"I've never seen Jersey Shore or any of the reality shows, but from what I've heard it seems to me that people who appear on those shows--and Jerry Springer--are impervious to shame or they wouldn't be on them. But aren't they being exploited by the network execs and the sponsors who are raking in millions of $$$ at their expense?"That's true but also what about those of us at home watching? The mere fact that someone else is willing to do something, or even that they crave doing it, doesn't make it right for us to support their doing it.
It strikes me that this is true of exhibitionism in general and especially porn. You don't have to read the biographies of many porn stars to figure out that entering porn is not a choice that prudent, mentally healthful people make. There is a reasonable, socially acceptable level of exhibitionism to be sure but it's pretty clear that having sex for other people's entertainment transcends that limit and then some. Is it right then for us to co-operate in that choice by watching them?
One thing that makes it tricky is that the bus will be running whether I take it or not. Meaning that our decision to watch or not to watch porn will have zero economic effect on the industry. It's just a gesture; it won't change the world one iota. And yet ...
I've said before, I find the argument that porn hurts the viewer completely unconvincing. Most anti-porn arguments I've read strike me as just the work of busybodies who like to run other people's lives. And I have to admit that I doubt very much that we could prove a tight cause and effect between doing porn and ruining your life. My cynical guess is that people who agree to appear on Jersey Shore or porn are already train wrecks waiting to happen. They'd probably end up seriously messed up even if commercial opportunities to be shameless exhibitionists didn't exist.
And yet I still don't think I should be supporting their choice.
I agree with everything you have said. However, there is also the element of voyeurism on the part of the audiences. The Voyeur is the complement(?) to the Exhibitionist, they both need each other. Wouldn't you agree that most "normal" people would be embarrassed by the antics of the people on Jersey Shore, like when Draper was spewing out one Life slogan after another? But I agree that whether or not you or I watch those shows it will have zero impact on the industry.
ReplyDeleteAnd the same applies to porn. Like you, I find the arguments against porn unconvincing as well. I remember someone telling me that if I used porn I participated in the exploitation of women, to which I countered that every time I buy a pair of jeans or Dockers made in Sri Lana or Taiwan I'm participating in the exploitation of somebody, i.e., the people who made those pants working for coolie wages. Its also interesting that the anti-porn people never mention the men who appear in porn--straight and gay--they don't seem to be as concerned that they are being exploited. I think I've said before I think that porn can be a healthy outlet for some people who do not or cannot have a sexual partner, and a complement to many couples. And with all the free porn available--real people who post pics and videos of themselves on the internet with no financial remuneration--I don't think that the argument about exploitation even holds up anymore.