Musings

Porn myths, debunked

There sure is a lot to discuss when it comes to porn, and no shortage of posts on the internet about it. However, when I came across a porn myth series by Dr. Brooke Magnanti, a forensic scientist, statistician, and former sex worker, I knew it was something special.

The five-part series of posts looks at various questions that many folks have when it comes to porn, examining the research that has been done, both credible and questionable. Best of all, there are links to many of the studies/papers, so you can read them in full and form your own opinion on the research. Here are the five posts.

If nothing else, Magnanti’s posts confirm that sweeping generalizations about porn are not useful. There are so many varieties of porn out there, and the industry cannot be pinned down easily. At She Bop we’re discerning with our porn selection for this very reason.

In a similar vein, I found a post by Dr. Marty Klein (sex therapist and author) about his experience at a porn shoot. The post — Deep in the Valley: Going to a Porn Shoot — makes a very poignant point about watching porn.

Sooner or later, watching the same people having sex is repetitive and boring — unless, of course, you’re adding to it via fantasy, imagination, arousal, and voyeurism. I didn’t do much of that, because I was there working (yeah, I know — nice gig). So yes, watching the shoot did reduce the sex (along with the filming itself) to a technical craft. She used her left hand when the camera needed it, even though she’s right-handed. He stopped right in the middle of licking her when some sweat dripped into a bowl of fruit.

Some people condemn how watching porn at home supposedly does the same thing — it reduces sex to “mechanics.” But the critical difference between watching a film being made and watching it at home is what the consumer brings to the experience. And that transforms the “mechanics” into something stimulating . . .

What a consumer brings to a porn film is imagination, privacy, a little time, maybe lube or a toy. And that gives the images meaning — erotic meaning. When anti-porn crusaders take the same film and add fear, anger, and a sense of helplessness, they also give the images meaning — but distinctly un-sexy ones (such as “exploitation” and “immorality”). So:

Porn + nothing = neutral meaning
Porn + privacy + time + imagination = positive meaning
Porn + fear, loneliness + anger = negative meaning

I’d never thought of it this way, but it makes so much sense. Porn is given meaning by the viewer. Makes you feel powerful, doesn’t it?