Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality [Kindle Edition]

Dines' study is a readable, accessible account of the dangerous direction that mainstream pornography is headed in. She nails a few myths about the industry which seem to be quite prevalent. Firstly, porn is a business: its about market shares and profit, although unlike selling popcorn, it involves exploiting (mainly) young girls for the benefit of middle-aged men. She is also very good at highlighting the fantasies that porn users construct to rationalise their porn use (in a manner not dissimilar to sexual offenders). Another myth of porn is that it is somehow progressive and liberating, although Dines shows, through the genre of 'inter-racial' porn, that porn exploits some of the most hackneyed and offensive racial stereotypes. One can take issue with Dines in some respects: what about porn made by women that is non-exploitative? This is a fair point, but any such porn that does exist is swamped by the nasty stuff, so Dines' point holds: she is talking about the mainstream, and it does appear that mainstream is getting harder and more extreme, pushing girls into more and more risky and dangerous acts (this is driven, of course, by the desire for profit, which must continue to recruit users who are jaded by the more 'vanilla' sexual practices). More worryingly, what does this increasingly violent mainstream porn say about society in general? How many more Josef Fritzls are out there? And what might the relation be between mainstream porn and a wider culture of sexualised violence?

One might make more rarified theoretical objections (what might the 'authentic' sexuality Dines calls for be like, for instance?) But this is nitpicking. Dines' main argument is sound, and it needs to be taken seriously.

Gail Dine's sobering and important work exposes how cruel and debasing porn has become within the gonzo market and influencing 'milder' forms of the genre. Practises that invoke pedophilia, choking women until they vomit, ethnically and sexually humiliating people and practices that are literally tearing them up are now very common and profitable for these ammoral corporations that seem to totally disregard any principles of health and safety at work exposing their young vulnerable workers to body maiming practices, abuse and STD's. It is an unregulated industry gone mad and she reflects there is nowhere else to take this cruelty short of killing people. The rage inspired criticism she inspires in porn users and some media only illustrates how important it is she exposes what is going on in the industry, what is only 3 clicks away from you and your kids and reminds me how it is when you confront an alcoholic in denial about their drinking and how some will defend the indefensible (see reflections on Ghetto Gaggers...I was totally amazed at how this material could be legal). As a sociologist, her reflections are mainly from this perspective, some up to date psychological research might have been interesting since violent porn apologists keen saying there is no research that violent porn is damaging to women or offenders. This is NOT TRUE, get out and read some academic papers people, and some more stories from women in the industry may have been intersting eg Lubbens work. All in all an important read, especially for parents of kids growing up in this pornland where all the norms of arousal and sex are turned upside down.

Gail Dines is a professor of sociology and women's studies, mother of one boy and girl and an anti-porn campaigner. She has done as much research on this subject as she could without, it seems, subscribing to any adult sites, but with attending an AVN Conference in Los Angeles. On occasion, the descriptive writing made me wince. Her research is anecdotal and comes from talking to and with undergraduates (for whom her lectures are often mandated), sex offenders and the men who would voluntarily attend such a talk. This is worth what it's worth, but it isn't transferrable to more adults with more robust attitudes.

The argument is spoiled by Dines' feminism, which force her to make "men" the problem and women the victims. In one chapter, she explains why she thinks that (not how) men grow up primed to be perpetrators, and in another how women grow up the knowing but helpless victims of pop-culture. Both chapters will dismay decent men and self-confident women everywhere.

The bit where she is shocked, shocked, to discover that the porn producers are in it for the money, not to spread the word about how sex is about fluffiness and warmth, is truly... ingenuous? naive? silly? Much of what she says about the porn industry can be said about many others, but she doesn't make the connection. Run by creeps? Check. Damaging to many people's spirits and souls? Check. Tossing aside the staff when they get older? Check. Pandering to human weakness? Check. Making things that people don't need and don't do us any good? Check. And that's just the tobacco industry. Or the garment trade. Or any business that fills the Chinese air with pollution and its land with poisonous chemicals. She describes the degrading terms in which the women are addressed in gonzo porn, but then doesn't notice that she could well be talking about the dialogue and atmosphere of a large chunk of soap operas and drama, which rely on the same dysfunction, hate, anger, insult and treachery. Is it the creeps, exploitation and nasty emotions she doesn't like, or the sex?

She has me convinced that Girls Gone Wild is not something that post-modern capitalism should be proud of, and that the gonzo porn, full of the freaky (in the bad sense) stuff she describes, can be omitted without loss from even a broad cultural education. After that, she starts to lose me. Her feminist creed means that she simply can't take seriously what one of her troubled students tells her: that the problem is those parents and schools that do as appalling job of telling children about sex, and set a rotten example in their own behaviour. (Note: many parents do a fine job, mainly by having a thriving and affectionate marriage.) Dines goes nowhere near these issues - which for an American academic is only prudent self-preservation.

Personally, I'd quite like a world where garment makers would never think of making sexualised clothing for twelve-year old girls, where Lads Mags were not on public display, nor were there unfeasibly slim Eastern European models wearing H&M swimsuits on public transport. I'm with Dines on all that stuff, but I can't support the puritanism, the demonising (of men) and victimising (of women) that she's obliged to parade to ensure she stays in line with what's expected from a professor of women's studies.