I can't decide what I like better about Shalom Auslander's wonderful personal essay "Trouble in Pornoland" published this week as part of Nerve.com's "Bad Sex" series; the immediacy and clarity of the writing that made the short piece so fun to read, or the onrush of questions it brings to mind about porn in 2007.

The piece describes a moment between Auslander and his wife who (innocently?) decide to look for some porn online. Confronted with a list of violent, misogynistic, and terribly un-fun titles and scenes, they opt for South Park instead. Trying to make sense of his feelings about porn in the past and what he just watched, Auslander writes:

I know I'm supposed to be okay with this. I know I shouldn't judge. I know that I'm showing my age or my prudishness or my conservatism or my narrow-mindedness. But I'm thinking about those porn protesters back on the corner of Forty-Sixth and Sixth, sometime in 1985, and I'm beginning to wonder if porno in 2007 isn't proving them right; it's difficult to present a credible defense against charges of hatred and misogyny when the star witness has the word "cunt" written on her forehead and a guy named Max Hardcore is urinating in her mouth. A moment with my client, Your Honor.

Oddly enough, I had a moment just like this in a courtroom in Ontario five years ago. I had been called as the only defense witness in a case brought against the provincial government by a gay bookstore that had been busted for carrying unlicensed pornography. I assumed that the defense wanted to use me because I dress like a bank teller, I have a graduate degree, and I was able to quickly (if not eloquently) articulate the ways that current laws discriminate against marginalized sexual expression (in this case lesbian pornography made by lesbians). After I testified I was approached in the hall by a group of porn distributors who berated me for being "nice to that bitch" (referring to the lawyer representing the government) and proceeded to talk about their inalienable right to distribute films that I know well and abhor completely. At that moment I felt a bit of the conflict I think Auslander is getting at, and for a moment I felt like I was on the wrong side of the aisle.

By the end of his essay Auslander wonders how he is going to explain these issues to his son. How will he describe the difference between the porn of his own youth (which he experienced as free, rebellious and daring and which made him feel better about himself) and the oppressive violent material his son will likely be exposed to?

Being neurotic and writing about sex all day, this is actually something I’ve thought about a fair bit, and I think my explanation would go something like this:

Sex is very complicated and it isn’t just about what you do when you’re naked to feel good. You know how some people take music and writing and other kinds of art and use it to hurt others and express their rage; some people do this with sex, on video. The problem is not that they feel this way (because we all probably feel this way sometime) and it’s not that they want to express it. The problem is that they do it by using real people, and they make them do things that are physically dangerous and probably emotionally difficult to deal with. All porn isn’t bad, but some of it is. And knowing the difference is a sign of sexual health, not sexual prudery.

Then I think I’d end with something like “let’s get some ice cream”.

Read more - Bad Sex with Shalom Auslander: Trouble in Pornoland (via The Reverse Cowgirl)