Pornography vs Viagra

It amazes me that in the United States, where “drugs are bad”, people in the main abhor pornography as a means of provoking sexual desire but have no problem asking their doctor to prescribe viagra for the same effect. Why is a pharmaceutical more acceptable in this regard than erotic art?

I accept that pornography need not be artistic, and indeed that it may objectify women – but do we really think that TV and film do not already generate this objectification? And besides, if pornography is considered, as James Joyce asserted, art that provokes desire (rather than art which shows nudity or sexual acts) then what proportion of our advertising and music videos is already pornographic?

Why are sex drugs considered acceptable and pornography disreputable? Is it because in the clinical paradigm the patient is expected to accept all ministrations as allowed; that a doctor's recommendations are always assumed permissible? Then what, I wonder, if a doctor were to prescribe Playboy instead of Viagra...

Comments

[Rob Beeson]

I would say it is the morality of money. Doctors and Pharma have a financial positive feedback loop. Doctors are paid more to prescribe more medication. Doctors are paid less to prescribe less.

Now if Playboy made a deal with the medical insurance agency as viable (much cheaper) alternative to Viagra, the insurance agency would start telling their doctors to prescribe Playboy instead.

But as a moral argument I promote not chemical stimulus over drugs any day.

[Deirdra]

I, for one, abhor pornography not only because it objectifies people (although don't get me wrong, objectification bothers me very much) but also because the porn industry tends to outright exploit its workers. At least if one consumes Viagra, one doesn't have to worry about whether one's orgasm is being produced at the expense of participating in the continuing harm of another human being. Yes, some women enter the porn industry by choice -- although I question how "free" such a choice is in an already sexist society -- but the vast majority are victims of incest, rape, homelessness, and drug addiction, and are in the industry because they don't have other realistic options. (This is even true of mainstream porn stars -- see Traci Lords and Jenna Jameson.) I have nothing against sexuality per se (aside from not being terribly interested in it), but I'm very much against the idea of another human being forced into these dire circumstances just so I can have an orgasm.

That said, I doubt that the (presumably) right-wing Americans you're referring to in your post abhor porn for the same radical feminist-inspired reasons I do -- as you imply, they have no problems with sexist depictions of women in film, TV, and advertising whereas I do -- so I'm guessing their reasons are more to do with beliefs rooted in puritanism. It's a question about the consumer's personal abstract ideal of morality (e.g. one should not engage in sexual relations outside of the institution of marriage because God/society says so, and pornography possesses the stigma of being an extra-marital way of satisfying one's desires, whereas Viagra doesn't have the same stigma) rather than the well-being of those being exploited. Of course, my impression is that many such people consume porn in secrecy, leading me to believe it's not so much a matter of actually abhorring porn so much as it is a matter of not wanting to admit in public that you consume porn, and thus allow you to continue maintaining the moral status quo.

[Katherine]

I always thought that Viagra was supposed to be prescribed for chemical imbalances which result in erectile disfunction, not because your partner isn't as attractive as the people in porn, resulting in erectile disfunction. I do realise that in reality drugs might be prescribed when they are not strictly necessary, but still.

[Chris]

Rob: it's easy to go to a follow-the-money argument here, because there is an issue of this kind in the relationship between GPs and "Big Pharma" - but I think in terms of the distinction being made in this piece it runs deeper.

Deirdra: I understand and empathise with your concerns about the formal porn industry, but what about the wider porn industry i.e. Hollywood, MTV and the media corporations in general. Will you claim that all the Hollywood stars and starlets who have been paid money for getting naked on celluloid have been exploited? What about the singers who use sex to sell music? Do you see all of this as exploitation, because this isn't immediately clear, given the astronomical fees involved.

(I also wonder whether the extent of exploitation in the formal porn industry is necessarily any greater than in service industries such as telephone call centres, and especially telemarketing, but this is a tangent).

I agree with your suggestion that a puritan ethic is at work - but why does the puritan ethic not balk at a drug to induce sexual potency...?

Katherine: yes, it's supposed to be proscribed this way, but in practice it gets handed out to anyone who "can't get it up" - whatever the reason. Doctors, it seems to me, are not very discriminating about how they prescribe drugs these days. Presumably this is especially true when they have shares in their pharmaceutical companies.

I really feel doctors should have to disclose this kind of information to their patients.

---

Alright, this post has been up for two days and hasn't attracted the kind of automated spam I expected a piece with "viagra" and "pornography" in the title to attract, so that's something. :D

Thanks for the comments everyone!

[translucy]

Chris,

didn't you mention, in a previous post, Jonathan Haidt's work on the "foundations of morality" in which he introduces new dimensions favored by "conservatives" like "purity" in addition to off-the-shelf liberal dimensions such as "solidarity" and "personal freedom"? (see e.g. his presentations on the science network / beyond belief)

The question you raise in your post about "ministrations being accepted" works on the "purity" dimension: a doctor's recommendation seems to ease a conservative person's concerns about "personal purity". By contrast, no such persuasive argument exists for porn: for a conservative "porn is dirty", i.e. porn means conscious transgression from pure to impure practices - and actually this is how porn is designed. Only a liberal who considers "purity" to be of much less importance is able to tolerate or even enjoy its purposeful violation.

On the other hand, the exploitation issue works on the freedom and the solidarity dimension, respectively. So depending on you relative position on these dimensions you may judge porn and viagra either way.

[James]

It's about a health/sickness dichotomy.

Viagra is perceived as fixing a defect or flaw that has occurred, returning the patient to balance. I imagine if Viagra were being used in the main by young people looking to get even more enjoyable sexual experiences, society would be a lot less accepting of it.

[James]

"I, for one, abhor pornography not only because it objectifies people (although don't get me wrong, objectification bothers me very much) but also because the porn industry tends to outright exploit its workers. At least if one consumes Viagra, one doesn't have to worry about whether one's orgasm is being produced at the expense of participating in the continuing harm of another human being. Yes, some women enter the porn industry by choice -- although I question how "free" such a choice is in an already sexist society -- but the vast majority are victims of incest, rape, homelessness, and drug addiction, and are in the industry because they don't have other realistic options. (This is even true of mainstream porn stars -- see Traci Lords and Jenna Jameson.) I have nothing against sexuality per se (aside from not being terribly interested in it), but I'm very much against the idea of another human being forced into these dire circumstances just so I can have an orgasm."

Fair enough, but what's the alternative? What I mean is, if the circumstances are so dire for a pornography actor/actress that he or she is forced into the pornography industry against his or her will, isn't taking away the option of acting in such films going to put them in an even worse situation? If they had a better option, they'd take it. Acting in pornography may suck, but it's probably better than starvation...

[Daniel]

"I, for one, abhor pornography not only because it objectifies people"

This is such an ignorant and uninformed statement that it makes me sick to be a human being. Pornography no more objectifies women as it objectifies men. To say this is to be completely ignorant of the pornography industry.

Their are markets for men and women. There is gay sex, there is straight sex, there is pornography where both male and female participants subject themselves to severe PAIN. That is a choice they make. That is how they express and enjoy their sexuality.

Pornography is naturally indifferent and indiscriminate. It caters to all facets of gender and interest.

The only people objectifying ANYONE are the people who claim that pornography objectifies people. By saying pornography 'objectifies' you are saying that the people involved in pornography should not or can not be allowed to perform sexual activities. YOU are removing them from their rights and telling them what THEY should do and WHAT they are as YOU see them and that is FAR more objectifying then pornography you ignorant ingrate. Why don't you use some common sense Deirdra?

As for the state of pornography vs viagra was best stated by James about defects and faults. Props James. You nailed that one right on the head.

[Langel]

This is one of those debates that has me throw up my arms and say, "It could only be coz of the global conspiracy set in place by ancient astronauts!" Would it be so bad to increase public awareness of Keigel Exercises? I mean, I know Taoist Sexology is right out. How much erectile dysfunction occurs because of smoking or lack of regular exercise? Our public schools teach sex but it's merely conception and disease. How about giving kids some tips on being good in bed? Go pee. Stop yer pee. Take a deep breath. Repeat and rinse.

[Chris]

translucy: this is a really good point - I can see how pornography would be perceived as violating purity, whereas a sex drug might not push the same buttons.

As for the exploitation issue, can anyone truly demonstrate that exploitation is a *necessary* consequence of a pornography industry? Because if not, the exploitation problem is essentially an employment rights issue and not a problem with pornography, per se. I could make the parallel with prostitution.

James: I take your point here. But for me, looking at how Viagra is being prescribed, it's far outside the bounds of merely health concerns...

Daniel: what an unnecessarily aggressive comment... Why does this upset you so much? Your response seems disproportionate to Deirdra's comment.

While I'm not so far into the traditional feminist anti-porn camp as Deirdra, I'm sensitive that there is an issue here, and I certainly don't think your claim that people who believe pornography objectifies are the only people objectifying holds much water. I believe in people's right to make and use pornography, but I'm not going to claim that there isn't some objectification going on here: you're taking a person and presenting him or her as an object of lust and not a person.

(A similar kind of objectification happens in a non-sexual context with celebrities in gossip magazines).

I used to work in an office which allowed pornography on the walls, and it did not make me comfortable. I don't believe any of the pictures that were on the walls were "artistic", they were purely there as objects of lust - I doubt any one of the people who had a nude picture up could tell me anything about the person portrayed other than she had nice tits. And that's precisely what is meant by objectification in this context.

Langel: Not quite sure where Kegel exercises fit into this debate, but since you raised it I'll link back to an older piece about the relationship between religion and sexuality. :)

[Katherine]

I think Daniel read Deidra's comment as "porn objectifies women", instead of "porn objectifies people", thus the disproportionate response. Not knowing much about the porn industry, I still disagree with whoever said "people have a choice not to do porn". People can be forced into porn by others just as easily as they can be forced into prostitution by others; through a forced or cultivated addiction or by being led to believe they do not have another choice. I don't think it necessarily follows that porn production should be forbidden, I'm certainly of the belief that some people choose to work in porn of their own free will (there's certainly enough amateur porn out there to convince me of that). But as an industry some of the practices are definitely abhorrant, and it's these that we should focus on fixing. I don't think the general objectification of the participants is really a problem as long as the people being objectified are consenting adults. Though I suppose I can see that there could be repercussions to people being so easily objectified (some people will objectify all women) but I still don't think removing all pornography is the answer. Perhaps schools should teach respect and tolerance in their sex ed classes?

[Chris]

Katherine: as I've broadly said earlier, the issue of the formal porn industry breaks down to two points for me.

Firstly, is it acceptable to make erotic art? Well, under freedom of expression and similar ideals, yes it is. So pornography cannot be eliminated from any nation that is willing to afford this kind of right.

Secondly, are the problems with the formal porn industry principally between the employer and employees? This is certainly the usual problem in prostitution, and I imagine any problems in the formal porn industry are similar in scope if not in intensity. If so, then the issue is not about pornography so much as it is about employment rights, and if we're going to make waves about this then there are large number of wage slaves in degrading and depressing jobs as telesales personnel etc. who probably deserve our attention as much as the porn workers.

Perhaps a Union of Pornographic Workers is what is required. :p

Thanks for commenting!

[Peter Crowther]

I used to work in an office which allowed pornography on the walls

That is, perhaps, a difference between pornography (however that is defined in a particular group) and a drug in tablet form. The drug can be kept personal - few would think of putting a blister pack of Viagra on the walls and going "Phwoar! Look at that!" or "Oh, I'm going to cover my eyes and scream at the mere sight!".

Perhaps a Union of Pornographic Workers is what is required.

That works for me. There's one site I visit that has images that would no doubt be considered pornographic by some people. I happen to know the model is a director of the company operating the site and the photographer's her husband....

[James]

"what an unnecessarily aggressive comment... Why does this upset you so much? Your response seems disproportionate to Deirdra's comment."

My guess is that he either is or have friends who are in the porn industry by choice, not being forced into it by outside circumstances. It's easy to see how such a view denies the dignity of the actor/tress in the pornography industry, viewing them as either corrupted stooges of the patriarchy, mental infants who must be rescued from their own poor decisions, or victims who must be rescued from a system that forced them to such degrading work, no matter how much they protest that such work is what they want to do.

[Chris]

Peter: I imagine in the US there are people who would be as embarrassed by having someone find their Viagra as they would be having someone find their secret porn stash... :)

James: possibly. Or he might just really like porn. >:)

[Ricardo]

Although some would say we have moved on from our primitive caves and the lifestyle that went with them, based on what I've seen of the human race I think not. The voyeur is in everyone of us no matter what our protestations to the contrary. The human race is ugly at the best of times, consequently our baser instincts are always lurking just under the surface. All this talk of objectification makes me wonder if again this isn't just a convenient excuse to not face ourselves in the mirror more often. Are some people so detached from their sexuality that they may supress it or deny it completey, in order to feel better? Of course there is a seedier side to elements of the porn industry but that's no big surpise. Sexual behaviour in all it's forms is raw, powerful, primeval and sometimes down right nasty. However, being such a driving force in our very existence then it should come as no surprise. Fact - we like doing and observing it if we get the chance. One last point, in a study conducted on why men like watching porn came down to this - the answer is, 'Because I'm next!' How base is that then....don't tell me that's anything other than wanting to be in with a chance of fertilizing an egg....sperm wars is real and no amount of denial will make it go away.

Viagra do you really need it?......use your imagination and/or get looking, unless of course it's truly a medical condition.

[Chris]

Ricardo: Your comment was erroneously stripped out as spam because of the use of the "v-word" which is now on the banned list in an effort to stem the tide of spam this blog is currently deluged with. Sorry about this.

"don't tell me that's anything other than wanting to be in with a chance of fertilizing an egg....sperm wars is real and no amount of denial will make it go away."

Your thesis here joins some rather large dots as if it was a given that they could be so conflated.

The mating instinct by necessity expresses itself strongly in most animal species, because it if did not the species would not survive in the long term. However, the intensity of this drive does vary according to the viability of the niche the species occupies, and even more greatly on an individual basis because individuals are not species.

In the first case consider that pandas do not have a strong mating drive, which one can claim (but perhaps not prove) relates to their dependence upon a single species of bamboo, therefore an excess of pandas could be fatal to the species.

In the second case, there are many humans who (for biological or psychological reasons) do not have a strong sex drive. Furthermore, because of the role of imprinting, not ever male is primed for desiring sex with women (or, for that matter, with vaginas).

Returning to your argument, the presence of the sexual instinct does not provide individual people with a motive to fertilise eggs. To be sure, it encourages sexual activity, which in turn increases the chance that eggs will be fertilised, but this is a very different kind of claim.

But in your account, you conflate individual motive with an instinct fashioned by selective pressures. This reads rather strangely, as if prehistoric events could supernaturally enter into the mental processes of modern individuals and possess them. Hormones may be a powerful force, but their operation is not as mystical as this!

In coining the term "sperm wars" you seem to be making a claim something like the following: individuals have motives to compete with each other in order to fertilise eggs. Surely from a human perspective individuals have *separate* instincts to engage in sexual activity and in competitive behaviour, and the fertilisation of eggs is - outside of a few cases, such as planned pregnancies - *not* actually a motive?

Again, sexual activity may or may not have a chance of fertilising an egg - masturbation, to give one common instance, does not, but is still a behaviour encouraged by the same instinct, an instinct which does not *aim* at egg-fertilisation but rather at sexual activity which simply *increases* the chance of egg fertilisation.

And on the other side of the coin, the competitive social instinct expresses itself in many different ways, not exclusively sexually, and a great many human males (more than a third) more closely resemble a pair-bonding species (where partners principally mate for life) than a tournament-species (where males - or in some cases females - compete for sexual access to many partners).

Your account seems to claim that every male is a high testosterone heterosexual who is expressly motivated to fertilise eggs. This is patently untrue. The concious choice to use birth control single handedly disproves this claim, without getting into the issues of presenting all human males as if they were typified by the outlying cases.

This kind of confusion between instincts and motives is extremely common these days, especially in the wake of what I might term "popular Darwinism" but it doesn't bear up to scrutiny.

So yes, I'll quite happily tell you that a desire to engage in sex is something other than wanting to be in with a chance of fertilising an egg. 'Wanting' implies motive, and motive and instincts are two very distinct matters.

Thanks for sharing your view!