Earlier this month, Garance Frank-Ruta, a liberal blogger of some note an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which she argued for raising the age of consent for women desiring to pose nude from 18 to 21 years of age. Her argument, stemming largely from the disgusting Girls Gone Wild series, was that easily-exploited young women are being taken advantage of by older men who tread a fine line between child-pornography and adult pornography. These women, often debilitated by drink and drugs, find themselves suddenly plastered all over the world, baring it all for posterity. From there she constructs an entire argument, including references to the international sex and porn industries, vague references to "coercion", and the old chestnut that those who view pornographic materials are conspirators in the continued exploitation of women.The argument has created quite a stir, with various people weighing in on the subject. The latest star turn, found here (with a h/t to atrios; incidentally, since this is entirely relevant, Lance Mannion sounds like either a character in a soap opera or, ahem, a porn star's name), finds Frank-Ruta insisting that those who disagree with her support Girls Gone Wild, kiddie porn, enforced rape, and man-on-dog sex. Actually, the last one is made up; that's former Sen. Rick Santorum. Anyway, I have avoided the issue myself, but feel compelled to say a word or two on the issue, if for no other reason than Mannion raises an important point in the piece linked above, and one entirely relevant to the issue at hand - what, exactly, is pornography?
I was once accused of putting "porn" on my blog for posting a photo similar to the one above. The discussion went on and on, and I realized my interlocutor simply did not see a distinction between the artistic representation of the female figure and porn. It is one thing to note that Girls Gone Wild and its producer are among the scummiest things on the planet, indeed preying upon those in a weakened state and the enduring male fascination with women barely of the age of consent. It is another thing to lump this kind of attenuated adolescent drivel with hard-core pornography, to insist that all or even most women involved in porn are either coerced to do so, or find it a last resort for quick cash to support a drug habit. It is a further stretch to argue that all of this would somehow magically go away if the age of consent were raised three years. Garance-Ruta is at least consistent when she continually calls young college aged women "teenagers", obliterating the distinction between 13-year-olds and 19-year-olds.
What, exactly, is pornography? Is the above photo pornographic? Is Girls Gone Wild? Is Emmanuelle? I think we all know that Anal Angels 16 is pornography, but then we are left to wonder about policing issues. How do we make the distinction between those women who, for whatever reason, might participate voluntarily in such a production, and those "coerced" (we are never given a definition of coercion, which is left to our imaginations)? Do we allow those who say, "Sure, whatever," and those who are pushed in front of a camera by some outside force - a person, an addiction, a serious lack of self-worth - different levels of responsibility, robbing the latter of agency through a well-intentioned desire to protect them from their own self-destructive tendencies?
How well do we serve ourselves by continuing to inafantalize our young adults, insisting they are incapable of making decisions based solely upon their age? While there is no doubt that an eighteen-year-old, seriously impaired by chemical ingestion, can have the emotional and mental agility of a five-year-old; they are still an adult, and we do them and ourselves no service by pretending they are not. We call them "girls", "teenagers", etc., and allow ourselves the conceit that we know better than they how to live their lives, what mistakes are and are not permissible, and that we should decide for them what is in their best interests.
Finally, there is the whole First Amendment thing to contend with. Whether we like it or not, whether it's college women flashing their breasts at Mardi Gras or Jenna Jameson becoming a mainstream celebrity even as she continues to appear in porn, it is legal and should continue to be so. No one is forced to view this slop. Those who do certainly display their own arrested development. I have never been able to follow the logic that those who view porn are as bad as the thugs and degenerates who produce it. The desire to view sexual acts is as old as the human race; many of the images preserved in Pompeii were discovered to be depictions of sexual activity, even some in homes that had makeshift Christian altars.
We can do all sorts of things to work against the exploitation of women, the degradation of human sexuality through pornography, etc. We should not, however, pretend that 18 years olds are children needing our protection, or that silencing or banning images that we find offensive is the best answer. Since the above photo is viewed as pornographic by some, I think it only right that we just let it all go. I can insist that Girls Gone Wild is the video equivalent of what I scrape off my shoe after walking through a pasture, but that I don't have to view it, and have never viewed it, and no one is making me view it. There are no easy answers to this problem, but paternalistic infantalizing and censorship just aren't the answers.
UPDATE: Living in a free society means that some people make decision with which we disagree. Some people make life-decisions that are horrendous, leaving lasting scars upon themselves. While there are all sorts of informal, social methods of constraining such behavior, the choice is simple - do we legislate other people's life choices, or do we allow them the same privilege we have all had, to mess up and either make it right or not on their own?
At heart, there is little difference between Garance Frank-Ruta and recently barely-lamented late Rev. Falwell. Both view women as incompetent moral agents, needing the steady hand of the state to limit the choices they can make. Frank-Ruta sees 18-years-old women as unable to know they are exploited. Falwell sees women of any age as incompetent to make any moral judgment. It is only a question of degree, not of kind. Whether one appeals to a lack of proper feminist consciousness or Christian grace, both rely upon the horrible paternalistic idea that some people, because they lack certain proper mental, psychological, or spiritual defenses, are incapable of making "proper" moral decisions. How liberal is this?
Photo credit: Sergey Kristev
