Normative dogma in relationships: Pornography and Marriage

The Family "Research" Council (FRC) are at it again. Their stance on pornography is, as expected for a right-wing group, completely biased and not based in any kind of reality. They endorse the following link:

http://marri.us/get.cfm?i=RS09K01


Among the dubious assertions offered here, is this gem:

"Both spouses perceive pornography viewing as tantamount to infidelity."

This statement makes 2 implicit assumptions. Firstly, that it is not permissible to desire another person sexually once married to your spouse. Yes, that's why couples NEVER break up and affairs NEVER go on for years. Better to accept the reality that getting married doesn't actually change one's sexual desires per se, and that many factors can cause the need to "look elsewhere". Properly considered, and with the prior understanding of both parties, I see no reason why this need even present a problem. Also, this logic fails to consider that fantasising about having sex with someone can be preferable to actually having sex with someone. You know, if you actually hold that whole physical "fidelity" thing in such high esteem, as these people seem to. That's right folks, porn can sometimes help couples stay together too! Who knew?! In cases of prolonged absence or difficulty in the bedroom, viewing porn can be a boon to a relationship. Of course, such nuance is beyond the ken of the geniuses at FRC.

Furthermore, people against their spouses viewing pornography face the significant philosophical problem of whether they actually want their spouses to be happy or not. When they married, they accepted them for who they were. Surely the aim of marriage is not to mould one's spouse into something more appealing to your own tastes, whether they like it or not? And if it is, how can this balanced against the spouse's own wellbeing?

The second implicit assumption in that statement is that infidelity is inherently bad. This is primarily a normative presupposition, and as such has its real basis in tradition, rather than in evidence. Evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology have demonstrated that early human relationships likely comprised polyandry and polygamy, as well as monogamy. Studying our closest biological cousins, the great apes, reveals that there are many viable options for the formation of structures in relationships, and that monogamy is just one of these options.

Besides the pressures to conform to tradition, there is little reason for couples to not engage in extra-relationship sexual activity if they both agree to accept it. There is also little reason to hide from or be ashamed of such behaviour in an increasingly progressive world.

That's where right-wing institutions like the FRC and anti-gay individuals like Peter Barbera go wrong.

In trying to support traditional marriage, they would force otherwise stable marriages to become unhappy ones, for example by having no solutions for the sexual problems I discussed, or from "infidelity", or from gay people having to marry the "opposite" sex. That is what really harms marriage, forcing people into normative solutions that just add to their woes. This only serves to increase the divorce rate and break up relationships that really need to last, "for the kids". The fact that the divorce rate is so ridiculously high should immediately tell us that the current way we view relationships (or the traditional, right-wing view) is deeply flawed.

In Australia, nearly every third marriage ends in divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce)

In the UK, 42% of marriages eventually end this way (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/divorces-in-england-and-wales/2011/sty-what-percentage-of-marriages-end-in-divorce.html)


I hope I don't need to state the deleterious affects that divorce has on the couple involved as well as any children they may have.

But no, the solution is not pragmatism, but gushing about how bad things are these days, and desperate and pathetic attempts to go back to the way things were. Like, you know, hundreds of years ago when they had, um, slavery and, um, no divorce. Wait. What?

Ever consider that instead of infidelity itself being the problem, it may be that our attitudes towards infidelity are the real problem? I just wanted to point that out.

The real solution to the divorce problem likely includes at least some kind of social encouragement for, and a degree of obligation for, a pre-marital discussion of a grown-up and serious nature. Here both parties voice their expectations, presumed commitments, and actions to take in a wide range of scenarios. Honesty and candour are essential. The notions of fidelity and child-rearing should be raised. Broad agreements should be reached before the relationship progresses to marriage. Whilst this probably occurs behind the scenes a lot of the time, I can't help but think it should be more formal, as a foundation for something that so deeply affects people's lives.

And of course, challenging normative assumptions of what level of fidelity is best in a relationship never hurts!

Contrary to what some of you may believe, I do not regard responsible porn as an anathema to feminism. In fact, the rights of sex workers (many of whom are women) would be well served by increasing regulation of the industry and encouragement of discussions of boundaries for what will be performed. In fact I have heard even radical feminists (somewhere on this blog) advocate for visible boundary discussion from actors at the start of scenes. This is a grown-up, sensible and progressive idea.

Another notable feminist advocate for responsible porn is Greta Christina.

The real threat to human rights and overall wellbeing comes from the prohibition of porn. Like with the disastrous attempts to prohibit alcohol sales in the US in the 1920-1930's,
stifling porn will only drive it underground, with very negative results for the sex workers involved. One of the positive aspects of porn is that the women are chiefly held up as the stars, and are incredibly well paid in the mainstream, or as a contract star, as they should be. This is a valid choice of career, and it works, with the proviso that they can leave at any time. Of course, in underground porn, this would not be the case.

One of the most shocking and unthinking observations I've heard about porn is "Only an idiot pays to watch porn".

Au contrare. In my opinion, only an idiot would NOT pay for it. You cannot support a sustainable and responsible industry on will alone. We need to pay our hard earned cash, to ensure the actors are well paid looked after. This is why regulation is so important.

The prevalence of free porn is not only what drives down standards and wellbeing, but what is the most visible and pushy form, the type that is most despised on Netmums - as free porn must aggressively promote itself to achieve advertising revenue. Paid for porn is happy to restrict advertising to its own site networks and past members.

In my view, the solution for "dealing" with pornography is similar to that for other "vices" (like drugs) as they would say: Regulate the industry to monitor the conditions and watch for abuses of rights, whilst establishing clear boundaries and increasing standards.