Quick Hit: Ukraine Outlaws Porn
Disappointing news: Porn is now illegal in the Ukraine.
Ever the optimist, I see a silver lining here. At least the whole "unless it's for medicinal purposes" clause unwittingly points to the health benefits of masturbation :-)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: Ukraine Outlaws Porn.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14833
What?? What kind of a statement even is that? Outlawing "porn?" What counts as "porn" to them? Is it laid out specifically or is it undefined? That could be...pretty scary.
I also kind of have to wonder just how they plan on enforcing this.
Apparently, porn is defined according to legislation from 2003 as "vulgar, candid, cynical, obscene depiction of sexual acts, pursuing no other goal, the explicit demonstration of genitals, unethical elements of the sexual act, sexual perversions, realistic sketches that do not meet moral criteria and offend honour and dignity of the human by inciting low instincts."
The lack of a specific definition makes it even more worrisome, because of how broadly the law can theoretically be applied.
CYNICAL? I'm not really sure how that word fits. Does that mean that optmistic depictions of sex acts that lift the spirits get a pass? And what about candid? Is the opposite of that "planned and choreographed"?
That definition is like someone sewed together every euphemism and vague expression they could think of. Explicit demonstration of genitals? That sounds like something from med school or a sex ed class, not porn.
Well it says "pursuing no other goal" - which sounds kind of like the law against obscenity in the US, which requires that an obscene object have NO redeeming social/literary value - which lawyers have used to defend questionable content. Maybe that'll get some play in Ukraine as well.
Still, it'll be exciting to see how they start banning fine art and sexual health websites like we had before the Communication Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act were repealed. Misery loves company!
"pursuing no other goal" seems like a good definition, because in art, therapy, etc. it would be fairly easy to meet that burden of proof.
Personally, I think that this is wonderful. Pornography is destructive and it will protect a lot of women from being exploited and even more from being dismantled with a pornographic lens. Protecting pornography on 1st amendment grounds is fine. Doing so in the name of feminism is silly and insulting.
Do you REALLY advocate the legal banning of all things that are destructive? That's so paternalistic it's disturbing. Just because you have a hammer doesn't mean you need to use it. Enact laws that truly protect sex workers, don't pat them on the head and say, "It was for your own good."
Have you REALLY not read any feminist theory on pornography? How about you read some Andrea Dworkin or Catharine Mackinnon for starters and get back to me. Next you'll be telling me prostitutes are just nymphomaniacs that love their job. The 'sex workers' you're supposedly protecting are the exception to the rule. Watch the documentary Hardcore. Understand what it is you're talking about and how it effects women on an immediate level as well as how it creates a lower class altogether where it is considered okay to abuse in the name of free-expression.
Some people think women who are in abusive relationships make the choice to be battered because they do not leave, if this was videotaped and branded as free speech would you be okay with it too? By outlawing domestic violence wouldn't you be attempting to rid that woman of her choice to stay and be abused?
I have to say, I've enjoyed myself a lot more working in sex work than I have in any other job.
Don't presume to speak for all sex workers.
Clearly there are exceptions (as with everything) and I never claimed to 'speak for all sex workers'. I have read your blog and while I am very happy for you to have found a job that you find fulfulling and financially rewarding, you can't honestly think that you are the norm...right?
"I actually feel a little misleading when I call myself a whore, because I only actually fucked one customer" -taken from your blog written 2 weeks ago (it doesn't sound like much has changed)
That kinda sums it up. I'm not criticizing you, but I don't understand how you raising your hand as the exception really contributes to the fundamental argument being made.
It has changed.
I've dabbled in just about every form of sex work aside from stripping. I know a lot of people in the sex industry.
Everyone's an exception. Telling me to shut up because I'm not the norm is silencing. I am certainly a sex worker, and technically a prostitute even if you disagree that I'm a "normal" prostitute.
I didn't tell you to shut up. I pointed out how even by your own admission you are not the norm.
This isn't a poll of sex workers and their job satisfaction. All your initial comment was intended for was to a)give the impression that YOU are the norm b)make sure no one thought there weren't exceptions
Does anyone go into any normal argument and say "there are exceptions!"? Thank you capt. obvious, what would we do without you?
And for fuck's sake it's like talking about anti-slavery and getting a professional sub popping up to say "not all slaves are unhappy!". You think you're who we're trying to protect and help? Get a clue. When understanding the dynamics of the sex industry I don't know why I didn't think to go to the blogs. Of course! If I want to get a real life view of impoverished, abused, or drug-addled prostitution...go to the source...a blog about an uppity new yorker who attends a 'prestigious' college and has a $1000 monthly rent (we'll just ignore who foots the bill for her tuition) oh and who doesn't actually have sex but rather role plays. I am so sorry I didn't consider you first.
I'M the asshole.
A.) MacDworkin, despite popular belief at the time, does not speak for all feminists, not by a long shot.
B.) I refuse to listen to a woman who asserts that all men are "inevitable rapists" and that any and all sex requires a loss of self-respect for the woman. I'll stick to my sex-pos types, like Susie Bright, Lisa Palac, Laura Kipnis, Nadine Strossen, etc etc.
C.) If you want to actually learn about the effects of porn (rather than the ravings of a woman who I think is deeply sexist against both men AND women, despite her "feminist" label), I suggest you go read "Pornography and Sexual Aggression" by Neil Malamuth. It's a review of all SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH done on the links between pornography and behavior.
D.) Choice of employment =/= emotional & physical abuse. If you're a devotee of MacDworkin, you'd think all porn actresses were physically coereced and that all porn involves the torture and rape of women. I mean, honestly, this is the same kind of argument conservatives use to try and prove that no woman could CHOOSE to kill her baby (aka have an abortion). It's the same type of argument that tried to make women in my state (Texas) be required to see an ultrasound of their baby before they have an abortion. To quote former ACLU president Nadine Strossen, "Both views presuppose an infantilized woman incapable of knowing what is in her own best interests, and needing the protection of the state, or of other women (or men) who invoke the state's legal apparatus, to make those determinations for her." Rarararararara.
What is the deal with using the 'all feminists are not ___' crap? No one said Dworkin = all feminists. If you are going for theory based feminism critique of porn, she is a very important leader in that regard. I see feminism as a philosophy and reading intensive logical disecting of the subject at hand is the way to do it. I hope that when you say "I refuse to listen to [Dworkin]" that you mean that you have actually read her ideas and disagree rather than remain ignorant of them due to snippets you've read elsewhere. Mary Daly has some pretty nasty quotes out there, but damn if she isn't significant and worth delving into. I don't like Dickens, but damn if he isn't a requirement in any Brit Lit course.
Thank you for the Malamuth suggestion, I will look into it for sure. As a scientist, I do value SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (as you put it) and while often I find it to be outside the realm of philosophical arguments, I am always looking to expand my knowledge.
Part D) Is difficult to even address because it makes no real sense to me. Bringing up Dworkin in a fem blog about porn is hardly me idolizing every thought she's ever had, which seems to be the picture you are trying to paint. I am also not naive on this subject as you seem to have assumed. As someone who has seen obscenity charges first hand, I do know what I'm talking about and understand that not all pornographers are out there to specifically do harm. That doesn't change my argument.
The Strossen quote is in good taste and I will definitely mull it over. There is a difference between porn and sexuality and I think the readers here may be thinking they are a reflection of eachother. Sexuality is not harmed by the banning of porn and sexual expression is better safe-guarded for women when it is not pornified (if you will) for profit.
Well, you told them to read Dworkin to help form their opinions, and I just disagree that she’s THE person to read. I agree Dworkin is important in terms of the fact that she had a huge influence on the movement, I just...really would not send anyone to read her because I disagree with her version of feminism, PARTICULARLY with regard to porn. After reading “Defending Pornography” by Nadine Strossen, I can’t really think positively about Dworkin. Not that it’s a completely flawless argument in the book at all times, but still, I think it really shows how counterproductive and even sexist (against both men and women) Dworkin was in many ways.
With regard to the second part let me say this. Women, for the most part, are not emotionally/physically abused into going and staying in porn. So that’s why I think your domestic abuse argument doesn’t work. You can’t say “here’s one example where free choice is not really present, therefore, all other choices I don’t like are also not really free.” I mean, hell, that’s the same argument conservatives use to explain that women can’t REALLY want an abortion (aka to kill their own baby!).
Plus, even if SOME women are abused into porn, I don’t think you should illegalize it. When you think about how much worse conditions are for low-income labor type jobs, like working at a chicken farm, where deaths and injuries are not uncommon, you wouldn’t say we should illegalize them. You’d work on making working conditions better and trying to open up new options for the workers, as necessary.
And I disagree that sexuality would not be harmed by banning porn. I’d argue that porn CAN (but not always, of course) be a HELPFUL tool. It has the power to make people feel better about their own sex lives, to spice things up with a partner, to give us new ideas to try out or just fantasize about, to educate people about their own bodies…What’s that quote about never being able to find a 30 yo man who can’t find his dick and his never had an orgasm, but there are plenty of women like that? And you don’t safeguard sexual expression by banning porn. If you ban porn, it’s nearly impossible not to ban everything, from fine art to sexual education to feminist literature even. Hilariously, under the anti-porn law drafted by MacDworkin and adopted in Canada, her own works were banned! And being for profit doesn’t makes something bad. Even feminist artwork protesting rape gets sold for a profit at art galleries. Besides, more and more porn these days is being made not-for-profit anyway. Just because YOU choose not to express yourself through porn sexually doesn’t mean everyone feels that way (see: Feminist Porn Awards). Okay, end ramble.
Okay, you don't like the domestic abuse comparison...even though I (and many others) feel it is completely valid.
What about human organs? Should we be allowed to sell our own organs for profit?
Yes- we have free choice and should be able to control our own bodies 100%; it is wrong that this is currentlly illegal.
No- While it's a nice idea that everyone would win, it is not the case. The most vulnerable people in our society are the ones that would be the most likely to sell themselves while the least vulnerable (rich w/access to healthcare) would be the most likely to buy. This is exploitation.
I think prostitution and organ trade are very similar in why they should or shouldn't be legal. So am I right to follow your logic and apply it to the selling of organs? When it is put in this perspective are you understanding a bit more of where and why these views on pornography split?
Look, I totally understand that not every choice that gets made is what I'd call a "free choice". We treat children and the mentally disabled differently, as a broad example. And I agree that domestic abuse is another good example of a situation where free choice does not really exist because of the emotional/physical abuse.
The issue is whether or not choosing to perform in pornography is a free choice and moreover, if it were NOT a free choice, is it still a choice that should be outlawed?
As to the first part, I have not been exposed to any evidence as of yet that convinces me that, as a widespread phenomenon, women are not making a free choice to perform in pornography. Moreover, both from having watched a lot of porn, seen interviews of porn stars, read abridged biographies of porn stars, I have found nothing to indicate a lack of free choice. I mean, is it so surprising that women would want to get paid quite well for something that more and more people are doing for free at home (see: rise of amateur porn due to YouTube-like sites). Granted, this is far from a conclusive study, I am merely letting you know how my current views are shaped. If you have any suggestions for studies/books/documentaries that prove differently, I would be very happy to get your recommendations.
But in any case, I disagree with the notion that having sex with strangers for money is necessarily humiliating/subordinating/degrading/unpleasant to any degree more than a normal job (keyword: Necessarily, meaning not for ALL women). Remember, what one person finds subordinating another may find empowering. As Strossen reminds us, "Women are as varied as any citizens of a democracy; there is no agreement or feminist code as to what images are distasteful or even sexist." (Which also applies to how women choose to express their sexuality.)
As to the second part, whether or not this choice should be outlawed even if it is not a free choice, I still say no. Plenty of people do not have the opportunities that wealthier Americans have and are thus left with little real choice of employment and are forced to take jobs that are sometimes extremely dangerous to life/health/property and jobs that are, arguably, much more humiliating than having sex. But we don't move to OUTLAW such professions (although we may make other efforts to improve their conditions/choices, a strategy I am not at all opposed to).
Restriction of free speech, definition that can be applied to just about anything, demonization of human sexuality...
What silver lining?
I think porn demonizes human sexuality...
Oops, I mean to say I think POPULAR porn - demonizes human sexuality.
Porn caters to human sexuality.
How do you think it demonizes it?
Guess I can scratch Ukraine off my places to visit, LOL.
While the civil libertarian in me disagrees with this, the feminist in me sees a lot of female degradation in porn.
"While the civil libertarian in me disagrees with this, the feminist in me sees a lot of female degradation in porn."
My thoughts exactly.
If they banned porn in the USA, I would give a lot of lip service to first-amendment outrage... but secretly I wouldn't exactly be displeased.
The feminist debate on this goes back decades and has a lot of similarities to the debate on prostitution. I think that, while in rare cases both can be liberating, in 99% of cases it is incredibly debasing and demeaning. To both the purveyor and to the viewer/john.
Well, you might not be too displeased with the outlaw porn (particularly those that are degrading to women - or MORE degrading to women than others, depending on your view), but you would probably be displeased with the SIDE effects. Since porn is difficult to define, some nutjob will inevitably use this vagueness to attack all sorts of other expression. I recommend reading Defending Pornography by Nadine Strossesn (former ACLU president). I only just started it but I can assure you, so far she is not defending pornography from the standpoint of "it's not degrading", it's more about the first amendment implications and all the problems that arise in other areas when we try to define and ban it.
LAR LAR LAR.
Do you think that banning hate speach in our schools is okay? Remember those cartoons that they use to use in advertisements back in the 50s that were totally hatespeach? We have laws protecting against that kind of expression... and what I'm getting at - not only is some porn hate speach in my opinion, it SEXUALIZES hate speach and I find that very problematic. It sexualizes hate speach in terms of race and sex.
However, I do agree that censorship is a problem because there is no real way to draw a line. It doesn't really solve the issue at all. But I think that's why feminists need to stop ignoring the racist and sexist attitudes within porn and give them the same attention that they give to other forms of media.
Uh well, first of all, I think schools are a different environment than the whole of society. This issue is about banning porn for all of Ukraine, not just in schools. So I’ll ignore that and go into the issue of hate speech, but only far enough to say that I’m proud to live in a country where it’s protected by the 1st Amendment. When we start banning speech we don’t like (Who is we? Who gets to determine what gets banned? Whoever is “right”? Who determines who’s right? The government? The moral majority?!), it’s just a domino effect that comes back to bite us in the butt anyway.
So even if I did consider porn to be hate speech, I would not want to ban it on those grounds.
Plus, if certain kinds of porn are hate speech, who gets to determine which types of porn are hate speech? Even a seemingly objective criteria like “porn in which women are subjected purposefully to pain” would end up somewhat subjective. Is she really in pain? Did she just wince? And then, of course, there’s the whole sadomasochism problem, in which some women claim to like to be degraded, humiliated, or caused pain. Of course, we could go the (p/m)aternalistic route and tell these women they don’t know what they like or they’re just tools of men or they’re somehow emotionally/psychologically damaged, but removing their agency like that is pretty bigoted in itself I think. Of course, I’m not sure how much agency anyone REALLY has. Free will is a bitch of a concept, imho. And after having read The Story of O, it’s hard to be whole-heartedly supportive of masochism, at least in the extreme.
Anyway, my point is that all this ambiguity leads me to believe that censorship, as usual, is not the answer because it would inevitably ban expression that is valuable to some people. Especially considering I have not seen any convincing scientific evidence that porn has harmful effects, other than anecdotal. Doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem, but it makes me wary of legislating on it. Based on anecdotal evidence as well as my own life, I would say that if porn does cause a problem, it’s mostly just the misconceptions it causes (men all have huge dicks, they’re always hard, they can never be in any feminine/submissive positions, (wo)men have specific body types to be attractive, women make annoying noises during sex, acrylic nails are somehow sexy, etc etc etc ETC)
So what is my solution to the problem, to whatever extent it exists? Well, with free speech, the solution to any problem of harmful/disliked speech, is counterspeech. More speech to solve speech. And that’s my solution to porn. Too much porn we don’t like? Make our own porn. Yay fem/alt porn. It’s like – one commercial with a skinny woman doesn’t normalize skinniness as the beauty ideal. It’s the exclusive, ubiquity of skinny women that does it. And in porn, it’s the GLUT of sadistic porn that’s the problem. Anyway, that’s just what I think so far.
Ha, just found this out, apparently The Feminine Mystique was banned from libraries in the Midwest for being pornographic at one point! HA! If that doesn't make my point I don't know what does!!
Why can't we deal with degradation of women in porn from a harm reduction/public health perspective? Put in place labour protections for porn industry actors, educate people about the importance of consent for sex, etc.
While the mainstream porn industry itself is problematic, banning porn with such a broad stroke is so, so, so not okay with me. Self-help, art, etc, all can be under attack.
And seriously, I would never want to part with my Crash Pad and other awesome porn.
Even as an anti-porn feminist, I'm against this sort of thing. Free speech is important; I just wish mainstream erotica would be more respectful and equitable for women.
Also, people find all sorts of things pornographic. I still cannot watch the Rocky Horror Picture Show without becoming wildly turned on by Tim Curry in fishnets.
I'm the same way - except I don't think that dehumanizing women should be protected under freedom of speech. Or maybe I should say "sexualizing dehumanization of women" shouldn't be protected in my opinion. I mean - there are going to be some very SICK reprocussions in this society if people keep jerking off to men or women being slapped around and treated like less than human.
Sometimes I hate how porn gets a free ticket in feminist communities compared to the scrutiny other medias get (yay 3rd wave). Hell - in this community - they have had more discussions about how PETA ads are degrading to women than porn (wait - have they even done ONE article in here on degrading porn?! ). I think porn is much more powerful than ads because 11 year olds are learning about sex by watching it - they are learning about differences between male and female sexuality with it that are based on NO TRUTH whatsoever. This is going to have a HUGE affect on society...
Nevermind how racist popular pornography is... You'd think the feminist movement would be working harder to change these things - even if they are against censorship.
Didn't you get the memo? Other people using your body to sell shit is degrading, but other people using your body to turn dudes on is empowering. Are you trying to get in the way of dudes trying to get at women's bodies? What kind of feminist are you!?
Shit, pornography is sacred.
But when is it "other people using your body to turn dudes on", and when it is "people choosing to use their own bodies to turn others on"? There are websites full of amateur porn where people are choosing to publicize sexual images of their own bodies for others' enjoyment. I think some anti-porn activists are assuming that women who display their bodies for men aren't doing it of their own free will, but it appears to me that the level of coercion and exploitation in porn production varies widely.
I chose the language I did intentionally to highlight the disconnect between generic critiques in this space of the use of women's bodies in advertising and the use of women's bodies in pornography. In the first case, we focus primarily on the effect on the viewer, in the second, we focus on the agency of the women whose body is being used.
For example, in the recent discussion of Burger King's advertising campaign involving a seven inch burger poised to penetrate the mouth of a surprised looking, digitally altered woman, there was not the immediate outcry that the woman in the advertisement probably felt empowered by her alteration to look more like a blow up sex toy. We did not say "Isn't it wonderful that Burger King is allowing this woman to fulfill her sexual fantasy of being a fuck doll for a burger?" We said "That's disgusting, and degrading to all women. We will not be purchasing Burger King's wares any longer."
Another conversation we did not have was how much we enjoy that type of advertising and how criticism of that sort of advertising is tantamount to fascism. Or something along the "My enjoyment is sacred" line of argument. I mean, somebody probably said it, but was soundly rebuked.
Didn't you get the memo? Other people using your body to sell shit is degrading, but other people using your body to turn dudes on is empowering. Are you trying to get in the way of dudes trying to get at women's bodies? What kind of feminist are you!?
Shit, pornography is sacred.
I admit, I take my support of freedom of speech to an extreme. But, that also means you can protest porn. The government can't ban it, but they can't ban you campaigning against it.
As for the exploitative issues... well, I'm Jewish, and I believe the KKK and neo-Nazis have the right to say what they want. They have the right to produce dehumanizing pictures as much as they want.
And we have the right to protest these things. To do our best to educate that they aren't aren't right. But, the First Amendment means WE CAN'T BAN IT.
I think dehumanizing women SHOULD be protected under freedom of speech. The legislation that is worst for women’s rights often comes under the guise of protecting women and doing what’s best for them. Next thing you know, the religious right will be telling you that books like Our Bodies, Ourselves are dehumanizing to women….
(Call it a slippery slope argument, but do a little research, this shit has already happened in the US…)
Our Bodies, Ourselves actually did get banned at one point because of an anti-pornography bill passed by feminists. I think it was in Canada.
Mmm, I've just been readin about that stuff. As I understand it, Canada passed an antiporn law drafted by Dworkin and MacKinnon and it has been selectively enforced on feminist, homosexual, and other minorities's works, particularly in specialty bookstores. Failsauce!
Next big headline: "Black Market for Porn in Ukraine Skyrockets for no Apparent Reason..."
Oooo. Comment Fail. Sorry, peeps.
While my first thought was omg how dumb, maybe this is a terrified societal response to sex trafficking/slavery which plagues women, often minors, from this region...?
Will it make trafficking harder to track? will it make girls less likely to come forward? Does anyone have better information on *why* the gov would do this? B/c i think this is probably going to have all hinds of effects bigger than just porn..
The Ukraine is one of the worst countries for child and underage porn, I fail to see how banning porn generally will at all made a difference.
While my first thought was omg how dumb, maybe this is a terrified societal response to sex trafficking/slavery which plagues women, often minors, from this region...?
Will it make trafficking harder to track? will it make girls less likely to come forward? Does anyone have better information on *why* the gov would do this? B/c i think this is probably going to have all hinds of effects bigger than just porn..
So, affluent and economically privileged men are coming to Ukraine on sex tours, and its women - many as young as 10, are in the sex business, and the government instead outlaws porn?
This is outrageous -- first Alabama and their sex toy ban. And now this porn ban from Kiev. Remind me not to visit Ukraine.
This is yet another reason why we must fight for our rights to free expression.
Masturbation does not depend on porn. When I was a little girl, I masturbated all the time without porn and when I was in highschool, I did it all the time without porn...
I don't think porn has any health benefits. And if used while masturbating - it can become addictive even quicker (because endorphins are released during orgasm). I think it's more on par with being as medically helpful as crack cocaine.
Wow, comparing crack cocaine, a highly physically addictive drug with sexually explicit images, just wow. First off, porn/erotica & masturbation do not become addictive. People have impulse control issues and fear their own sexuality, which leads them to cry "addict" to shirk their own guilt, shame, and responsibility. We all have areas of our sexuality that we do not like and are ashamed of (though few of us will admit it). We should not hide behind "I can't control myself, my addiction made me do it."
Second, "addiction" implies that a specific type of sexuality is "normal" & "healthy." Too often this is translated to be sex in a monogamous, committed, heterosexual relationship. This implies that those who engage in sex outside of this narrow, socially prescribed manner are abnormal and unhealthy.
Third, by your logic, anything that releases endorphins can lead to an addiction. This is not only faulty, but scientifically unproven. The release of endorphins does not lead to addiction. If that were the case, anything that brought us pleasure could potentially become an addiction. So where are the "runners anonymous" meetings, or the "active church members anonymous" meetings, or the "playing with my kids in the yard anonymous" meetings? This type of faulty, unscientific, fear based mentality is not solving anything, it is part of the problem.
And finally, yes, while masturbation is not dependent on sexually explicit material, it is enhanced by it. Also, sexuality professionals frequently utilize sexually explicit material/erotica/porn in treatment of many sexual issues, both with individuals and couples.
love how the bottom of the article has an ad for "Live Russian Webcams!"
I dearly hope that the intended 'medicinal use' of porn is not reparative therapy for LGBTQ people.
I just have to chuckle a bit at this news...only because I visited Kyiv last year for work and stayed in an apartment with the TV hooked up to the local cable vendor. I have literally never seen so many porn channels in my life. Every kind of porn you can imagine (and some perhaps you wouldn't). I kept scrolling and scrolling, looking for CNN, BBC, or some other boring news channel, and I think I passed through at least 100 porn channels before I found something that wasn't porn. I wonder if this ban will apply to such cable vendors. If so, they will lose a lot of revenue...