In Defense of Porn

So, what gives here? We bomb innocent women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there’s nary a ripple of outrage. We torture prisoners and there is silence. Our bankers loot the public treasury, and a passive public sits enthralled by the newest reality show.

But, let two ex-strippers marry two soldiers, and all hell breaks loose.

In Colorado Springs, the local paper interviewed Alysabeth Clements, a writer, exotic dancer and feminist, and Lily Burana, an exotic dancer and writer. Both had married soldiers and the interview traced their exodus from exotic dancers to loyal Army wives.

The paper has a website where readers can chime in on the paper’s articles. The response to the Army wives’ story was outrage laced with invective and vituperation. The readers, mostly women, raged against what they called “moral bankruptcy” and “whoredom.”

Such a violent reaction against the two wives is difficult to understand until one realizes that the reaction to them and to and adult industry in general has political underpinnings. Specifically, it has to do with the relationship between the State and its proles. (A prole is not to be confused with an informed citizen who tends to view the State with skepticism.)

To understand this relationship, we would do well to borrow a metaphor from the wonderful world of porn, the relationship between a dominatrix and a submissive, abbreviated in porn talk as dom/sub.

The one thing a dom demands of a sub is polite obedience and predictable behavior. No matter how demeaning the indignity, the sub is expected to not only comply, but to be grateful. The sub is expected to spread eagle herself on the bed and wait passively for the dom to apply the wrist and ankle straps.

Should the sub rebel and get laid on her own terms, she draws the anger and contempt of her fellow subs who feel that her freedom underscores their oppressed state.

It is no different with the prole who is also expected to wait passively for the straps. The only difference between the two is that the prole's straps are imaginary, constructed, as they are, out of the big-screen TVs, SUVs, high-end kitchen appliances and assorted electronic gadgets, all bought on credit. Like the sub, the prole is suppose to maintain an attitude of passive gratitude no matter what indignities the State visits upon the prole’s standard of living.

The sixties scared the shit out of the State. It was then that the State discovered that the line between sexual passion and political passion is very thin indeed. For the State, morality is equated with polite submission, i.e., good manners. This is why it loves the religious right with its constant railing against “moral decadence” and all that goes with it.

Suppress sex and you calm political passion. To the state, a safe woman is one who keeps her legs crossed. However, let her celebrate her sexuality, and she becomes a subversive who threatens the status quo.

It is unfortunate that many progressives have jumped on the anti-porn bandwagon, which explains why the progressive movement is such an anemic shell of its former self. They envision a pot-bellied redneck swilling beers in a strip joint or pounding off to a porn flick and consider it deviant behavior. In doing this, they further distance themselves from the poor and working classes that were once their base. The redneck becomes the “other” that threatens their vision of a sanitized world.

Regretfully, too many progressives have fallen victim to their ideological prissiness.

They complain that porn turns women into sexual objects while ignoring the fact that every television commercial that touts a beauty product, mouthwash, soft drink or liquor does the same. Objectification is common to all media that reduces human beings to labels and demographics.

They speak of husbands who are addicted to porn, and in doing so make a pejorative use of a word that properly describes an obsession to booze, drugs or tobacco that can kill. But then, one of the State’s instruments of control is to pathologize tastes that do not conform to its standards for a polite, obedient public. Of course, no mention made of men who are addicted to televised sports, fishing, hunting or golf since these are all approved activities.

They contend that porn exploits women, and where it does so it is wrong as all exploitation is wrong. Yet, they are silent about the rampant exploitation that goes on in the workplace, which is acceptable unto the state since it contributes to our feral economic growth. It’s an outrage for a woman to be fucked on the screen, but okay to demand three dollars of work for one dollar in pay.

Bombing a wedding party is okay; flashing Janice Jackson’s nipple for a split second on television threatens the very foundations of the American Empire. This is why ex-strippers shouldn’t marry soldiers.

--Case Wagenvoord