The Effects Of Watching Pornography

Pornography

In what follows I am going to explain and criticize Andrew Altman’s view for a defense of pornography. I dispute that Altman’s argument depends on impossible assumption that pornography does not cause harm to women. People don’t usually care if they watch porn or what type they watch. Altman defends the watching of pornography with:

1. You have sexual autonomy; that is, you have a broad liberty to define and enact your own sexuality.
2. Your sexual autonomy is limited by the duties that you have toward others.
3. You don’t violate any duties you have toward others by watching pornography (even violent pornography)
4. Conclusion: So, you are free to watch pornography.

Andrew defines pornography as “sexually explicit material, in words or images, which is intended by its creators to excite sexually those who are willing viewers of the material” (Altman). To him a willing viewer is someone who pays for the material for the intention to be aroused. That is the type of pornography that Altman wants to defend. Altman states that sexual autotomy is a form of freedom and a way to use that freedom is to watch pornography. He also says that any argument should be based from that sexual autonomy standpoint. He compares the right to pornography as the right to use contraceptives or engage in homosexuality. Altman also state that there are limits on sexual autonomy with regards to pornography because it does not give people “a moral right to buy or possess photographs, [or videos] of children having sex,” being raped or sexually assaulted, but it is okay if depicts sexual violence.

Altman states the people’s sexual autonomy is limited by your duties to others. If people autonomy was somehow affecting their duties toward others, then it would be considered limited. An example Altman uses is the government. The government has duties such as protecting the people, make public school free and respect people’s way of living. Altman say that watching pornography does not violate our duties toward others even if its violent pornography. He defends it by saying that violent pornography does not cause any direct violence. There is no evidence to that shows every time someone watches violent pornography that there are women being mistreated violently. The example he uses is someone being raped by a group of men in a movie. That it is fake and that no one is getting raped.

Altman acknowledges that pornography does cause sexual inequality for women because most of the pornography made is directed toward males, and that it does make harder for women to stand as equals towards men. Altman states that the production of pornography does not subordinate or humiliate women because it only represents them as being humiliated, but it does not necessarily mean that they are humiliated. Andrew defends his point by stating that these women are consenting adults to degrading themselves to being filmed in these acts that are published for all the world to see and that they are not being forced to do anything.

Altman concludes that watching pornography or the production of pornography does not affect our duties toward others then people are free to watch pornography even if its violent pornography. I will be arguing against premise 3. I say that Andrew Altman is wrong about watching violent pornography that it does affect our duties toward others. According to Susan Brinson, violent pornography “harms women by sexualizing misogynistic violence” (Brinson). Susan says what if the women that is in pornography were not consenting adults and that people viewing it would not be able to tell the difference if that women was getting raped. It harms women who have pornography forced upon them because sometimes women are deceived by being told that they are auditioning for modeling which they consent to, but they might not consent towards having that content published. Brinson uses the example of how some women are told that they had to keep making pornography because the man told them that it is how they would fund for their modeling career. If she decided to not cooperate then the man or also known as a pimp would blackmail her by distributing the material to family and friends. That is how they could be taken captive and forced to work because they have been coerced into it.

Brinson also say that many women are in the sex trafficking industry because they were promised a job such as a nanny or waitress and are in a country where they can’t speak the language and with no legal papers. A good point Brinson adds is how it harms “boys and men whose attitudes toward women and whose sexual desires are influenced by pornography” (Brinson). Young teenage boys are greatly affected more because they can develop an addiction that is harder to break. Human learn better when they are younger and that because of that boys who watch porn from an early age will think that way women are treated in the porn industry is the way you are supposed to treat women. That people have a duty to help these women.

The production of pornography does humiliate and subordinate women. Just because you are okay watching it does not mean the content of it isn’t degrading. If they are consenting adults who are aware what type of humiliation, they will endure it won’t stop men from seeing women as inferior regarding sexual equality especially young influenced males. Watching pornography does affect our duties to others. Altman might respond with even if women have sexual inequality that they still have it better off with a sexual autonomy than no sexual autonomy. I would respond back with what Brison says that maybe one day sexual violence won’t be considered an arousal factor anymore as time progresses because harms produced by pornography shouldn’t be a price those harmed by it should paid for sexual autonomy.

Work Cited:

1. Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. 2nd ed., Wiley Blackwell, 2014.