rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Porn is a privilege, not a right

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

Once again the issue of prisoners' right to pornography is up for debate; this time in Canada.

In 2013, Correctional Service Canada blocked inmates' access to TV channels showing late-night pornography after complaints that female correctional officers were feeling harassed.

"It was found that sexually explicit material undermined a person's sense of personal dignity, and in the circumstances under consideration, particularly that of female correctional officers," state the records.

Haris Naraine, who was an inmate at the time at Archambault Prison in Quebec filed a grievance, eventually taking his case to Federal Court, arguing that banning access to porn infringed on his constitutional right to freedom of expression. The judge concluded that banning the channels was not legal but, it seems, Quebec Minister of Public Security Lise Thériault disagrees. After learning that inmates at Quebec's Amos detention centre were accessing porn via a late-night movie channel, she vowed to install parental controls in prisons across the province in order to block access to channels that showed porn.

Correctional Service Canada is still reviewing the court ruling and the policy so, in the meantime, there is ample opportunity to debate things like "sexuality" and "morals" and to prove how sexy and unprudish we really are when it comes to men's right to misogyny.

In a repulsive but revealing report by Brigitte Noël for Vice, she accuses Thériault of "pearl-clutching" and goes on to discuss the issue of "sexuality in prison," as though male sexuality is inseparable from pornography. This kind of commentary is useful as it gets at one of two key issues here: 1) The "right" to access any media one likes, and 2) The idea that men are unable to function in a healthy manner without access to pornography.

What these arguments tell us is that, as a society, it's time to stop pretending as though pornography is simply "entertainment" and, therefore, innocuous. Pornography is not a neutral form of "entertainment," rather it is a form of media that reinforces and celebrates female degradation and abuse as well as racist stereotypes. Unless we are prepared to argue that racism and misogyny are either integral aspects of male sexuality or simply neutral -- and therefore harmless -- forms of entertainment, we cannot treat porn as "sexuality" or as a "right," like access to education or health care. As such, we must acknowledge that it is unacceptable for everyone -- not simply for inmates.

If pornography is an innate part of men's sexualities, then we must also argue that men naturally want to hurt and abuse the women they have sex with and that men are not capable of masturbating without simultaneously degrading women, as these behaviours feature so prominently in porn. We must also argue that, for example, adult men naturally want to have sex with teenage girls and that "facial abuse" is a healthy expression of male sexuality.

While folks like Noël assume that access to porn reduces rates of rape and male violence, there is no strong evidence to support this and, moreover, it is an irrational claim. Both porn consumption and male violence are ubiquitous. If it were true that porn reduced violence against women and sexual assault, you'd think we'd have seen a notable drop, seeing as pornography is so easily accessible online and so commonly used by men and boys. Yet sexual assault and other forms of violence against women continue, every day, globally. There is also plenty of evidence that shows younger and younger boys are acting out scenes from pornography on girls, resulting in rising levels of violent sex crimes. We know from both reports and from personal experience that both men and boys are pressuring their female partners to engage in sex acts they saw in porn videos. We also know, from not being stupid, that the images we see in media, more generally, have an impact on our view of the world and people around us. Racist propaganda teaches people racism, sexist propaganda teaches people sexism, fast food propaganda teaches people to buy fast food. Advertising works, that's why companies use it to sell products.

The problem with pornography is not, in any case, simply rape. The objectification and sexualization of women is completely normalized today, a result of the mainstreaming of porn and the entrenchment of porn culture. So the idea that women are things to look at and that our bodies exist for the purposes of male pleasure and titillation is something that must be discussed in all of this. Porn isn't only about teaching men to ejaculate to violent acts and it isn't only teaching them to be sexually selfish; it's also teaching them how to see and treat women, more generally -- it teaches men what we are for.

Today on CBC's The Current, Anna Maria Tremonte spoke to Naraine and his lawyer, Todd Sloan, who said that from a "human rights perspective," prisoners should be able to watch the same programming as the rest of society.

This argument is actually a useful one to consider. If "the rest of society" agrees that porn is simply another form of expression, sexuality, and entertainment, why shouldn't prisoners be able to watch? I mean, isn't this the crux of the matter? That most of society accepts that women's safety is less important than men's ability to "express themselves" through misogyny? And that most of society takes for granted that men "need" both racism and sexism in order to masturbate and that violence is an innate part of men's sexualities?

We see examples of this argument all the time, including, recently with the case of Jian Ghomeshi, who defended his violence against women on the basis of "sexuality," arguing that his violence was simply a "sexual preference" and that "sexual preferences are a human right." In the end, society did not accept his excuse because the women he assaulted made clear that his violence wasn't "consensual." But what if it were? The fact that Ghomeshi believed his own rhetoric and employed the language of "human rights" in his self-defence is notable.

Women in pornography technically "consent" to violence in their contracts. They agree to accept money in exchange for being degraded, abused, gang-raped, choked, and called misogynist and racist names. Does "consent" make that imagery that a healthy expression of male sexuality? Are depictions of sexualized violence a human right simply because it exists and some people enjoy it? Is racism and sexism OK so long as one woman agrees to be the target?

If you believe the answer to these questions is "yes," do you also believe that hate speech is a human right?

What baffles me is that pornography is not, as of yet, legally defined as hate speech, considering the amount of literal hate speech in porn.

What should be clear, at very least -- even to those who wish to pretend "consensual" racism and sexism are acceptable -- is that porn makes women feel harassed, disrespected, and unsafe. While Sloan argued that there was no evidence that inmates' porn consumption led to an increase in harassment of female correctional officers, you have to wonder why, if there was no impact, these women complained in the first place... You have to wonder why, more generally, porn is banned in workplaces because women interpret it as sexual harassment, which is, you know, illegal nowadays.

Despite the fact that this decision to ban porn was made with the safety of women in mind, Naraine and many others believe this infringes on men's human rights.

The thing is, hate speech and sexual harassment are not human rights. So this debate about porn access is not about rights at all, it's about privilege. Specifically, male privilege.

Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.