Sex in the Media, the Ethics of Cosplay, and Kant

http://w2.parentstv.org/main/MediaFiles/PDF/Studies/2010_SexualizedTeenGirls.pdf

A report made by Parents Television Council was recently released examining the frequency of sexual exploitation on television, especially humorous depictions of underage exploitation. 

"In the present study the PTC examined the prevalence of sexually exploitative images in the media and found that these images have become common themes in primetime television."

The report highlights the increasing depiction of women as sexual objects, and the increasing prevalence of sexual exploitation and violence.  By presenting exploitation and violence in the context of humor, the report contends that acceptance of such acts is increased.

Specifically, the study examined the prevalence and trivialization of sexual exploitation in the media. Therefore, in addition to examining how often females and particularly young females were associated with sexually exploitative themes, the study examined the number of times sexually exploitative themes were presented in a comedic context intended as humorous entertainment for the viewer.

Basically, the viewer is directed to find sexual exploitation humorous and therefore accept such behaviors as normal.  For example, "dead hooker" jokes were made several times, erasing the civil and personal abuses which prostitution often produces.

Most worryingly, the report highlights the connection between humor and underage exploitation.  That is, when a female was depicted being exploited, more often than not that female was underage.  Since young women model acceptable behavior from older women and more and more from media sources these television shows create an atmosphere of acceptable behavior which young women can emulate.

These images are believed to be a powerful force in shaping the sexual decisions and behaviors of developing youth. Associating laughter with topics like rape, child molestation, prostitution, sex trafficking, and sexual harassment further compounds the effects of sexualized media images. As long as there are media producers who continue to find the degradation of women to be humorous, and media outlets that will air the content, the impact and seriousness of sexual exploitation will continue to be understated and not meaningfully addressed in our society.

Adult women were also often depicted in sexually exploited roles, increasing the likelihood that girls and young women would model their behavior on these depictions. 

The report concludes that "if past research is correct that television can shape our attitudes towards social issues, and if media images communicate that sexual exploitation is neither serious nor harmful, the environment is being set for sexual exploitation to be viewed as trivial and acceptable."  This conclusion raises questions of its own which the report raises but does not answer.  Namely, is it every acceptable to laugh at sexual exploitation of anyone, but especially of a child?  The connection between the fantasy of a television show and the reality of behavior norms remains obscure, and the report adds that further research is necessary.  Certainly, however, this is a worrying trend and raises even more trenchant ethical problems surrounding certain geek sub-cultures.

I've been harping on cosplay for a while because this is what the interwebs are intent on talking about.  An ongoing debate between male convention-goers, female convention-goers (especially models and cosplayers) and John Scalzi has created the convention and internet meme: Cosplay does not equal consent.

At the heart of the controversy are numerous allegations and instances of harassment of women in the industry made by male convention-goers .  Sometimes the incidents are obvious: ass-grabbing, fondling, and coddling of female models by men.  Sometimes they're more obscure and often involve jokes and inappropriate comments.  As often as not the incidents reflect an ongoing perception by many men that their culture is being appropriated by women.

This offers an interesting tangent I'll not address here, except briefly.  To whom does a particular culture actually belong?  Is it even something that can be "owned?"  Certainly it can be appropriated, as Jazz and Rock n Roll have been demonstrating since the early twentieth century.  Cultural boundaries shift to include previously marginalized or excluded populations, or are actively appropriated to minimize or diminish cultural homogeneity.  The colonization of cultural norms often reflects the power dynamic between colonizers and colonized, with an appropriated culture actively used to disrupt patterns of community and social life around which populations cohere.  That's just a really complicated way to say that people often appropriate culture to lessen the power of that culture.  So when male gamers, geeks, and nerds complain about women in their ranks, it's as often because they believe their community is threatened by that intrusion.

Moving on.  Regardless of why men and women choose to dress up in costume, they should expect a minimum of personal security.  That is, everyone has a right to not have violence acted against them.  Their personal boundaries are inviolate as a matter of principle.  But when they present themselves as visual representations they can expect some manner of objectification which blurs the line between human being and objet d'art.  An inanimate object has no inherent moral or ethical obligation owed to it.  This is really obvious ethical territory, so I won't delve too deeply.  But it presents a jumping off point from the previous study to an ethic of victim-blaming.

Namely, if a person consciously chooses to depict himself or herself as an object of admiration, does that person relinquish his or her right against certain -- but only certain -- protections?  

If we operated in a vacuum, ethical action would be easy.  In a world of one there are no moral or ethical obligations.  But add even a single person and that calculus changes.  Moreover -- and I accept this axiomatically -- human beings possess only a single right granted by nature: the right to use violence to achieve your own needs and wants.  This is the only right naturally granted to individuals.  But in society, we willingly relinquish that right to ensure that violence is not used against us.  This is the single obligation of the state to its citizens.

The other rights such as freedom of speech, religion and so on, are historical accretions or tangents of that primary obligation.  Recognizing their artificiality (and in some instance arbitrariness) allows us as reasoning people to craft a system of morals and ethics which best reflects our needs and wants.  As such we have constructed a moral system which exemplifies the individual and makes the individual inviolable except in certain rare exceptions.

But a person may willingly relinquish certain rights in the pursuit of other ends.  A citizen relinquishes some rights when entering the military, we relinquish the right to enjoy the total fruit of our labor when we offer the government a percentage of our labor in the form of taxes -- wealth necessary to accomplish other goals we have collectively decided are worthy of pursuit. 

The reciprocal nature of moral obligation helps explain how someone can relinquish certain duties owed to himself simply by being a human being in modern society.  First, people are owed a certain level of truthfulness; that is, they cannot be coerced into normal actions by means of withholding information which they deserve to have.  In normal circumstances they also cannot be coerced into certain actions by the threat or use of violence.  These are expectations of behavior, as rights necessarily are, but expectations to which a person can appeal for redress when they are violated.

But this ethical system also requires that people's behavior remain appropriate to the social context.  Each person is sovereign in her actions, and sovereign in her responsibility.  That is, she must take responsibility for all breaches in which her negligence was the primary motivator.  For instance, a starving man's theft of bread is mitigated by his starvation.  In normal circumstances, theft is punishable as a breach of social and ethical obligations (you owe it to your neighbor that you won't take his stuff), but starvation is beyond (we hope) normal circumstances.

Similarly, in normal circumstances, a person's autonomy is inviolable.  However, as punishment for a crime that person may be imprisoned and his autonomy circumscribed.  In some instances, the crime may be sufficiently heinous or particularly egregious to merit permanent expulsion from the protections and privileges of society.  In these instances, capital punishment in the form of execution is merited until such a time as expulsion may be made in another form.

Which is a very dry detour from where I started and that was wondering what obligations models and cosplayers willingly give up when they don (or doff) certain clothing.  Cosplay may not equal consent, but does it equal a level of objectification which must be constantly combated by reminders of a person's humanity?  Possibly.  If that's the case, then are these not mitigating circumstances which perhaps lessen the offenders culpability?

I'm going to say no, and here's why.  Just as the thief still bears an obligation to remit what he has stolen to the owner (return in kind or as payment), people always have an obligation to others that cannot be reduced.  The mitigating circumstances might help diminish the punishment, but never the obligation itself.  As such, social ostracism might be an appropriate punishment for offenders at conventions, but I cannot see an ethical reason to withhold convention fees already paid, or the imposition of some sort of fine.  A declaration that such behavior is unacceptable is ethically permissible, but punitive actions are impermissible.  And certainly an apology is in order.

However, a model relinquishes the right to be offended by photography, harmless objectification (is objectification ever harmless . . . ?) by the very fact that they have willingly assumed a level of deviation from social expectations already.  Just as a person in public has no reasonable expectation of privacy, a cosplayer has less by the fact that they have willingly called attention to themselves.  Moreover, though turnabout does often seem fair-play, certain creep-galleries (in which the cameras are turned on photographers, often men, who seem particularly invasive in taking pictures) are themselves impermissible insofar as photographers have not assumed the same level of provocateur.

To be clear, this ethical system only includes actions that are not in and of themselves already illegal or clearly delineated in some kind of statement of acceptable behavior to which the offenders have had access and/or have read and understood.  This is an ethics of the gray areas in which we find ourselves daily and hews mostly closely to Kant's categorical imperative: People must never be treated merely as means to an end. (An interesting aside: This is the moral foundation against prostitution and sex work.  Where it gets really convoluted is where it descends into deontological morality, which I might turn to in another post.)

This all becomes much more complicated if one considers the pervasive atmosphere of sexual exploitation present in the media -- especially social media, which is its own kind of echo-chamber.  It calls into question the notion that certain behaviors are made entirely without coercion.  If a girl grows up perceiving certain actions as acceptable, and allowing herself to be exploited because she is unaware that she is being exploited, are her actions freely made?  Indeed, cannot one make the argument that producers of such content are themselves under an ethical obligation to cease their own behavior?

I'm going to leave these questions largely unanswered, since the report leaves them unanswered as well.  But I will leave you with their parting challenge:

The frequency with which viewers are able to watch and laugh at these sexual exploits further supports the notion that media is potentially creating an environment that trivializes the sexualization and sexual exploitation of women. The significance of “frequency” is especially relevant in this study given the continual absence of countervailing messages among the programs examined. When we laugh about dead hookers it becomes increasingly difficult to see the mistreatment of sex workers as a national civil and human rights issue. The same can be said for child molestation, sex trafficking, etc. When these messages, images and ideologies are delivered via mass media, the definition of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are communicated both implicitly and explicitly to viewers. Similarly, when the media associates humor with sexual exploitation they are sending a strong message that these issues are harmless and require neither urgency nor a strong response.

Although results from this report are disturbing, it is the desire of the PTC [Parents Television Council] that these findings will spur concern, increased dialogue, and a collective responsibility to find answers that will result in a qualitative difference in the lives of young girls and women everywhere.