.png)
P0rnsick men as a category have come up several times in FDS discussions and podcasts, and I wish we could re-frame the conversation slightly.
First I want to get it out the way that there's no doubt that pornography, especially in its extreme forms, influences people of all genders, mostly for the worse. Not to mention the horrible exploitation of the most vulnerable by the industry which is a huge topic and human rights crisis in and of itself.
Despite this, there's something that makes me cringle a bit every time the topic of p0rnsick men comes up.
Firstly (and this is a talking point that has probably been brought up in radfem discussions), I wish pornography was looked at as a symptom of male dominance and female oppression as opposed to its cause. The way disussions are framed usually tend to go the other way around, which I'm concerned will prevent us from tackling the root cause. I am almost certain that, even if recorded pornography didn't exist, male violence against women would still be present in 1000000 different forms.
Secondly, and this is what I have personal experience with, calling someone p0rn SICK does remove the accountability from them for their violent acts, almost making them out to be a victim of a larger force/industry. I've seen this first-hand when the man who assaulted me suddenly claimed himself to be the sufferer of an overly sexualised culture. I aso saw women taking up the same talking points when I disclosed
my assault, putting it down to the influence of pornography. Nevermind that the man in question was very intentional with his abuse, targeting women in vulnerable situations (economically, socially, or otherwise). Suddenly I had no legs to stand on to hold him to account, because, you know... p0rn.
Thirdly, the pornographic industry often gets talked about in feminist circles as this external entity, as if it didn't consist of actual people. The production houses, directors, pimps, etc are actual (inhumane) humans, who are actively benefitting from the exploitation of the less fortunate. This might be extremely uncomfortable to think about, but these people are not necessarily perverts from 'out there': they can be, and often are, people we know, or people we know know.
Yes, p0rn is making things much worse, but just like every form of oppression, it has its benefits for the dominant group even if we chose to focus on the drawbacks.
I'm wondering if anyone else has had these thoughts?
Some thoughts;
I agree with your second point that calling it a sickness alleviates some of the accountability of these scrotes but I'm not creative enough to think of a better descriptor. Calling them porn sick does personally bring up an image of zombie which is kind of what they become in my eyes.
For your first point, I'd have to disagree with this interpretation of radfem analysis of porn. In all the radfem discourse I've seen no one has said that porn is the cause of male dominance and female oppression at all. If anything what radfems say pretty much line up with what you've written. As Andrea Dworkin wrote (loosely because I can't find the quote at the moment) pornography, surrogacy, and prostitution are core structures that uphold patriarchy and enshrine woman-hating. That's to say these industries massively contribute and perpetuate the subjugation of women; not that they're the cause.
And for your third point, that's new to me - a lot of radfems do aim to change legislation so that the pimps and disgusting participants of the industry are prosecuted, they shame the hell out of abusers that get away with it since they don't seem to have much power, but the individuals are definitely not overlooked. I see people attacking the institutions on a macro level and those pimps and directors on the individual level as well. I do think that radfems/ radical feminism in general does lack political organization and action nowadays though tbh, but that's a separate topic.
Although this is my experience of radfem discussion so it might be very different from your experience.
We need to be covering as many issues as possible, so they can't blame rape and sexual violence on any one issue. The discussion of pornsickness is important. So is the discussion of male violence being biological. So is the discussion of treating rapists like outcasts and actually prosecuting them. All of the discussions are important, but you are correct that they will watch porn and then pretend it's the cause of their hatred.
Thanks for thoughts & contributions. I'll write a comment to further clarify, with the risk of repeating myself.
I haven't heard anyone in the (rad)feminist discourse say outright that porn is a cause, or the sole cause of violence against women.
What I have seen and heard though, sometimes by radfem contemporaries that I admire, were along the lines of "Porn has ruined an entire generation of men" or "porn has deformed young men's brains". This is when I take issue with the framing, not so much with the truth of these statements.
This to me rings similar to phrases such as "99 percent of women will be subjected to sexual harrassment or assault at some point in their lives". Similar to the passive voice used here, porn is discussed as an independent phenomenon with no actual doers and benefactors (ie men who produce them and men who actively choose to look the other way when consuming or taking outright pleasure in watching the destruction of other humans).
I wish porn sick men were called something like "porn stakeholders" or similar, maybe less silly-sounding.
That's fair, I feel the same about the passive voice phenomenon, it also bothers the hell out of me. Also other common phrases like "she got raped/hit/assaulted/etc" or how the use of "creep" waters down the severity of male behaviour.
I prefer porn fried.