查禁色情會危及女人

Wendy McElroy著,郭家珍翻譯,何春蕤校訂


自1980年中葉起,政治版圖上出現了一個奇怪的現象。女性主義者和她們的死敵──保守份子和宗教基本教義派──並肩要求制訂反色情的法律。這個現象至少在三個重要的方面威脅到女人的福利:第一、女性主義不再是言論自由的堡壘,第二、女人那些不被社會接受的性選擇現在面臨了新的攻擊,第三、這個趨勢必然否認「女人的身體是她的權利」這項原則。

這一波攻擊的出發點就是極端女性主義(也就是激進女性主義)對色情的重新定義。新定義認為色情是違反女人公民權的性別暴力。反色情的行動份子麥金儂(Catherine McKinnon)有一次說過,「我們正在推行一個立法的議案,這個議案會把色情視為宰制女性的核心實踐」。激進女性主義者之所以提出民法或刑法的處理程序,是因為想避開美國憲法第一條修正案有關保護言論自由的基本立場,同時,民事法庭對證據的要求比較低,也不必假設罪犯在未被定罪前都是清白的。

但是為什麼色情會被看成首要是暴力而非只是文字或圖像?這個觀點充分體現在廣泛被人引用的1983年明尼亞波利市的反色情行政法令,這項法令寫著:色情影像行業中的所有女人都是被迫從事這個工作的,因此她們有權提起民事訴訟,控告製片者和經銷者。即便那名女人已成年、充分了解色情表演的本質、簽了合約、有證人在場、並未受到脅迫,而且並沒有少拿一毛錢──這還是被認為是強迫。

這個法令認為女人是不可能執行同意權的。法令的起草人麥克儂後來解釋:「在(兩性)不平等權力的脈絡中,我們必須思考同意權的含意──它究竟是不是個有意義的概念」。在一個由男性主導的世界中,女人是不可能行使同意權的,那些以為自己是自願從事這一行的女人其實只是被男性社會戕害得太厲害,她們根本不可能行使真正的同意權。

在過去十年中,我捍衛色情抵抗這種攻擊時,總是避開憲法第一修正案有關言論自由的說法,而選擇在反色情狂熱份子自身的立論上和她們辯駁。首要的問題就是:女人是被迫從事色情的嗎?色情和普遍攻擊女人的社會犯罪有什麼關連?一個次要但也很重要的問題就是:色情有沒有提供好處給女人?

關於第一個問題,我直接去詢問那些第一手參與生產露骨(hard core)色情的女人。像S/M(悅虐)看起來似乎是會有暴力發生的地方,可是我訪談過的數百位女性都說她們並沒有被迫從事色情,她們也沒有認識任何女人是被強迫的。於是我決定認真看待這些成年女人的發言,而不像反色情女性主義者那樣會視若敝屨。

面對這樣的證據,激進女性主義者會公式化地說:沒有任何健全的女人會同意參與色情,因此,這樣的女人是被男性文化所傷害以致於無法真的行使同意。明尼亞波利市的法令就認為女人就像小孩,需要法律的特別保護:「即使在沒有任何強迫的條件之下,孩子也沒有能力同意參與色情行為,因此需要特別被保護。基於同樣理由,女人的身心福利也應該有類似的保護」。

十九世紀的女人曾經奮鬥爭取在法律上和男人平等,要求眾人認真對待她們簽訂合約時所行使的同意權,並要求法律承認她們有權控制自己的身體【也就是爭取節育權】。而現在反色情的女性主義者卻要求法律廢除(從事色情工作的)女人白紙黑字的同意權?

想想激進女性主義是如何輕蔑這些成年女人「不被社會接受的」性選擇!假如一個女人享受消費色情,那不是因為她來自不同的社會背景或有不同的心理性格,或有著不同的生命目標或不尋常的觀點。不,反色情女性主義者會說,那只是因為她心智不足。她就像所有三歲的小孩一般,不能針對她的身體行使已經考量周詳的同意權。過去女性主義的基本原則是:「女人的身體就是她的權利」,毯到強暴時,激進女性主義依舊宣稱:「不,就是不」。但是在其他的性議題上,說「要」卻好像沒什麼意義。這種態度貶低女人的程度遠遠高過色情。

至於從事色情業的女人的選擇是否被文化壓力所影響?當然有。我們的文化影響每一個我們作的選擇,包括選擇要不要成為女性主義者。假如參與色情的女人因為文化壓力的關係不能做選擇,這就等於是在每一個情況下,完全摒棄了選擇的可能性。

而那些和色情無關,或痛恨色情的女人呢?簡單的回答是:她們不應該去消費色情。除此之外,她們應該用和平的方法說服其他人說色情是不適當的。但她們不應該求諸於法律。

關於第二問題:色情有無提供好處給女人?激進女性主義的論點是:色情直接導致暴力侵犯女人,特別是強暴。因此,每個女人都是受害者,因為每個女人都在危險之中。

這個論點說明,第一、色情影響人的行為,第二、此影響可客觀地被測量,第三、和性暴力有關係。

色情也許會影響行為,但很多研究都質疑影響的程度。要客觀地測量是非常困難的,因為性的反應相當複雜而且不能經由人工實驗的假設得知。所用的標準、所作的結論通常和研究者及委託做此研究的人有直接相關。舉例來說,在1983年,「多倫多大都會任務力量—論暴力攻擊女人」委託西莉瑪•麥克寇麥研究色情和性侵犯的關連。她的研究指出色情有淨化作用,因此也許會減少強暴的發生。她的報告被嗤之以鼻,並重新指派給大衛•史考特,一個致力於反色情的非女性主義者。他就做了一個比較令人滿意的結論。統計數字幾乎都含有假設和偏見。有時偏見是正確的。比如說,一個相信性侵犯是學習過後的行為的研究者,自然地會和那些相信侵犯是本能的人,問出不同的問題。其他的偏見就不能麼正確。比如說,當一個波士頓鳳凰報的記者要求激進女性主義者:蘇珊•布朗密勒為她的主張提供某些證據時,她反駁道:「統計數字會有,我們提供觀念,其他人會把數字生出來」。

關於爭論,讓我們假設色情和強暴有相關性,那這相關性能證明什麼?相關性不等於因果關係。如果假設「A和B相關,則A導致B」就犯了邏輯上的錯誤。二者也許起因於一個完全不相干的原因,C。舉例來說,在一個城市裡,醫生的數量和酒類需求量有高度相關性。但不是一個導致另外一個。二者源於第三個原因:城市人口的多寡。相同地,色情和強暴的相關性也許只暗示二者的共同起因;也就是說,是我們住在一個性壓抑的社會。透過限制色情來進一步打壓性,則可能增加強暴的發生。開放色情的範圍有可能減緩色情暴力,因為色情讓性慾更被瞭解。激進女性主義者和他們兩大意識型態上的敵人:保守份子和父權國家結盟。這是一個很大的諷刺:她們現在視國家為保護者。而這諷刺的悲哀性在於:它形成了壓迫女人的國家法規,而不是形成言論自由。是國家,而不是色情,把女人當女巫燒死。是十八世紀的法律,而不是色情,認定女人是附屬品。十九世紀的法律允許男人能把乖張的女人關進瘋人院,奪取妻子的收入,可以打她們而免受刑罰。現在二十世紀反色情也許可以讓女人自己定義性的選擇。

事實上,色情提供女人好處。檢查色情,國家只會耗盡、而非增強女人的力氣。莉莎•德格解釋說:「色情的存在是違抗傳統性方面的習俗,嘲弄性偽善,並強調性需求的重要性。色情有許多意義:它擁護性冒險、婚外性、愉悅的性、隨心所欲的性、不合法的性、匿名的性、公開的性、偷窺的性。某些觀念對有閱讀或觀看色情的女性而言,會把一些圖像解讀成:她們對性的急迫或欲求其實是自身性自主的行為」。

色情和女性主義有共通性:二者都視女人為有行為能力的性個體。和猥褻行為有關的法律都攻擊過她們。比如像克蒙達法(1870年代)就反對色情和節育的觀念。女性主義的議題—特別是女同志議題—一直都被性表態的規範所打壓。

在世紀之交,女人需要面對兩個急迫的問題:女性主義能擁抱性解放嗎?女人的自主和言論自由能在政治上共同打拼嗎?
女性主義者麥拉•柯斯達引用卡謬的話來回答第二個問題:「出版和閱讀的自由不一定能保證一個正義和和平的社會,不過要是沒有這些自由,什麼能沒有了保障」。


【原文】

A conversation with Louisa Achille about The Naked Feminist

The Interviewer: Laura Nathan, INTHEFRAY.COM Editor
The Interviewee: Louisa Achille, Director, The Naked Feminist

http://inthefray.com/html/article.php?sid=867&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0


What inspired you to make The Naked Feminist?

I became inspired to make The Naked Feminist after reading a magazine article on the famous porn star, Nina Hartley, declaring her feminist sensibilities and strengths as a sex entertainer and educator — a career spanning over 17 years. I wanted to know if Nina was a rare exception in this male dominated industry.

Feminism? is a somewhat contentious term that different people define in different ways. From your film, I get the sense that you define it in terms of being empowered and in control of oneself. Would you say that’s a pretty accurate characterization of your definition?

I think feminism for many women means different things, but for me it is essentially about choice and giving women a voice. I think once a woman has her voice and can make choices for herself, then empowerment, self-identity, and courage will follow.

Why did you choose the particular actresses you used in your film? They seem like a fairly close-knit group, which I found very interesting. It made the pornography film industry seem much smaller than I imagined.

It was important for me to interview women who had a number of years experience in the industry so I could gauge the progress (or lack of progress) women had made in the adult entertainment industry.

Once I met Jane Hamilton and read about CLUB 90, I became completely inspired by this group of renegade female sex performers. They had created the first porn star support group for women. They have not only created a strong sisterhood amongst themselves, but [they] also have become incredible mentors and role models to other women in the industry. I consider these women to be the first feminists in the industry, and of course their voices are a crucial element in a film depicting feminist sensibilities within the world of adult entertainment. [Like Jane Hamilton,] Nina Hartley, Sharon Mitchell and Christi Lake … [have] all made incredible strides within the industry – Nina as a sex radical, performer, educator and mentor, Sharon co-founding the first medical clinic devoted to the health and emotional needs of people in the industry, and Christi through her political activism and entrepreneurial insight.

All industries are much smaller and [more] tightly knit than they seem, and this is fairly evident once you start working within mainstream Hollywood and similarly with the adult entertainment industry — especially within the same country. However, I think it is even more so with the adult entertainment industry as the people within that industry have been under attack from legislators, the government, and the public far more than any other industry and thus have banded together to fight for freedom of speech and other essential rights such as freedom of expression.

The adult entertainment industry is also an industry where the performers, especially the women, are breaking one of the biggest taboo a woman can break — that is having sex on camera for money … Since only a small percentage of women enter into this occupation, they are going to get to know each other and some will form bonds.

There is a peculiar absence of men in your film — aside from Seymour Butts — even though men are an integral component of the porn industry as both producers and consumers. The absence of men in The Naked Feminist seems to be a smart stylistic move to depict women as the agents of the porn industry and their stories. Did you consider interviewing other men besides Seymour, and if so, why are they not included in the edited version of the film? If not, why? And what is so special about Seymour that caused him to make the cut?

I interviewed a number of men — journalists, directors, writers, and performers in the adult entertainment industry, and they were included in every cut except for my final cut … I made this film to give women in the industry a voice, and I didn’t want to lose sight of that. Thus, if a woman spoke about a similar experience or point of view as a man [I interviewed], I chose to keep in the woman’s voice. This film is about [the women in the pornography industry] and their experiences, not the men’s. Even though I do consider [the men’s] viewpoints and experiences to also be incredibly valid, they essentially didn’t belong in this film.

Seymour Butts has one big specialty in my opinion. No, only joking. The reason I was so interested in keeping Seymour in the film was because of his huge female fan base. Even though his main target audience is men, he has all these women that love him and his porn films. When you go to the big adult entertainment conventions it is always astounding to see the number of women — of all ages and nationalities — waiting to get autographs from him. It was nice to illustrate this role reversal and disprove the right wing feminist mantra that no women like pornography.

I noticed that The Naked Feminist doesn’t explicitly address homosexuality and lesbian erotica. However, from what I have read, queer porn is particularly important for women and men who are questioning their sexuality or who are insecure about being involved with members of the same sex. Do you think there is any particular reason why your film ended up having a heterosexual slant?

I don’t think The Naked Feminist explicitly addresses heterosexual erotica either, but you are right, that it is the main genre of pornography that is delved into. That is mainly because heterosexual pornography is the most popular and most historic type of pornography out there. But this was not at all intentional. I did not look at sexual orientation when I made this film. I was more interested in the female sexual pioneers and entrepreneurs who had made an impact on the industry and made working conditions for women better or who were making strides in today’s mainstream porn world. There are so many sub-genres in pornography and I am sure that many women and men are empowered by the different types. However, that discussion is, I believe, for another film. However, I would like to add that many of the women interviewed are gay, bisexual, polysexual and heterosexual. A wonderful mix really.

Your documentary argues that some pornography is in fact misogynistic and that such films are not the type of porn that the women you interviewed condone. How can one differentiate between misogynistic and non-misogynistic porn? The presence of violence? Consent (or the lack thereof)? Women both in front of and behind the camera? Or just the gut reaction of women involved in the film?

Subjectivity, taste, and consent will always creep into discussions regarding pornography and especially pornography and misogyny. I don’t think there is one exact definition of misogynist porn, and I don’t think there is a sub-genre [that] supports it. However, when I was making this film, I did encounter a disturbing trend in the industry to push the boundaries of sexual violence towards women as far as possible. I think this is mainly a knee-jerk shock tactic to gain notoriety in the business, and it might possibly exist as a backlash against the positive strides that women have made in the industry. I don’t believe that the companies making this stuff represent the industry as a whole. However, the fact that this type of material (e.g. women being beaten to a pulp whilst being gang raped, made to vomit whilst giving oral [sex] and [being] punched around the head) is being produced saddens me, and in my opinion, it is misogynist as it is illustrating a hatred towards women.

Do you sense some urgency to disrupt the taboo associated with pornography in general, or is your goal merely to enable the women you interviewed to speak their stories and perspectives? What is it that you seek to contribute to the ongoing dialogue regarding sex and sexuality in Western culture (if anything)?

I made The Naked Feminist to give the women in pornography a voice. To me, the film is less about breaking down the taboo associated with pornography and more about breaking down the taboo associated with women who chose to be sexual educators and entertainers. When a man chooses to work in pornography, he is rarely viewed as being exploited or objectified. In reality the money shot and the penis are the most objectified aspects of the genre. I really think it is time to get rid of this antiquated double standard.

What, if anything, do you hope to contribute to the independent film industry with The Naked Feminist? Is there anything you hope other filmmakers (adult entertainment or otherwise) will take from seeing your film? Is there anything you hope viewers will take from seeing it?

I would like to contribute tolerance and acceptance to the [feminist] movement. It would be nice if some of the dominant women’s groups would accept these women’s choices, help them to change the system, and make it safer for women instead of denying them their voice and validity. 


 


上一頁