Is Pornography Synonymous with Exploitation?

As with most discussions, it’s useful to begin with a definition of terms. What is meant by exploitation? Dictionary.com defines it like this: “Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes.” Such a phrase is rather broad, and if we want to be extremely liberal with its application we find that it can be applied to most kinds of human interaction. But in the realm of pornography, it suggests that a pornographic model is exploited at several junctures: when the sexual act is negotiated (financially benefiting the model’s agent), captured (financially benefiting the photographer/producer), distributed (financially benefiting the proprietor of the store that sells it), and consumed (sexually benefiting the viewer). But this definition ignores the fact that the model himself may also have selfish reasons for appearing in the pornography (personal and/or financial) and thus may not necessarily consider the process of its production, distribution and consumption to be altogether exploitative.And so we’ve already identified several possible avenues of exploration, all of which are worth considering in isolation:

1. The agent’s potential role in exploiting a pornographic model;
2. The producer’s potential role in exploiting a pornographic model;
3. The distributor’s potential role in exploiting the pornographic image of the model;
4. The consumer’s potential role in exploiting the pornographic image of the model; and
5. The character of and motive for a model’s participation.

(It’s worth noting at this point that because SirRichardWadd.com is a gay-themed site, our discussion of pornographic models will generally assume them to be male. Specific attention will be drawn to the different considerations between male and female models as warranted.)

Item 1 speaks to a largely invisible part of the porn-production process in which agents of top-level or celebrity models are employed to negotiate contract deals for their clients. While the agent is generally considered to be an ally of the model (i.e. negotiating on his behalf for the best possible deal and only getting paid when the model does), the fact that the agent gets paid at all is, for many, the real issue. This is because the optics of the process look precariously similar to the act of pimping.

Item 2 speaks to the direct interaction between the model and the producer/photographer. Exploitation at this level can occasionally take the form of direct sexual contact between the model and his photographer (assuming it’s not wanted by the model but demanded or expected by the photographer). But most instances of exploitation probably happen at the financial level, since many models don’t have an agent whose stated function is to represent their best interests. Models will therefore often sign contracts with little or no limitations on the extent to which their images can be used, and their remuneration may not always be fair. (Which raises an interesting question: what’s a fair price to pay someone who’s appearing in a pornographic image/act? Most, if not all, contracts are structured such that they pay a model a one-time fee, with no obligation for future royalty payments based on a percentage of sales. If we analyze this from an economic standpoint and deliberately avoid any moralizing, we can probably state with confidence that this one-time payment per photo shoot suggests that the supply of pornographic models is cheap and abundant. If porn models were as scarce as A-list movie stars, the market mechanisms of the porn industry would probably adjust to ensure that far more money was placed in the hands of the models themselves – both at the time of the photo shoot and also at the point of one or more downstream revenue sources. More money for models would mean more incentive to become one, thus increasing their supply. Note that we are deliberately not placing a value judgement on this fact: cheap and abundant models in the marketplace does not in any way affect their worth as human beings. Unfortunately, much of our social conditioning often invites us to think that way.)

Item 3 speaks to the interaction between the producer/photographer and the distributor of pornographic images – be it an online content provider, a wholesaler of physical goods, or a retail outlet. By this point in the chain, the model is usually no longer entitled to any share of the cash that exchanges hands.

Item 4 speaks to the interaction between the end-user of the pornographic image and the place from which he has acquired it. At this level, both the financial transaction (which excludes the model as a beneficiary) and the viewing of the image itself can both be considered exploitative.

At this point, a critical question arises: Are the exploitative qualities of the above items reduced or altogether removed if the model is fully aware of the machinery at work and desirous for his image to be sold and seen as widely as possible? Granted, the model’s intent and desire in no way diminishes the selfishness or alters the utilization pattern of the producer, distributor, and viewer. But if the model enters an agreement willingly, knowing that the supply and distribution chain of pornographic images will also be serving his intent, does the charge of exploitation still stand? A Marxist would probably say Yes, since regardless of the fact that a worker agrees to work in the factory, he’s still being exploited by its capitalist owner.

But here – where we start to look critically at the issue of ownership – we arrive at a key point of departure.

The above 4 Items are fairly “traditional,” in that they deal for the most part with a pre-Internet production and distribution convention whereby a model has little or no control over the images in which he appears. To be sure, this structure still exists – and is quite prevalent – in the world of Internet porn as well. But the Internet has very effectively put certain tools of wide-scale production and distribution into the hands of the model himself, and this in turn has increased his level of control over the creation and dissemination of his own images. That’s why Item 5 – which looks at the role of the model in assessing his degree of exploitation – carries far more weight in a post-Internet world, for in some respects it diminishes and/or bypasses and/or eradicates the exploitative effects of Items 1 – 4.

Of course, all of this assumes that an independent-minded model seeking to escape from the contractual binds of an owner/producer actually has access to the hardware, software, skill-sets, and capital resources necessary to establish a stand-alone Internet presence. This is an important qualification when talking about self-directed cyber-erotica and is addressed quite conspicuously as a plot-point in the play Sir Richard Wadd, Pornographer. Models who need to make a living but aren’t able to set themselves up independently are thus forced to rely on and agree to the terms of a more established producer. In this respect they can quite legitimately be seen as the possible victim of a certain kind of economic coercion. But this is a structural deficiency in our social organization and blame for it should not be localized on the porn industry.

So while I don’t deny that exploitation exists in the world of Internet pornography, I certainly don’t believe the two items are synonymous. I strongly believe that the Internet has dramatically altered some of the traditional power structures that existed in the industry prior to the advent of the World Wide Web. I also believe that, so long as a model has entered into a contract willingly and in full knowledge of the consequences, then a certain amount of responsibility for the supply of pornographic product must rest squarely with the model himself.

Given, therefore, the necessary conditions that a model is fully aware of what he’s doing, and/or is in a position to influence or control of the means of production and distribution such that he may gain from it a certain financial benefit, I assert that Internet pornography is not synonymous with exploitation. Nevertheless, I’m certainly cognizant of the fact that the realm pornography is a treacherous place where the spectre of exploitation lurks at every turn. Knowing this, we should be working to remove the exploitative elements from the porn industry rather than using blanket statements to condemn the porn industry as a whole (and I solemnly swear there was absolutely no pun intended.)