Question I am impressed by the attempt of some pro-sex thinkers to bring together anarchism and feminism, particularly with regard to the controversial issue of pornography. Since I agree with them that freedom is the guiding principle, I also agree that pornography, like any other form of sexual expression, should be considered morally and legally permissible as long as it is consensual. However, given that anarchism is libertarian socialism, it seems that this principle of liberty should be extended to embrace the ideal of a society (or a network of communities) acceptable to all, including those who wish to be free from pornography, or certain types of it. When, for example, women are involuntarily exposed to men's pornography in the workplace, or on a mass scale in popular culture, can the argument not be made that pornography is then transformed from a private consensual activity into sexual harassment or forced sexist propaganda which violates women's own freedom and sexual autonomy? Could we not, then, call this public and coercive form of expression obscenity, or pornography in the negative sense, and seek to restrict it, not contrary to freedom, but in the interest of a society which is truly liberating for all?

Accepted:
May 2, 2007

Comments

Yes, in short, I think you're right about restricting the display of pornography while preserving the liberty of those who wish access to it. And isn't that just the kind of balance that is often sought. Pornographic materials are sold from separate rooms of shops, encased in opaque wrappings, excluded from billboards--but access to them for those who wish to acquire them is often in many parts of the U.S., anyway, nevertheless not unreasonably difficult to obtain.

It's a tricky thing to figure, however, this balance. On the one hand, there is the liberty interest of those who choose to acquire pornography; and clearly many people find it enjoyable. Arguably, there is also a general political value to pornographic materials insofar as they are part of the conversation about what proper sexual morality and proper sexual expression should be. On the other hand those who find pornography obnoxious have an interest in not being harmed in the sense of embarrassed or annoyed or grossed out by it. Parents, indeed the whole community, have an interest in preventing children from being exposed to it, at least because children like to imitate what they see. Some have even argued that because pornography is more than offensive (i.e. it is degrading, exploitative, causes violence, causes psychological harm) there is a public interest in shielding people from it--just as there is a public interest in shielding people from chemical pollution.

Besides issues of harm, however, there is also the commonly overlooked interest in not being distracted unnecessarily. Sexual representations have a way of arresting people's attention and even arousing them against their wills. For the same reason it's rude to eat in front of others without offering them food (sometimes even if one offers food), it's rude to present them with sexual representations when they wish not to be distracted or aroused. It's interesting to think, in this regard, why people eat in public (at restaurants, etc.) but don't have sex in public. Of course, in the past sex had been a more public affair than it is now, but never so far as I know in the way eating is public. There are many reasons for this, I think, but one is that sex is so powerful in its ability to disrupt other human activities. Consider, how different it is to sit next to someone in a movie theater eating popcorn from the way it would be to sit next to someone in an ordinary movie theater having sex.