual male sexual attention. For others, her reading has to be close to right. What that means is that not only is this symbolism going to be powerful for those women, it's also going to be powerful symbolism for men from the cultures where veiling is tied to issues of sex. It may end up being more effective than they expect, in spite of its banality, because it touches on symbols that are deeply-felt for the Middle Eastern audience in a way they are not here.
So, there's an ethical question: would that be good, to have a beneficial effect achieved through the method of pornography? If you were trying to disrupt Islamist systems and found this was effective, is it a method you'd endorse? Or is the harm done too great to apologize for the good? You might want to include a brief discussion of whether you think pornography is in fact harmful, and if so just how, as philosophical opinions on that differ sharply.
You are feeling feisty today, my friend - no es verdad??? :)
ReplyDeleteToday is deadlift day. }:>
ReplyDeletePart 1: OK, I'll bite. Let's take this bit by bit:
ReplyDeleteWhat that means is that not only is this symbolism going to be powerful for those women, it's also going to be powerful symbolism for men from the cultures where veiling is tied to issues of sex.
Really? Why would it do that? That conclusion doesn't seem to follow logically from anything I read in the article. Are all costumes in porn seriously viewed as "symbolism" with some kind of deep moral lesson to teach? Do men who like French maid costumes secretly long to pick up the nearest toilet brush and free their significant others from a lifetime of toil in the Pink Ghetto? Color me dubious :)
Or is this - more likely - just one more naughty nun fantasy with a multi-culti twist?
Seems to me that women seeing the film in the first place are not likely those living in anything approaching purdah. Secondly, it's not at all clear to me that a Muslim man watching what was described would have cause to rethink his treatment or views of women's proper roles in the pecking order... so to speak :p
It may end up being more effective than they expect, in spite of its banality, because it touches on symbols that are deeply-felt for the Middle Eastern audience in a way they are not here.
Effective at what? Does it "touch on deeply-felt symbols" in a way likely to foster empathy and a desire to liberate women from traditional gender roles in male viewers? Is that how most guys react to porn? "Hmmm... watching that veiled woman lead a male prisoner around on a chain has made me realize that I'm harboring all kinds of horrid sexist-piggery that I really need to work through with my therapist..."
Far-fetched rationalizations of porn are a dime a dozen on the Internet. This one strikes me as just more of the same. They don't tend to change minds: people who start out wanting to feel validated about watching porn generally find them immensely persuasive, and people who think porn is unmanly or actively bad just kind of roll their eyes (the same way pro-porn folks roll their eyes when someone tries to make the case against it).
It's not really an argument for anything except novelty and religious transgression.
They call us the Great Satan because we tempt them to evil. So will proving that we do exactly that make them like us more? Or will their shame at succumbing to temptation be projected into more hatred of us?
ReplyDeleteCass:
ReplyDeleteReally? Why would it do that? That conclusion doesn't seem to follow logically...
Well, it's not supposed to follow logically, but psychologically. I mean, clearly these guys have a lot invested in keeping women veiled as a means of controlling female sexual expression. I assume -- though I don't know, since I don't engage in this -- that there's some pretty serious underlying psychic tension.
Effective at what?
At just what porn effectively does with our own sexual mores: unraveling them. Providing sexual pleasure -- or even just excitement -- means that the way people are thinking changes because the chemicals at work in the brain while they are thinking change. The same message that worked here would likely be effective there, too: 'Hey, look at how much fun you're missing! If we could just undo these silly rules and be free to express our love...'
James:
So will proving that we do exactly that make them like us more? Or will their shame at succumbing to temptation be projected into more hatred of us?
I'd guess the answers are "no" and "maybe." But I was thinking more about how it might change how they treat women at home, than how they might change their attitudes towards us (if at all).
What I think might be a good counterargument against it is that sexualizing the veil (moreso, since they are right to suggest that it already exists in a sexual context) could end up destroying the refuge that really might be of value to some women. When you get to the point that the veil is also a trigger for male sexual attention, you've undone the only good the veil was doing. At that point the veil might fall into disuse, though, because what's the point of it?
Meh.
ReplyDeleteEvery so often, somebody offers sex as a solution to the misbehavior of Jihadi F**kheads. So far, the only correlation I see is that, as the Islamist Perverts spin further and further out of normal human behavior, they get more and more sexually perverted.
They're already into rape of children (boys and girls) slavery, and bestiality. After that, what does a purveyor of harmless porn featuring merely fun sex have to offer?
On the other hand, a porn film comparing the difference between an intact woman, and one who has been subjected to female genital mutilation, might be effective. What if a woman was left as God made her?
Valerie
Valerie, that difference is exactly why it is done. Its purpose is to reduce female sexual desire, which is thought to be uncontrollably powerful in intact women. So...
ReplyDeleteIts purpose is to reduce female sexual desire, which is thought to be uncontrollably powerful in intact women. So...
ReplyDeleteI think James and jaed are on the right track. First to your, "does the end justify the means" question (that's all it is, really), I think the answer is an unequivocal "No": tempting them into doing something both our culture and theirs frown upon isn't morally justifiable, even in the unlikely event that it "worked".
As jaed points out, they already view women as innately sexual. Confirming that belief (particularly by having a veiled woman leading a man about on a leash!) does nothing to change that view. How is "look at all the fun we could be having" any different from the influences Grim has decried in our own culture?
The moral end of life isn't "fun", nor is it guilt- or consequence-free sex. Much of the Muslim attitude towards the distaff half of humanity is rooted in fear of women: fear that men won't be able to control themselves around us, fear that women will somehow get the upper hand unless we are ruthlessly controlled, fear that educating us is dangerous, fear that women will make men weak. Showing women tempting men into behavior they view as immoral only confirms that deep-rooted belief.
I also liked Valerie's point, here:
On the other hand, a porn film comparing the difference between an intact woman, and one who has been subjected to female genital mutilation, might be effective. What if a woman was left as God made her?
A porn film showing an intact woman enthusiastically loving only her husband would be the kind of message that might make a dent. Though I can't help noticing that that sort of message doesn't play well here, either. The whole point of porn isn't faithful/joyous committed sex. That's not what men are fantasizing about: the meat and potatoes of porn is constant images of men doing whatever they want to a woman and women of what we used to call "easy virtue" being casually sexually available.
And that's the "nice" stuff - the author of your article refers to the more prevalent themes like women being "gang-banged" (and loving it, durnitall, because that's just how we secretly roll).
But how do men in real life view such women? With contempt and distaste, not admiration. Which pretty much tells you all you need to know, doesn't it?
Maybe one of those phobia-desensitizing programs would work: video of women behaving like people, with men interacting with them as people.
ReplyDeleteThe very limited human aspect of porn is shrunk down to a narrow spectrum of fantasy-perfect sexual response, with just enough whiff of mute humanity to arouse the hindbrain. It's a brutal, shriveled perspective. I'm skeptical that more of the same will ever spur men who are terrified of women's mystically shattering evil sexual power to have the courage to open their eyes and experience the whole person--or even to learn to accept their own full personhood.
If a man says he can't deal with feminine temptation to the point where he has to go live on a pillar in the desert, I merely pity him. If he concludes he has to lock up and drape all the women in order to preserve his purity and/or psychic equanimity, I start looking for ways to hold him off at gunpoint. Frankly, his personal problems aren't important enough to enslave half the human race for his convenience. Should I be thinking about milder forms of persuasion? Maybe, but experience tells me that exposing that kind of man to the stimulus that terrifies him is a pretty good way to inspire him to shoot up a crowd as a way of finally resolving the intolerable conflict.
The fundamental aspect of analysis should be the profit margin, as with Planned Profit.
ReplyDeleteHow is "look at all the fun we could be having" any different from the influences Grim has decried in our own culture?
ReplyDeleteWell, bear in mind, I was speculating about this in terms of a weapon of war. I don't think it's good to have bombs dropped on your cities, either, and I wouldn't want them dropped on mine! However, I'm willing to drop a few as part of a military campaign. How much more, then, would I be willing to use a psychological weapon that targeted the cultural principles I wanted to unravel?
I notice a theme in the responses, though. My speculative question was, if this worked, would we be willing to use it given the harms we associate with pornography? I had thought of this question as being somewhat like, 'Given that VX gas is an effective means against the enemy, is it morally appropriate?', or 'Would we use a nuclear weapon in this case?' That was the kind of question I was asking.
The theme I notice in the responses is questioning whether it would work. That's an interesting question too, and we can certainly talk about it if you like. I just notice that it's a different question. If you take as an assumption for the sake of argument that this was effective as a weapon, would we feel morally constrained against using it? Because, just as you say, I myself recognize some significant harms from it in terms of unraveling our culture's mores especially on sexuality but on religion as well. In the case of radical Islam, I'd like to unravel their mores on sexuality and their particular interpretation of their religion. I wouldn't want to leave them incapable of adopting other, better mores.
I guess you're going to have to put me into the "if war is the application of brute force, use brute force" camp.
ReplyDeleteI accept - reluctantly - that war and violence are sometimes necessary. Hopefully, civilized nations and combatants try to minimize collateral damage. I don't see how intentionally "demoralizing" (in the literal sense) a society is consistent with that aim?
There is still some animal spirit in men (generically) that respects superior force. I wish it were otherwise, but we don't get to make the world over in our preferred image. OK - if force is necessary, use force. Persuasion is OK by me, too.
But this isn't persuasion - it's a crude manipulation of an extremely powerful set of human drives and emotions that - IMO - is actively wrong for the same reasons demagoguery is wrong. It's manipulation, not persuasion.
At least brute force doesn't pretend to be anything else.
Well. A couple of things.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I may not be the right person to address this (not that that's going to stop me), since I do not generally speaking have a moral problem with dramatic depictions of sex made to be sexually arousing. I do find some porn repulsive, but that's an aesthetic reaction, not a moral one. I do agree that it's possible to become obsessive about it, to the detriment of one's soul, but that's something we could say about a lot of things that are pleasurable or compelling.
But supposing I did; supposing that I believed exposing people to porn, and specifically the kind of porn we might contemplate using for this purpose, would implicitly be morally and psychologically damaging to them. In this case, I'd use Grim's analogy of bombing and look at the aftermath: we will need to clean up the mess afterward, at least to some degree - or if not clean it up, then deal with the repercussions (possible famine, refugees, etc.). Then we would need to look at the analogous repercussions of flooding a country with porn videos.
So in this case the question becomes, not just "are we willing to countenance the means, given the situation" - but "if this tactic will predictably make a mess, can we/will we either clean it up, or tolerate the repercussions as better than the situation we would have faced had we not used this tactic?" There are really two questions here - one a moral one about the harm done to the enemy, and the other a question of balancing benefits and drawbacks. I don't see why this wouldn't apply to porn or other sorts of propaganda as much as to bombing, given that one believes porn will be harmful.
---
Maybe one of those phobia-desensitizing programs would work: video of women behaving like people, with men interacting with them as people.
Now I like this idea. It would work only for places where the sexes are strictly segregated, but it might work there. (For example, I have heard Saudis quoted as saying things that seem to indicate they simply don't believe a man and woman could work together without hopping in the sack immediately. If this is a common assumption, disrupting it would certainly help.)
I, too, lack much of an objection to dramatic depictions of sex made to be sexually arousing. I can't escape the conclusion, though, that on the porn side of that scale the depictions tend to exhibit a crude tunnel-vision. If the problem we're addressing is, as I think it is, one of an inability to see women as anything but either a temptation or a source of animal gratification, then porn is exactly the wrong tool--even assuming we're morally justified in applying a propaganda tool.
ReplyDeleteFor myself, I have always felt -- since I began studying philosophy as a young man, long before becoming Catholic -- that there was something off about the doctrine as Aquinas presents it. I used to think I knew what had led to the error, but I've come to understand in recent years that I hadn't fully understood his position. It's an intricate nest of philosophy, composed over centuries by a number of great thinkers. We often hear the "thou shall nots" and not the vast array of arguments underlying them, because even laying out the arguments is hard. But if you dig into them, they're well-reasoned.
ReplyDeleteSo I have to count myself as puzzled on the issue, rather than convicted. I accept provisionally that the Church's doctrine might be right, even though I continue to feel that there's something missing from the argument that I haven't quite identified.
In any case, I'm not bothered by erotica provided that it serves the right ends -- i.e., the same set of ends that all of sexual doctrine points toward. There's a test for all sexual acts that is inherent in the doctrine that can be applied. I think you could probably point to cases in which erotica has been beneficial to the creation of children, to the sustaining of a loving and lifelong marriage, to the unity of husband and wife as they use it to explore each other's desires (and certainly to the giving of pleasure, which is a good end for Aquinas as well).
I do find some porn repulsive, but that's an aesthetic reaction, not a moral one.
ReplyDeleteI've heard that said so many times I've lost track, and it has always puzzled me greatly. Without in any way wishing to single you out for saying something I hear said all the time, I'd like to throw a question out to everyone:
If there's no moral objection to porn, then why isn't it viewed just the same as any other kind of acting job? I don't hear men saying, "Yanno, I would *love* to be a porn star. I could get paid to have sex with a never ending variety of women, and people all over the world could watch me. Since there's no moral component to any of this, what possible downside could there be?"
I also don't hear men saying, "Yanno, I really enjoy porn. It's just harmless entertainment, and I think my wife/sister/daughter/mother would make an AMAZING porn star. She seems to have some inexplicable objection to getting paid to have sex with lots and lots of men on camera, but I don't understand her prudish objections and think she should lighten up and agree to entertain me and my 10000 closest friends."
Nor, come to think of it, have I ever heard a man expressing a desire for his son to go into the porn industry. Not sure why - it's legal, free enterprise, and (again) there's no moral objection whatsoever.
What I have heard - a lot - is men, shaming other men if they try to bring up the moral aspect. Thankfully not here, but you guys are an unusual group of commenters and authors.
All of which makes me wonder what people really believe?
Heh... I had one more amusing thought :p
ReplyDeleteIn today's social media age, people share photos of themselves, their children, their families eating, playing, sleeping, doing all sorts of things. Parents have been known to almost press photos of their kids on other adults.
But at least in the circles I travel in, you don't see people saying, "Hey - here's a nude photo of my wife/daughter. Isn't she a knockout?"
"Here's a nude photo of my oldest boy - he's really hung like a horse, isn't he?"
"Oh, and here's a video of the little woman and I going at it like deranged wildebeests. Boy, that was really a good time - just wanted to share it with you!"
People will believe what they are told to believe.
ReplyDeleteLeftist zombies are merely more likely.
Porn has a sub culture, much like feminism or black riots in Baltimore, there's a logistical funding source for it that arranges matters inside their own bubble.
Most of the things that go on in that sub culture, isn't known to outsiders. So even if a sub culture has an artistic or profit value, like Planned Profit does, that does not mean they want people to hear about it or to advertise it or to approve or disapprove. It's dangerous for a sub culture to lose its distinct monopolies and inherent advantages.
So, Cass, what you're talking about isn't art but family photos. I mean, nobody really likes looking at family photos except perhaps family.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, art is constructed to be expressive of something. It's meant to be public (generally: there are exceptions, such as Lakota moccasins, which were decorated to be viewed from the wearer's perspective rather than by viewers).
We tend to view hideous art as similarly shameful, I think, without necessarily viewing it as immoral. We could be wrong about that, though: it could be, as I have sometimes thought, that beauty is a form of truth, and to make something hideous is to violate something basic and important in your duty to the world, in your duty to the truth.
However, I don't think most people think that way. I think it's common to say, "Oh, my daughter is an... um... 'artist'" whether you mean that she's a maker of urine-filled jars with crosses inside them or you mean that she works out of a porn studio in Miami. In both cases, even if you didn't think of producing the art as immoral, you'd find it very embarrassing.
Perhaps, though, we ought to think of it as immoral.
But then I don't at all mind a steamy movie scene, even if it is quite prurient--and yet I wouldn't want actual footage of myself and the NPH going at it. One is fiction, the other not. The fiction doesn't raise any privacy issues for me.
ReplyDeleteThey say couples do sometimes have difficulty dealing with the knowledge that the other member of the couple is filming hot Hollywood scenes. I have no idea whether I would. The idea of the NPH acting a part under any circumstances is too alien for me to imagine.
At some point you cross the line from "steamy" into "porn," and I think the dividing line often has a lot to do with how dehumanizing the images are: this isn't part of a story any more, by any stretch. It's just a visual aid to solitary sexual gratification, usually with the coarsest imaginable associations, and that's before you get to the Dutch amputee porn.
"...the coarsest imaginable associations, and that's before you get to the Dutch amputee porn."
ReplyDeleteIndeed, that is beyond the line of the imaginable! On the other hand, I saw part of a critically acclaimed movie sort of on that subject. I walked out long before the climactic scenes, but it really pushes the line you're trying to draw.
So, Cass, what you're talking about isn't art but family photos. I mean, nobody really likes looking at family photos except perhaps family.
ReplyDeleteIf that were true, Facebook would have gone out of business a loooooooooong time ago :p
And I like looking at photos, even when they're not family. I generally enjoy seeing photos of my co-workers' kids or families (some of whom I've never met IRL).
At any rate, Grim, you're missing my point: which was that porn is viewed differently from other pleasurable leisure/entertainment activities that people show photos of all the time. No matter how many times people maintain that it isn't, it is. I don't think I've ever seen a teacher be fired for having been an artist, but plenty have been fired for making porn. The military has fired people for making porn too, even though it's legal.
I don't really get pretending that society views these things in the same way: clearly, it doesn't. And equally clearly (in my view), it's because society sees a moral aspect to porn that it doesn't wish to encourage. Now you may disagree with that judgment, but it still exists.
Tex:
I don't really view steamy movie scenes as porn for the reasons you describe. Sometimes, when they're completely gratuitous and intrude on the story rather than supporting it, they annoy me. Yes, it's fiction, but those are real people acting the scenes.
Which is another major distinction: in most steamy movie scenes, clever camera work is used to obscure the fact that the actors aren't actually having sex. Porn isn't fiction: it's real sex between real people who are getting paid to have sex with each other so you can watch.
Too funny, given the topic we've been discussing:
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/3Dt3IrdampY
Should be perfectly safe listening/viewing for those afraid to click blind links.
At any rate, Grim, you're missing my point: which was that porn is viewed differently from other pleasurable leisure/entertainment activities that people show photos of all the time. No matter how many times people maintain that it isn't, it is. I don't think I've ever seen a teacher be fired for having been an artist, but plenty have been fired for making porn. The military has fired people for making porn too, even though it's legal.
ReplyDeleteSo, I thought I understood the point, but maybe my response isn't clear. I think we are sometimes confused about whether behaving shamefully is or isn't a moral issue. Especially in the matter of art creation.
What I think is at issue with pornography of the worst sort is that it's roughly like saying that it's art to film yourself defecating on camera. (I think a teacher might get fired if it turned out she was famous for that). It's a kind of art, in the sense that it's published and constructed to create an effect. It's also anti-aesthetic, and that's where the shame comes from. It's shameful to do something that embarrasses and disgusts people in this way.
Is that moral shame, though, or physical shame? That's where I think we have confusion. What I wanted to sketch was a kind of argument from transcendental beauty, but it's a dangerous argument. Sometimes people think things are ugly for bad reasons. But maybe there's a kind of beauty from which we could reason cleanly, and therefore a kind of ugliness from which we could reason cleanly.
"Kevin, it's an animated feature; you're in a sound booth . . . .:
ReplyDeleteSo, to get a really good debate going here these days, you have to talk about porn. Got it.
ReplyDelete;-)
Maybe the lesson is that you have to do your deadlifts. Get that testosterone pumping, son. :)
ReplyDeleteSo, to get a really good debate going here these days, you have to talk about porn.
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not, I was very reluctant to engage at all on this one, and have almost backed out twice. I don't think I've ever had a discussion on this topic that hasn't left me feeling hopeless and depressed. The impossibility of really communicating (not persuading - just trying to make my own position understood, or to understand other commenters' positions) never seems to go away.
"Kevin, it's an animated feature; you're in a sound booth . . . .
ReplyDelete:)
I think we are sometimes confused about whether behaving shamefully is or isn't a moral issue.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel confused on this at all. If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to be ashamed about.
I would be embarrassed if someone took and distributed naked photos of me without my permissions, but I would not be at all ashamed. Angry is more like it.
If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to be ashamed about.
ReplyDeleteLet's talk about that. You clearly mean, "If you have done something wrong, you should feel ashamed." But do you also mean "If you feel ashamed, you must have done something wrong"? Or "If you haven't done anything wrong, you shouldn't feel ashamed"?
The first principle strikes me as non-problematic. If you do something wrong and don't feel ashamed, there's a problem with your sense of shame.
The second and third ones, though, are where I think we get a lot of confusion. "I was born out of wedlock, and I'm so ashamed when people find out that I'm a bastard." That's clearly not a case of someone being ashamed for having done something wrong. So we find that the second principle fails, and the third one applies: we should correct society's ideas about what is shameful because nothing wrong was done to provoke the sense of shame.
In the case of porn, I think you get porn actors and actresses and directors and consumers all wanting to argue that it's a case like that: a case where people are trying to make them feel ashamed, and maybe they do even feel ashamed, even though nothing wrong was done. And they're falling in on arguments of this kind as parallels or precedents: people were ashamed of being black, of being gay, of being unemployed, of being a single mother, of being...
It's a mechanism that was intended as a corrective for genuinely unfair cases like the bastard, but I think it's at work in people's confusion about pornography too. Some of that confusion may be willful. But some of it may be genuine: there have been a lot of precedents along this line lately. Some of them follow from accidents of birth, and these are more obviously correct applications. Many of them (single motherhood, for example) also pertain to choices you made along the way.