In the eyes of the beholder?
Why do I refer to it as porn? Maybe it's "erotic web materials", maybe "sex sites". For the sake of this column, at least, I simply use "porn" as an umbrella term that encompasses explicitly sexual material that seems (and yes, the word "seems" is a rather broad term) to the casual observer to be viewed primarily for voyeuristic, rather than "artistic" reasons.
Frankly, I have no complaint toward people who may want to view this material, and though I'm familiar with the different sides of the heated argument around whether porn is in and of itself oppressive toward women, I'll try to steer clear of such arguments in this particular column.
I might perhaps add that it's difficult to examine a topic such as this without actually clicking over to porn sites and viewing some of the materials there. It's close to impossible to prove that you're only doing this for the research, so I won't even try. From the very limited amount of time I've allowed myself to view this material, however, I find myself having to make a couple of clarifications. Though I knew this well before starting to prepare this column, the amount of material of this sort available on the web is mind-boggling. I doubt that academics - even with the time and the grant money, and without anyone looking over their shoulders wondering why they're viewing all this stuff - have even the slightest possibility of actually sifting through enough of this material to reach any sort of "conclusions". That being said, one of the preliminary conclusions that I might be able to reach is that though on the whole porn seems to be porn, I sense a difference between that being distributed by companies out to make a buck, and that being freely distributed (for reasons I honestly find it hard to comprehend) by people who simply seem to want to put videos of themselves (often, apparently married couples) on the web.
Go to: The plain brown paper envelope column.