ontrary to the claims of the distinguished feminist Catherine MacKinnon, it has been shown that there is no positive correlation between men watching porn and men committing rape.  As I have already noted on this blog (see here), the Tom Todd Kendall study, “Rape, Pornography and the Internet”, tells us what just about every male knows, namely that pornography serves as a vehicle for sexual release—and not as an impetus for committing violence against women.  Of course, MacKinnon’s charge that pornography is sexist is not defeated simply because there is no significant positive correlation between porn and rape.  Heterosexual porn can be terribly sexist, though ne’er a man who watches it is thereby inclined to commit rape. 

This brings me to the infamous “Money Shot” in porn—or, to use ordinary vernacular: the “facial”.  What intrigues me is that I have enormous difficulty getting a substantial difference between (i) Person Q being the object of a facial and (ii) someone spitting in Person Q’s face.  I mean in a world where people say with great force “Don’t you put your finger in my face!”, how on earth can anyone be accepting of sperm being ejaculated upon another’s face?  Significantly, as shall become apparent at the end this essay, the story of the Uncle Tom has an uncanny relevance here.

You may be up on the terminology.  However, it is only a few days ago that I learnt from a student of mine (in my Ethics and Value Theory class this semester) what the term “Money Shot” means.  It is the scene that focuses upon the male’s ejaculation; and in a great deal of porn what they have is the male ejaculating in the woman’s face.  And this practice has given rise to that wonderful euphemism: the facial.  The irony here, of course, is that it still turns to be true that facials are what women get.  Well, not quite because another student in the class informed me that facials are also a common feature in gay porn.  Surely, I need not add: But not lesbian porn ! ! !

The “Money Shot” is intended to underscore the virility of the male by putting into sharp relief fact that he did achieve an orgasm.  The student who informed me of the meaning of the “Money Shot” noted that where porn focuses upon a foot fetish, the ejaculation is upon the foot rather than the face. 

Now, my question to the student who informed me about the “Money Shot” was the following: Why don’t they just have the male ejaculate on a picture or something, with both parties then acting in an utterly rhapsodic manner upon seeing the ejaculation?

The Kendall study informs us of the obvious, namely that most men use porn for masturbatory purposes.  So the question that I just asked in the previous paragraph can be asked in the following way:  What would ever have made the makers of porn think that males viewing porn are apt to be significantly more successful in their masturbatory aims if they see a facial? 

And the reason why I ask this question is tied to my initial observation that I am unable to get a substantial difference between (i) Person Q being the object of a facial and (ii) someone spitting in Person Q’s face.  Given the basic economic assumption that the makers of pornography put in porn what they think will appeal to the viewers of porn, I have asked myself over and over and over again:

What would ever have made anyone think that the viewer of porn, be it gay or straight, would be thrilled to see someone ejaculate in another’s face? 

But then that question gets over shadowed by the following question:

Given that facials persist in porn, what does this say about the viewers of porn?

The second question presupposes that if viewers of porn did not like facials, then they would not be there. 

So imagine that person Zed goes to the porn shop and Zed is told “We have got two great porn flicks.  They are really identical accept for the ending.  Flick A has a facial in it and Flick B has the two appearing to be in a rhapsodic state as the guy ejaculates on a picture”.  Whether the porn in question is straight or gay, what on earth would ever incline a person to pick Flick A? 

           So what do we make of the fact that facials are so prominent in porn?  One possible explanation is that porn is not the sort of thing that people make a fuss over unless there is a very clear and salient wrong, as in the case of snuff porn films where women were actually killed.  Although porn is unquestionably popular, as just about every survey of website searches makes abundantly clear, it is still the case that people are not nearly as public about their porn viewing as they are, say, about going to a bar for drinks. 

            Another possible explanation is rather disconcerting, namely that people are perfectly comfortable with what looks for all the world like an act of pure degradation, since ithe facial adds nothing to the sexual energy of the moment.  If as the Kendall study makes plain, men use porn for sexual relief, it is rather inconceivable to me that any man needs to see a facial in order for his viewing the porn to occasion sexual relief on his part. 

             I should like to believe that the first explanation holds.  If, however, the reaction of folks over the years is any indication, the second explanation of being insensitive to acts that look like pure degradation has far more plausibility that I would ever have imagined.  Why some people have said to me that if two people enjoy it, then why not. 

              It is at this point that I invoke what strikes me as one of the most valuable lessons to be gleamed from the black experience.  From the fact that a person enjoys being an Uncle Tom, what does not follow by any stretch of the imagination is that this is just fine.  The fact that we enjoy something is not the measure of all things.  For the fact that we enjoy something may tell us that we fail to have the proper moral regard for ourselves.

              In the end, this is what I take to be the substance of MacKinnon’s point.  We do not need the hyperbole that there is a very significant correlation between viewing porn and committing rape in order to make the case that porn is degrading to woman. 

               By the way, if there was one thing more than any other that simply stunned me this semester, it is that there was not an uproar on the part of women in Ethics and Value Theory regarding facials in porn.  I would have thought that self-respect on the part of women in the class would have had them all finding the facial in porn an utterly despicable act.   No self-respecting woman can tell me that this is what she wants in the sex act.  And if the man that she is with requests that she submits to such a thing, then I would have thought that such a request is one very good sign that he does not fully respect her.