Several weeks ago, I was sent a review DVD of The Price of Pleasure. The film, by first-time director Chyng Sun, explores the impact of contemporary American pornography on men, women, and relationships* It is not currently for rent or in theaters, but it is out on a national screening tour. It will be screened, with a panel discussion, this Thursday, October 30 here in Los Angeles on the USC campus. Exact time and location have not yet been announced, though I am prodding.
Gail Dines and Robert Jensen, two celebrated anti-pornography feminists serve as senior advisers for the film (referred to as TPOP for the remainder of this post.) I wrote a long review of Bob Jensen’s most recent work here. Dines is founder of Stop Porn Culture, and organization for which I have considerable admiration.
TPOP is less than an hour long, but it took me more than a week to sit through it. The documentary features a considerable number of outtakes and excerpts from porn, and though genitalia are “fuzzed out”, the effect is still searing and for some, potentially triggering. As someone who struggled with porn addiction in the past, I wanted to be careful about how I watched and responded to this film. I was relieved to discover that I didn’t find myself in the least bit tempted to “relapse” on porn use as a consequence of watching TPOP. I can recommend the film as “safe” for most folks, though some of the sound and imagery is violent and deeply degrading. Potential viewers will need to weigh for themselves the risks and benefits of taking it all in. (It’s worth noting that some in the pro-porn world have complained that TPOP violates both copyright and federal obscenity rules. I’m not qualified to speculate.)
TPOP uses interviews with a wide variety of people: pornographers and porn actresses, men who use porn, women whose husbands or boyfriends use porn, and academic researchers who have studied porn. Pornography, we are told, is a $10 billion industry today, and thanks to the Internet and other technological advances, is far more ubiquitous than it was just a few years ago. One point that the film makes clear (particularly in an interview with Ariel Levy), is that today’s young people (those in their teens and early twenties) have grown up in a culture saturated with porn to a degree difficult even for those just two decades older to comprehend. Just as an eighteen year-old today cannot remember a time before mobile phones, so he or she cannot remember a time when porn was not “everywhere.” This jives with what I hear from the young people with whom I work; they describe porn as providing an “aduiovisual soundtrack” for their lives.
TPOP makes the case that pornography has a profound impact not only on those who use it, but on their lovers, family, and friends. Pamela Paul, author of Pornified, remarks that men who regularly use porn find that it “infiltrated their consciousness, often unbidden and unwanted.” She makes the same case in TPOP that I made in this post last year. Indeed, this key point is a source of much of the friction between the two sides in the “porn wars”. Some, like Paul, Dines, Jensen, and myself argue that what regular masturbation to pornography shapes our views of men and women, and shapes our sexuality itself. Others, such as blogger and porn actress/producer Renegade Evolution, who wrote this this weekend, take a different view:
Can men who watch and jerk off to porn see women as human beings and treat them as such? Why yes, I believe they can. Actually, I know they can. How is that? I’m married to one such man. The only time he treats me with the sort of disrespect so assumed to be common is when I ask him to. I have male friends who are perfectly capable of watching porn, even the rough stuff, even the rough stuff that I am in, who have no issue treating me as a full human being with thoughts, emotions, intelligence, personality, and all that other good human stuff. I have male family members who know what I do for a living and it has not stopped them from treating me as a full human for a second.
Part of the problem in the porn wars, and it’s a problem with TPOP in particular, is that both sides end up arguing from anecdote, from personal experience, and — this is perhaps most salient — what it is that makes intuitive sense. I like and respect Ren. But I know that particularly when I was younger, pornography did shape my view of women and sexuality — and I was raised in a feminist household, with Ms. Magazine on the coffee table! In particular, porn trained me to long for “everlasting novelty”, and it made long-term monogamous relationships (even those in which there was considerable sexual inventiveness) seem dull by comparison. That’s just me, of course, and I don’t pretend to speak for every man. But the story that Bob Jensen tells is similar, and the stories of a great many men with whom I’ve worked are similar. Just as –if not more — importantly, I hear from lots of young (and not-so-young) women who are frustrated by their male partners’ reliance on porn. The damage that even casual porn use (never mind “addiction”) is real.
At the same time, Ren is a real person too, and her experience is valid as well. TPOP’s greatest weakness, perhaps, is that it is rigid in its focus on porn and male desire. Bob Jensen has written and said often, with great eloquence, that “porn tells us very little about women, but a great deal about men.” I think he’s right; his assessment of masculinity in his Getting Off serves as a breathtaking and scrupulously honest indictment of the ways in which we shape young men in our society — and the role porn plays in that shaping. But the missing element of TPOP is the reality of “woman as consumer”. (There’s also a relentlessly heterosexual focus — porn aimed for a queer market goes largely unmentioned.)
A great many women watch porn with boyfriends or husbands, and it is almost certain that many of those women do this less out of their own authentic desire and more out of an eagerness to please (or at least accomodate) the man in their lives. “He’s going to look whether I’m there or not”, she might say, “So I may as well do it with him. That way at least I’m part of it on some level.” That’s a familiar, achingly common story. I joke with my students about what I call the “strip-club rictus”: the frozen smile and forced lightheartedness one often sees on women who buy lap dances for their boyfriends, determined above all else to “not be a prude”. Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs has much more to say on this.
But some women do watch porn. And they watch it alone. Some women do masturbate to porn, and if what little research that is out there can be believed, their numbers are growing. The mistake that TPOP makes is that it ignores the very real truth that in this complex world of visual erotica, women are subjects as well as objects. Women who “use” porn may sometimes be using different stuff than their male counterparts, but they’re still buying or downloading or hunting for erotic imagery, much of which features couples or other women. That doesn’t mean, of course, that the bulk of consumers aren’t men — they are. And it doesn’t mean that porn objectifies men in the same way it objectifies women — it doesn’t. Indeed, there’s much to be said about the problematic way in which mainstream pornography may shape female libidindousness. TPOP doesn’t say it, however, and leaves the impression that the desire to look at and masturbate to pornography is an exclusively male phenomenon. If nothing else, this oversight leaves TPOP vulnerable to criticism from the pro-pornography camp, who complain, not without validity, that the documentary doesn’t do enough to honor women’s agency not only as performers but as viewers.
But these omissions do little to weaken the visceral power of this film. The final ten minutes of TPOP are perhaps the most difficult to watch. Sun and his advisers analyze the increasing fascination with violence and degradation in contemporary pornography, and the results are deeply depressing. A New School study looked at the most popular mainstream porn rentals of 2005 as determined by the adult industry itself. 89.8% of the videos/DVDs watched included verbal or physical aggression; 94.4% of the time, those aggressive acts were directed by men against women. The most popular forms of violence included spanking, and increasingly, “gagging” (where a man rams his penis into the back of a woman’s throat, triggering a gag reflex.). The growing popularity of “ATM” (ass-to-mouth) scenes is noted, in which a man penetrates a woman anally, and then insists she fellate him without washing. An astonishing 41% of the top 200 rentals of 2005 featured ATM scenes. (There’s a brief interview with one of the grad students who had to watch and “code” these films.)
Porn director and producer Joe Gallant, queried by the filmmakers about the direction his industry is taking, looks off into the distance and says — with what comes across as rueful resignation — “I hate to say it, but the future of American porn is violence.” It’s a remarkably honest insider assessment, and though his is just one voice, accompanied by the remarkable evidence of the New School study, it is a disturbing conclusion indeed.
Whatever one’s personal feelings about porn, it’s clear that we don’t have nearly enough frank, honest, safe discussions about how it makes us feel. Though TPOP could have done more to include female consumers in the conversation, the documentary will serve (one hopes) as a wonderful catalyst for honest dialogue. We need to talk about how we reconcile (if we can) our private reveries and our public behavior. We need to listen to our youth of both sexes, and hear how the ubiquity of porn is shaping their sense of sex, gender roles, and body image. I’ve seen the damage porn has done in my life and in my relationships; I see the damage it does in the lives of others. I find it, personally, very difficult to believe those who say that they can watch and masturbate to on-screen images of women being degraded and then interact with family, partners, and co-workers without ever once having those intrusive images make an unbidden appearance. But there are those who claim that it is so, and I am willing to listen to them as well.
And we need to do the hard work of not pathologizing the “other side.” Those of us in the “anti-porn” camp are sometimes tempted to impose a victim narrative on all women who work in porn and the sex industry. In other words, when we hear an adult woman say (as Ren does) “Look, I like what I do, and I choose to do what I do, and I feel I have agency in every aspect of what I do”, the impulse is to question her self-awareness. Though an extraordinary number of women in the sex industry do come from backgrounds of abuse and do struggle, there are also some for whom that is not the narrative. We would do well to engage honestly, resisting the temptation to assume narcissistic disregard for other women, self-deception or pathology on the part of those who claim to be happy in their sex work.
At the same time, I am annoyed at the way in which many in the “pro-porn” camp suggest that those of us who do this work, particularly men like Robert Jensen, are “filled with self-loathing.” We need to stop calling the other side “victims” or “sleazy exploiters” without a second’s thought; we need to demand that the other side refrain from suggesting that we are all “shame-filled killjoys.” Just as Max Hardcore doesn’t speak for all pornographers, Bob Jensen or Gail Dines don’t speak for all feminist anti-porn activists. No dialogue will happen when we cling to our stereotypes, and no progress either.
See this film. See it with other people, and talk about it afterwards. And ask hard questions of yourself and those around you about the role pornography plays in their lives. And be prepared for a variety of answers. Above all, ask the question the film asks: What do we want sex to mean in our lives? What would the world look like if we were able to answer that question honestly?
I know what I want sex to mean in my life. There is no room for pornography in that vision. But I’m ready to talk to others who have come to a different conclusion. The Price of Pleasure moves that dialogue forward.
*Below are the notes I typed while watching the film.
****************************************
“and if you’re bothered by it, there’s no where else for you to go, really…”
Ariel Levy interviewed
Gail Dines
Bob Jensen — “very few women acquire any kind of wealth”, overwhelmingly men make money produce and distribute
“selling the most intimate parts of themselves in a patriarchal culture”
“process of commodification within capitalism” — central
Bang Bus
“porn takes the most intimate and private spaces of our lives and sells them”
Choice gets emphasized. Sarah Katherine Lewis talks about economic appeal of sex work. “When your best choice is taking off your clothes and sticking toys in your cunt for money, I think there’s a real problem with the labor system.”
“I’m seeing a disgusting customer, and they’re seeing a hot slut who wants it”.
Dines: “porn is ideology… a way of understanding relationships.”
Richard Wolff: “porn makes money off human needs and desires, and SHAPES human needs and desires”
porn producer: “anal sex is just a way of getting back at his wife for all the bitching she’s been doing at him”
Jensen emphasizes the conscious difficulty of moving in and out of pornographic world — fantasy line blurs.
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/freelance/abbywinters.htm
Features domestic violence lawyers who talk about 70% of their clients describing a direct use of porn and violence.
Pamela Paul, Pornified: “men unable to achieve orgasm without replicating scenes or moves from porn” pornography “infiltrated consciousness, often unbidden and unwanted”
Pressure to be hypersexual.
Ariel Levy: “the idea that you’re gonna get in touch with your sexuality by imitating a woman whose job it is to feign arousal… well, you’re getting pretty far removed from the real thing.”
Damone Robertson: doesn’t understand why women don’t take more offense.
college porn. alicia oleyourk. Boink: boston u.
complicity is the reaction to being unable to fight sexism - can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. “In a fundamental way, it’s giving up on the idea that we can change the terms of how people are thought to be.”
Joanna Angel: “How do you make a woman into an object?” What the hell does that mean? “You can have a woman getting fucked and choked and stuff and it can still be feminist as long as everyone is in control of what they’re doing.”
Research team examined videos from 2005 89.8% included verbal or physical aggression. 94.4% assaults on women. spanking and gagging. Gagging is huge. ATM 41%. Male user: “personally it turns me on that girls are willing to do what others won’t.”
Joe Gallant: “I hate to say it, but the future of American porn is violence.”
Dines: “When you sexualize violence against women, you render the violence invisible.”
Jensen: “pornography doesn’t express a deviant sexuality, it in fact expresses a very conventional sexuality.”
Miguel Picker, Chyng Sun.
Bonus: chomsky on pornography.
Chomsky talks about his 2004 interview with Hustler.
“Pornography is humiliation and degradation of women.”
“The fact that people are paid is about as convincing as the arguments for sweatshops.”
Eliminate degradation of women
Michelle Chang, MA student at New School.
I am determined *not* to see this film, because I know it will put me one step closer to an ulcer. My main concerns with it are erasure of women’s voices (especially sex workers’ voices; but, nothing new about that), and the fact that it’s in clear violation of Federal law 2257.
Also, I am interested to know whether you have read any of the posts (some of which I sent you) written by feminist sex workers who have seen the film.
I have, Amber, and I’m going to address those in a follow-up post.
How are they getting away with the 2257 thing? Is there an enforcement double-standard? Is there copyright violation going on?
Hugo, I don’t want to take up too much time with this, but it seems to me, in relation to the “self-loathing” charge, that part of the issue with this is that you only seem to see porn as potentially “okay” under circumstances of women-as-subject, as in someone in Renegade Evolution’s situation. There’s still the implicit “bad if it’s done by men, maybe not so bad if done by women” suggestion there. Am I misreading this?
No, that’s not entirely right. But there is a difference; we live in a patriarchal culture that commodifies women’s bodies for male pleasure. Men taking ownership of women — even in their fantasies — is thus problematic in a way that men taking ownership of men, or women of men, or women of women isn’t. Most rape is men on women; very little is women on men. Thus eroticizing rape fantasies is different for men and for women.
“and the fact that it’s in clear violation of Federal law 2257.”
Amber,
I haven’t seen the film, nor am I an expert on 2257. However, I haven’t seen anyone offer any actual evidence that the film is “in clear violation of 2257″. All I have seen is a few people saying that it is in violation of 2257. It seems to me that they should be able to use a certain amount of images under fair use.
I won’t see this film purely because just reading this post made me feel very ill so heaven help me if I actually saw the film. Isn’t encouraging the degredation and violation of other people some sort of violation of law if not basic decency? And making films glorifying and sexualizing degradation is doing just that. I will never accept any kind of human degradation as OK, even if it is consensual. If a woman is acting in a porn film, she is not standing up as herself and making a personal preference, she is acting and represents something: womanhood, and part of what she represents is me and all the women I love.
I also cannot believe, due to my own personal experience, that viewing and masturbating to an imge or idea has no influence on our relationships and actions towards others.
Has anyone seen the film ‘Quills’ which is about the Marquis de Sade? It makes a great point about censorship,freedom of speech and the effect of fiction on reality: the freedom to insight violence and contempt is no freedom at all. There is a relationship between what we read, view and hear and what we are, as the old saying goes ‘you are what you read’ or in this case, view.
Thank you Hugo and the makers of this film for braving such rotten material. Any further contributions from me will be limited because there is no way I will reread the material recounted in this post.
I meant incite! not insight, should have proof read.
I haven’t seen the film, nor am I an expert on 2257. However, I haven’t seen anyone offer any actual evidence that the film is “in clear violation of 2257″. All I have seen is a few people saying that it is in violation of 2257. It seems to me that they should be able to use a certain amount of images under fair use.
Ernest Greene explains it in detail here:
http://bppa.blogspot.com/2008/10/price-of-pleasure-deconstructed-part.html
“Ernest Greene explains it in detail here:”
From E.G’s post:
“So let’s start at the beginning, with some title cards containing pertinent information the producers want us to know.
The very first one asserts that all the copyrighted material shown in the program is covered under the Fair Use doctrine as commentary, criticism, and education and is therefore exempt from claims by the creators of said material.
To just get that part out of the way quickly, I agree. I don’t think there is an issue with copyright infringement that would hold up in a court of law concerning the work as a whole.”
As for the rest of his statements about 2257, since the images have already been assured to be 2257 complaint by the pornographer themselves, then why exactly would someone doing a documentary need to get the same documentation when it has already been established that documentation of the models age and consent for the images to be taken has already been obtained?
If you or anyone else wants to discuss the ethical ramifications of using sex workers images for an anti-porn documentation, fine (I don’t agree that images shouldn’t be used at all in anti-porn work, but I think discussing the ethics of it is perfectly reasonable and understandable). But I have yet to see any evidence that the makers of TPOP have violated any laws.
A couple of questions:
1) If I take nude pictures of myself and post them on the internet, would I be in violation of 2257 if I did not have proper documentation?
2) Are all of the sex bloggers who pull small images from porn sites and post them on their blogs in violation of 2257? If so, do the pro-porn peeps have objections to this behavior as well? If so, there are fuck only knows how many (thousands?) of blogs out there that are breaking the law.
Currently no, but there was recently a proposed update to the legislation that would have indeed made that the case. Many sex-positive feminist bloggers wrote to our Congress members protesting this proposal. As far as I know, it has currently been tabled. Ren or Ernest may have more info.
No, because the original sites have documentation. The bloggers are not considered secondary content producers in this case. Again, Ren or Ernest should be able to explain in more accurate terminology, as I’m not 100% sure I’m using the correct language.
From Ernest’s post:
Ren, SerpentLibertine, Aspasia, and others have also written about this. No time to dig up links at the moment.
Also, personally, to me it is the ethical concerns that are even MORE pressing than the possible federal law violation - although the rank hypocrisy makes that a pretty big concern too. The law is problematic, in my opinion; but if it is going to apply, it must apply equally to everyone.
One thing I’m curious to know is if IDs have been checked at the door at screenings of the film. If not, the possibility of it being viewed by minors is cause for great concern.
But, yes, the ethical questions should be of huge importance to any feminist. The women whose images are depicted in the film may not want to be associated with the filmmakers’ agenda. Even if that is not against any laws, as feminists it should be our responsibility to prioritize women’s voices, wants, and concerns. ALL women.
“No, because the original sites have documentation. The bloggers are not considered secondary content producers in this case.”
Amber,
If the bloggers are not “secondary content producers”, then how exactly is TPOP different from the bloggers? The bloggers are still reproducing content. The content that they are reproducing falls within the realms of fair use, just as it does with TPOP.
Again, I see no evidence here of any law being broken.
“Also, personally, to me it is the ethical concerns that are even MORE pressing than the possible federal law violation - although the rank hypocrisy makes that a pretty big concern too. The law is problematic, in my opinion; but if it is going to apply, it must apply equally to everyone.
One thing I’m curious to know is if IDs have been checked at the door at screenings of the film. If not, the possibility of it being viewed by minors is cause for great concern.”
But there is no evidence that it isn’t being applied equally. The anti-porn folks are not actually filming sexually-explicit content. They are using pornographic material which is already 2257 compliant.
As for IDs being checked at the door, I’m sure that is a given.
“But, yes, the ethical questions should be of huge importance to any feminist. The women whose images are depicted in the film may not want to be associated with the filmmakers’ agenda. Even if that is not against any laws, as feminists it should be our responsibility to prioritize women’s voices, wants, and concerns. ALL women.”
No, they may not want to be, that is true. But this topic of conversation is no different than any other political topic. Both sides get to make their arguments and to provide evidence to support their position, regardless of how distasteful those of us who do not agree feel about the matter. I personally loathe pro-lifers who use blatantly offensive tactics to try to dissuade women from having abortions. However, as long as they are not breaking any laws, I believe they have full right to state their case….as disgusting as I find pro-lifers to be.
TPOP is a new body of work. It is a separate film. A link on a web site is not a new body of work. Again, not sure about the correct terminology here but that is the difference.
Nobody’s arguing that *they don’t have a right to*. You’ll notice I specifically said that I am *not* making that argument, because I was afraid of this exact red herring. It’s not a question of whether or not they have a right. But is is the right thing to do, as feminists?
Really? Why are you ready to make that assumption, that leap of faith? What assumptions about the producers’ intentions are you working off of that leads you to that conclusion? Me, I wouldn’t trust them as far as I can throw them, so I am *definitely* not just going to make that assumption, especially when the consequences of that assumption being *wrong* have legal implications.
“A link on a web site is not a new body of work.”
I’m not talking about linking. I’m talking about actually reproducing the images on their blogs. And while TPOP is a new body of work, the images being reproduced are not. The images which we have already established are 2257 compliant.
“But is is the right thing to do, as feminists?”
Define “right thing to do”. How does one go about determining “the right thing to do”? What do you classify as being “the right thing to do”? Once you determine “the right thing to do”, how do you go about implementing that particular belief?
As an anti-porn feminist, I do not have any objections to pornographic images being used as evidence of the beliefs that anti-porn feminists hold.
I agree Faith, how can material be discussed with any fairness if it is not shown. We wouldn’t consider discussing other visual material without showing it.
And in response to the idea put forward earlier about respecting the rights of all women, including those who consensually recreate the abuse of women for entertainment: some women are not on the same side as women perse, just as there were black collaborators with slavery there are women collaborators in the abuse of women. Would anyone suggest that slavery was ok because a tiny minority of black people collaborated?? As a feminist I am not naieve enough to employ some simplistic four legs good two legs bad rule.
“Really? Why are you ready to make that assumption, that leap of faith?”
Amber,
I’m working off of the assumption that they would have almost certainly been lambasted by now if they were not checking id’s. -Someone- somewhere would have complained and had them charged with distributing pornographic material to a minor.
Ren also made this accusation about the Stop Porn Culture slideshow. When I went to the Stop Porn Culture slideshow and clicked the link to go to the slideshow, I got a page asking for verification for age. I’d assume that if they have that on their website, they are also checking id’s at the door of any public presentation.
If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong. But until you have some solid reason to believe that they aren’t checking id’s, why make a big fuss about the matter? Wouldn’t it make more sense to find out for yourself if you are truly concerned about the matter? But personally, I question if you are really that concerned about minors viewing pornographic material. It seems to me that you are grasping for any reason you can find to justify your distaste for anti-porn individuals.
(Note: I have not seen that slideshow either. I did go to the link for the slideshow, but as I am on dial-up, I didn’t care to take the few hours involved in downloading the slideshow.)
Why do you think that about me?
I don’t feel I should be put in the position of trying to reassure you or *make* you believe me, esp. bc you seem to have made up your mind anyway. That also shifts the focus of the conversation onto *my motivations* in a way that feels weird and condescending. So, all I can tell you is that yes, I am concerned about minors viewing pornographic material. You can believe me or not. But there it is.
Porn is not intended for minors. It is adult entertainment.
I will readily state too that I don’t think minors viewing porn is *the worst thing in the world.* If I had to choose between that and depictions of graphic, gory violence, then yeah, the porn would win out. But it’s a bizarre dichotomy to set up at all.
Hugo,
I didn’t see any comment specifically on it in your post, but I’d like to know how you felt about the segment of TPOP that compares BDSM (or at least, BDSM pornography) to torture under Pinochet’s regime? I applaud your efforts to encourage people to respect our side’s views, so I’m really surprised you didn’t notice that too.
Hugo!
Heh, where to start? First, thanks for the shout out….
““porn tells us very little about women, but a great deal about men.” I think he’s right” You must be reading my mind, now that I have the comic post out of the way, I will be taking on that theory tomorrow…
And I have to ask…do you note the way Levy herself objectifies women in her book? I sure as heck did…
And honoring women as viewers is the LEAST of this films problems. The biggest (aside from 2257) is that it claimed to be a fair, honest, and unbiased look at top selling porn of 2005 and trends in porn, when it is anything but. It is an antiporn film, plain and simple, and had it been billed as such, okay, game on, but that’s not how it is billed.
Matey: “If a woman is acting in a porn film, she is not standing up as herself and making a personal preference, she is acting and represents something”
O’RLY? Sooo, when I make a porn film that represents what I enjoy doing in my own bedroom, I am not making a personal preference? Nor are Kelly Wells, Audrey Hollander, Aurora Snow, Sasha Grey, who all say they are? Interesting.
Faith:
“As for the rest of his statements about 2257, since the images have already been assured to be 2257 complaint by the pornographer themselves, then why exactly would someone doing a documentary need to get the same documentation when it has already been established that documentation of the models age and consent for the images to be taken has already been obtained?”
No. The law states any maker or distributor of pornographic images, even secondary distributors, must have 2257 on file, and must STATE in their films they have 2257 on file and an address where this can be verified. This law applies to everyone, not just pornographers.
“If I take nude pictures of myself and post them on the internet, would I be in violation of 2257 if I did not have proper documentation?”
No, a nude image in an of itself is not pornographic.
“Are all of the sex bloggers who pull small images from porn sites and post them on their blogs in violation of 2257? If so, do the pro-porn peeps have objections to this behavior as well? If so, there are fuck only knows how many (thousands?) of blogs out there that are breaking the law.”
Actually, they are. At least by the most strident viewings of the law.
“As for IDs being checked at the door, I’m sure that is a given.”
No, it’s not, because no, they aren’t.
“As an anti-porn feminist, I do not have any objections to pornographic images being used as evidence of the beliefs that anti-porn feminists hold.”
As a woman in porn, I have a shit ton of objections to anyone, anywhere, ever, using me as a poster girl for an agenda I do not support, without my consent, or without allowing to state I do not agree with said agenda for myself in anti-porn arenas. I find such things objectifying and exploitive and in clear violation of my consent…because I would NEVER give it for such things.
Hello,
First, Hugo, I want to commend you on your review. Though I disagree on some of your opinions, I think it is a well thought-out review. You were critical of your own side when you needed to be, which can be difficult for anyone who has a strong opinion on any subject.
@Faith: “As for IDs being checked at the door, I’m sure that is a given.”
As someone who went to two screenings of the film, no, IDs were not checked at the door of those screenings. Both were held at colleges where anyone, say an older looking high school student, could just walk in.
Thanks for clearing up the 2257 issues, Ren. You are on top of that stuff way more than I am.
amber, I don’t take photos at a BBQ without 2257 forms these days.
Renegade evolution: ok so you say you enjoy what you do on camera, and you say these other women who I have never heard of say that too. All of you togther represent a tiny drop in the ocean of porn production, the vast majority of porn is created by people doing a job for money and are creating a mass produced product for mass consumption. I defy any woman who doesn’t have some serious self destruct issues to relish the idea of ATM. And although I have no idea of the kind of porn you produce, if it is ATM or anything else that perpetuates the idea that bullying and physical abuse is ‘fun’ (I do not count personal records of BDSM in that) I would see you as a traitor not only to womanhood, but also to humanity.
Ah, once again, the “you’re an exception” argument. If I had a penny for every time I heard that I’d be a rich lady.
First of all, I get the distinct impression that most people who throw that argument out just say it bc it sounds good. How do you really KNOW Ren and other women like her are “a tiny drop in the ocean of porn production?” Have you interviewed all the women in porn? Or are you working off assumptions, yet again?
Secondly, even if someone is an exception, does that mean their voice doesn’t count? That they shouldn’t be heard? As feminists we should REALLY know better than that.
And third, what many sex workers’ rights activists have been saying for years is: it’s not about whether or not someone LOVES their work, although obviously it would be nice if that were the case (in porn or ANY industry for that matter). The focus is making sure sex workers have safe, clean working conditions; fair pay; access to law enforcement (where they are believed and treated the same as anyone in a non-stigmatized profession) if they are the victim of a crime; access to comprehensive healthcare in a non-judgmental, non-stigmatized environment; practical exit strategies when they choose to move to other types of work (instead of not being able to find other employment bc no one wants to hire an former porn performer). The condescending, paternalistic attitudes of many anti-porn activists have no place in any of this.
*raises hand* But, again, I guess I don’t matter, because I’m just “a tiny drop” after all, right? Once again I am reminded that we still haven’t gotten past the point of judging people for their sexual proclivites and imposing our own assumptions onto things that don’t float our personal boat. Once again I am made to feel like a freak. You don’t have to understand. You don’t have to like it yourself or even be able to conceive of liking it. But what you must not do is impose onto me “self destruct issues.” Of all the things I like having put in my mouth, words are not among them.
And, once again - the focus is put on specific sex acts, rather than working conditions and labor rights.
Just… wow.
Really feminist there.
You think Ren and other sex workers haven’t heard that same sentiment from *most of society* for their entire lives?
Lovely to see it within feminism as well. Guess sex workers really *don’t* matter - they’re not human after all.
“Why do you think that about me?”
I question whether you or any of the pro-porn crowd are that concerned about minors viewing pornographic material because I don’t see any of you making a big stink about the fact that pornographic material can be easily accessed by anyone for free on the internet. If you all are so concerned about minors viewing porn, why aren’t you working to make it harder for kids to surf porn sites? There are tons of free sites out there and even paid sites typically have pornographic images right there on the front page of the site and on the tours…all of which can be accessed by anyone with internet access.
All I do see any of you making a fuss about is anti-porn feminists (in the context of this conversation).
“No, a nude image in an of itself is not pornographic.”
What if it involved me nude and masturbating? Say with a dildo? Would I then be in violation of the law?
“Actually, they are. At least by the most strident viewings of the law.”
Then why only make a fuss about the anti-porn documentaries and not all of the violations?
“As a woman in porn, I have a shit ton of objections to anyone, anywhere, ever, using me as a poster girl for an agenda I do not support, without my consent, or without allowing to state I do not agree with said agenda for myself in anti-porn arenas. I find such things objectifying and exploitive and in clear violation of my consent…because I would NEVER give it for such things.”
You have a right to those objections. And people who do not agree with you also have a legal right to make their case regardless of how offensive you might find their case to be.
(If this comment shows up first, btw, there are two more comments waiting in moderation.)
“Secondly, even if someone is an exception, does that mean their voice doesn’t count? That they shouldn’t be heard? As feminists we should REALLY know better than that.”
I don’t think that anyone believes that these women just don’t count. Perhaps some of the anti-porn peeps do, but certainly not all of them.
“And third, what many sex workers’ rights activists have been saying for years is: it’s not about whether or not someone LOVES their work, although obviously it would be nice if that were the case (in porn or ANY industry for that matter). The focus is making sure sex workers have safe, clean working conditions; fair pay; access to law enforcement (where they are believed and treated the same as anyone in a non-stigmatized profession) if they are the victim of a crime; access to comprehensive healthcare in a non-judgmental, non-stigmatized environment; practical exit strategies when they choose to move to other types of work (instead of not being able to find other employment bc no one wants to hire an former porn performer). The condescending, paternalistic attitudes of many anti-porn activists have no place in any of this.”
As far as I can tell, most of the anti-porn feminists want all of those things for sex workers as well. The only difference is that anti-porn feminists view sex work in general (or in its entirety in certain cases) to be so fundamentally destructive to -most- women involved and also to the population at large that they do not wish the industry to continue to exist.
Anti-porn feminists do not only object to the problems and damage faced by sex workers themselves, but also to the rest of us who might consume porn, or who have to deal with men who consume porn and use prostitutes. The sex workers are not the only ones effected by the sex industry.
“*raises hand* But, again, I guess I don’t matter, because I’m just “a tiny drop” after all, right? ”
I’m not sure if I should address the issue of ATM on this thread, but here goes. I do not necessarily believe that any woman who engages in ass to mouth is looking to self-destruct. I do seriously worry about anyone who engages in ATM. One of the first things that I learned about anal sex is that the anus is full of malicious bacteria. I mean think about it, feces is actually used as a biological weapon. Anal sex 101: Do not transfer any object from the anus to the vagina without first washing it. Do you honestly want the germs that are so foul that they should not be introduced into your vagina in your mouth? Really? Honestly?
Ok, I see my first comment has made it out of moderation, but not my comment with the two links addressing 2257…
Ack, and my comment addressing Aspasia has disappeared..
From VioletBlue:
“Besides worrying about the spread of viruses and STDs from unprotected sex, there are a large number of activities you’ll see in porn sex that are unsafe and even dangerous. There is currently a trendy fetish for ass-to-mouth contact, using everything from penises and fingers to sex toys, and there are even a few porn series specifically devoted to showing the practice. Ass-to-mouth contact puts the recipient at great risk for contracting Hepatitis A, which can be treated but not cured. The penetrator is at no risk in this situation. Hepatitis A comes from getting fecal matter in the mouth, and many starlets reduce their chances by taking multiple enemas before anal sex scenes, though this is not a foolproof measure. Anal-to-vaginal penetration is another sex act fetish, which by bringing E coli bacteria from the anus to the vagina causes a severe bacterial infection. Again, enemas are used beforehand, but this is not a reliable safeguard.”
http://www.tinynibbles.com/realpornsex.html
Ack, the last link I published is NSFW and potentially triggering!!!
Matey:
“Renegade evolution: ok so you say you enjoy what you do on camera, and you say these other women who I have never heard of say that too. All of you togther represent a tiny drop in the ocean of porn production, the vast majority of porn is created by people doing a job for money and are creating a mass produced product for mass consumption. I defy any woman who doesn’t have some serious self destruct issues to relish the idea of ATM. And although I have no idea of the kind of porn you produce, if it is ATM or anything else that perpetuates the idea that bullying and physical abuse is ‘fun’ (I do not count personal records of BDSM in that) I would see you as a traitor not only to womanhood, but also to humanity.’
The women I mentioned are all fairly famous gonzo performers (Hollander was in TpoP in a clip, actually…not an interview, but a porn clip). And yes, we are a tiny, tiny handful of people in porn…and yep, sure enough, all of us are doing a job for money creating a mass product for mass consumption. Go ahead and ASSUME we’re such unicorns and whatnot and every other woman out there not mentioned just hates it or what have you. If that’s what you have to do in order to maintain your universal (and erroneous view) of women as a whole. And you go ahead and ASSUME whatever issues you want. Relish? Relish is a strong word. There is a difference between relish/not mind/do for pay, but anyway…
I guess then you’re going to have to see me as a traitor to womanhood and humanity, knowing merely that about me and nothing else? Fine. I can live with that. I choose firing squad by the way.
Faith:
“I question whether you or any of the pro-porn crowd are that concerned about minors viewing pornographic material because I don’t see any of you making a big stink about the fact that pornographic material can be easily accessed by anyone for free on the internet. If you all are so concerned about minors viewing porn, why aren’t you working to make it harder for kids to surf porn sites? There are tons of free sites out there and even paid sites typically have pornographic images right there on the front page of the site and on the tours…all of which can be accessed by anyone with internet access.”
Excuse me? Oh, okay, so the several posts I’ve done on sex ed, and how porn is crap sex ed, where I say that it would behoove the industry to make it harder for kids to access porn, and it would behoove parents to know what their kids are doing on the net, and how porn is for adults and should be only for adults and people should see that adults are the one seeing it mean nothing? The fact that I’ve mentioned such at any debate or event I’ve attended, on any radio program I’ve done on the topic, so on, is…nothing? Great to know.
“What if it involved me nude and masturbating? Say with a dildo? Would I then be in violation of the law?”
Yes.
“Then why only make a fuss about the anti-porn documentaries and not all of the violations?”
Do I need to count the times I’ve stated I have a problem with anyone using a performers pornographic images without documentation on file and their consent? I can if you really want. When I say anyone, I mean anyone.
“You have a right to those objections. And people who do not agree with you also have a legal right to make their case regardless of how offensive you might find their case to be.”
Good thing I believe in lawyers then, eh? May be that folk soon learn that 2257 cuts both ways. And I’ll keep the offensive comment in mind. People get very, very upset when I use peoples mere names in posts where I might be offensive. I am pleased to know some peoples feeling matter more than others.
Ren,
Since my original comment seems to have disappeared, I found two sites which addressed 2257, both sites were run by lawyers, I believe. One guy said that material produced by secondary producers for educational purposes do not have to apply. The other guy said that not all secondary producers have to comply and that there is controversy over which ones do or do not have to comply. There was also something about people who do not have “the right to manage 2257 documentation” not having to comply. I wonder about this particular line. Wouldn’t secondary producers not have the right to manage the 2257 documentation of primary producers?
Aspasia,
Fair enough.
My next question is this: If the genitals are blurred out, would this reduce the rating from NC-17 to R? If this is the case, I don’t see why any college campus would have to worry about checking IDs for college students and faculty.
What is the rating for TPOP?
Amber,
Since I question if my comment addressing ATM will make it out of moderation. I tried to link some info about the dangers of ATM. Transferring bacteria from the anus to mouth presents a great risk of contracting Hep. A and E. coli. Are you really willing to risk contracting Hep. A and E. coli just so some dude can put his cock in your mouth?
(I hate to be graphic, but hey, we’re all adults here.)
Faith- The problem with 2257 comes in with record keeping and the fact that TPoP is not being SOLELY used for education…it is also used for entertainment and, why yes, is being sold for a profit. These folks need to be JUST as beholden to the laws as pornographers do. Pornographers who make porn for educational purposes (and they do exist) must also comply with 2257. This law was originally made to keep minors out of porn, a GOOD thing, but I can assure you it was not the porn industry who made it so muddled and whatnot…you might have a guess as to who pushed for it to be so complicated. Well, now it is, and I am all for universal compliance. Ernest has written extensively on the subject.
TPoP is not rated, but states clearly at the begining it contains graphic sexual footage. There is another interesting thing, actually. Porn is slapped with an X rating, TPoP has no need to comply with the rating system either it seems.
Actually, Faith, do you think TPoP should be beholden to 2257? I’m curious.
“Faith- The problem with 2257 comes in with record keeping and the fact that TPoP is not being SOLELY used for education…it is also used for entertainment and, why yes, is being sold for a profit.”
For entertainment? How is it being used for entertainment?
“Porn is slapped with an X rating, TPoP has no need to comply with the rating system either it seems.”
If the genitals are blurred out, does it qualify as being x rated? It seems to me that if the genitals are blurred out that it would only fall under an R rating. I don’t know that for a fact which is why I asked.
“Actually, Faith, do you think TPoP should be beholden to 2257? I’m curious.”
I don’t understand why someone who is using the material under fair use that has already been established to be 2257 compliant should have to have the same files on record. It seems like overkill to me. If someone had some questions as to whether the material is 2257 compliant, they could simply contact the original producers of the material. Since we’ve already established that bloggers reproduce material all the time, holding secondary producers responsible for 2257 would be next to impossible without damn near banning any sexually explicit website.
“Pornographers who make porn for educational purposes (and they do exist) must also comply with 2257. ”
But aren’t they the primary producers? The ones actually filming the material?
Faith- I AGREE that the original producers having the stuff on file is good enough, however, if pornographers who are secondary producers can get arrested/fined for it, that needs to be applied fairly. Same goes for other things…John Stagliano is in court for the possibility a minor might access a trailer for a film of his on line, yet he has the exact same precautions in place that SPC and TPoP do. And there are two versions of this film, one with blurring, one with out, either can be selected on the DVD. I’ve seen both. And even with the blurring? Pornographic. I mean, for those who object to such things, is a woman gagging all over a penis any less pornographic if the penis is blurred a little?
My point is this: If the porn industry is going to be held to the law due to the pornographic and adult nature of the products they make, others also need to be held to that law. That seems so plainly simple to me. Yes, there are countless ethical and educational and fair use questions that can be asked, but the point is, I can fire up TPoP on my dvd player right now and watch pornography.
As for entertainment…woo, I know several people who would most certainly find it so. I thought it was rather melodramatic and campy, but there were clips of the kind of porn I like in it…
“But aren’t they the primary producers? The ones actually filming the material?” Not always.
Faith,
I’m weirded out by your generalizing statements; I don’t feel comfortable responding anymore bc it’s feeling very… bad.
Ah, once again, the “you’re an exception” argument. If I had a penny for every time I heard that I’d be a rich lady.
I’m beginning to hate that when it’s aimed at me too, Amber (and sometimes it is, despite my not being in porn.) I don’t have any problems admitting that yeah, as far as I understand most other people’s sex lives, they don’t look like mine. I don’t have a problem with the idea that things pressure or bother other people and not me.
But I do have a problem with the idea that the purpose of society is to keep everyone who isn’t an exception comfortable all the time. I don’t think that’s what society is *for*, and I think that really is the soul of the disagreement over porn (or various other things.)
I see why pornography offends and upsets many women far more than it does me. I even understand why it, yes, triggers some. But what I don’t see is why that upsetness means “This media should not exist” rather than “This media should depict things that we enjoy, too” or even “Hmm, my lover uses this media, and that upsets me. He and I should have a serious talk.”
“I’m weirded out by your generalizing statements; I don’t feel comfortable responding anymore bc it’s feeling very… bad.”
I’m not sure which statements you are referring to, but ok, you are perfectly free to not respond. I certainly don’t feel that I’ve said anything here that is or should be considered out of line.
Re: The discussion on 2257. I think there’s a lot of confusion over 2257 versus 2257A, not to mention the legal limbo that all of 2257 is under since the Sixth Circuit Court decision. 2257A contains the addenda with the really stringent provisions against secondary producers, and it has not so far been vetted by the courts.
The bottom line: if the TPoP producers had simply copied the 2257 information from the videos and websites they got content from, they probably would have been in compliance (as much as many porn websites are at this point, anyway), at least under the present version of the law. The fact that TPoP doesn’t do this means they either know very little about laws around porn (which raises the question as to what other things about the subject are they ignorant of) or are pulling an arrogant “the law applies to you but not me” move.
Again, all that we “pro-porners” are saying is that there cannot be two legal standards – one for the anti-porn crusaders and another for pornographers and pro-porn advocates. In that regard, Stop Porn Culture getting away with something that John Stagliano is looking at jail time for amounts to selective enforcement, something that, from the point of view of this side of the “porn wars” anyway, should be documented and brought up in court next time something like this goes to trial.
“Excuse me? Oh, okay, so the several posts I’ve done on sex ed, and how porn is crap sex ed, where I say that it would behoove the industry to make it harder for kids to access porn, and it would behoove parents to know what their kids are doing on the net, and how porn is for adults and should be only for adults and people should see that adults are the one seeing it mean nothing? The fact that I’ve mentioned such at any debate or event I’ve attended, on any radio program I’ve done on the topic, so on, is…nothing? Great to know.”
I recall you making statements about parents needing to know what their children are up to on the internet. I’ve personally never seen you say anything about the porn industry making it harder for kids to access porn on the internet. If you say you have, I’ll take your word for it. I still question if the overall intention of most of the people ranting about minors viewing TPOP is really completely legit.
“Do I need to count the times I’ve stated I have a problem with anyone using a performers pornographic images without documentation on file and their consent? I can if you really want. When I say anyone, I mean anyone.”
I see no reason for you to count the number of times you’ve said it. But my question then becomes, what are you doing, or what do you believe should be done about bloggers using images without them being 2257 compliant?
“People get very, very upset when I use peoples mere names in posts where I might be offensive. I am pleased to know some peoples feeling matter more than others.”
I haven’t said a damn thing about certain people’s feelings being more important than others. I have not denied you the right to your feelings. I have not denied anyone the right their feelings. You have every right to feel any damn thing you please. All I have personally ever objected to is when you make outright vicious comments blatantly attacking other women. I’ve also, btw, spoken out about certain anti-porn feminists blatantly attacking other women.
As for the lawyer comment, I’m still not convinced that they have broken any law, but by all means, have at it if it suits your fancy. If you are actually referring to suing them yourself for violating 2257, I’d also have to ask how you could do that yourself if you were not the original producer of the material in question, or at the very least one of the women whose image has been used.
I believe feminism exists to serve women, rather than the reverse.
I believe that for an activist, it makes sense to adopt the role of servant and ally, not judge. I also know that, at least for me, it takes work to keep from wanting to judge and control. And when I look at the anti-pornography movement, mostly from their own account, I see plenty of cases of a badly controlled impulse to judge.
I have written in a comment to a previous post on this subject about Robert Jensen’s own account of his treatment of women performers at a trade show. His explicit demand that the performers engage him, on his preferred terms, betrays an insensitivity and a willingness to judge that continues to concern me.
In general, anti-pornography activism involves a greater temptation to substitute judgment for service, because so much anti-pornography activism involves advocacy without consent. That always puts activists in a perilous situation, and in the case of the pornography issue, it gets compounded by our society’s chronic and ingrained habit of judging matters of sexual practice.
“if the TPoP producers had simply copied the 2257 information from the videos and websites they got content from,”
Just to clarify, I meant, copied the 2257 info and tacked it onto the end credits of TPoP.
Thank you for posting a link to that article, John. It really bothers me that somehow, according to Jensen and Dines, “please stop bothering these people with leading questions” means “these people are too stupid to answer you.” It’s spin Judo.
Faith-
I have indeed stated that it behooves pornographers to make their material less accessible to minors. I have also told bloggers (pro and anti) who use pornographic images w/out having 2257, so on, that they are in violation of 2257. I’ve mentioned it to sex bloggers as well as anti porn bloggers.
As for my attacks on people…one of the most infamous to date was when I said I was going to dedicate a gonzo scene to an anti porn woman because I figured she might want to know how it felt to have ones name associated with a stance they hate. Extreme? Yes. Did I actually do it? No. Does it make a point about considering the feelings of the people others use in their arguments? Apparently so judging from the outrage. Well, yes, that is how it feels when one is associated with an agenda they abhor without their consent or permission. Especially when this stuff is often done “in their name”.
Oh, I won’t be the ones suing anyone, but do not think that those very women in the images and the producers thereof have not talked to lawyers and are pondering doing just that. And I will be cheering them on and offering my assistance all the way. I mean, I’ve had a women’s studies professor ask me if she could use my images for a discussion on porn. I asked if I would be able to make a statement. I was, I agreed. How hard is that really? I mean, is it truly that difficult to ask?
I’ve asked before if the anti porn side has so many former porn performers on their side who speak out against the industry, why not use their stories, personal testimony, imagery, and have them come and speak about their experiences rather than use the words (often out of context) and images of women where it is not known how they feel about it or if they would object. Why use the words and images of the unconsenting and uninformed if the words of those who would willingly participate and are known to agree with the anti porn faction are available? I’ve never gotten an answer to that other than “well, these pictures work better”. I’d like to hear more than that…after all, I’d think that the real live words coming out of a real live person perhaps accompanied with the photos of that real live person would be more impacting than being bombarded by countless images of women whom I suspect no one, even the producers of the anti porn media, knows the name of, let alone their feelings.
Most of the women in the pornographic images in SPC or TpoP did not consent to be there. That bothers me a whole lot, and how it doesn’t bother other people amazes me frankly. Fighting the exploitation of some people against their will by exploiting others against their will makes no sense to me, and it never will.
Renegade revolution:
I’m afraid to dissapoint but I’m totally against capital punishment, so no firing squad is available, although I’m sure some Gonzo producer could fix one up if you are keen and if it would sell.
By ‘relish’ I was refering to your statement that you and a few other women have said they ‘enjoy’ what they do on camera for porn films. My point was that exactly as you have said, these are actresses who ‘don’t mind’ or ‘do for pay’: commercial porn in the vast majority of cases is not an expression of the actresses own sexuality.
I am not assuming the rest of the world’s women dislike what you do, just that I do and that I don’t like what I think and can see that the films you produce do to my world. I don’t think men are particularly weak in being influened by porn, I think we are all vulnerable to that. Just as we are made vulnerable by any short hand mass produced representation - I see sex as our softest, most vulnerable spot that’s all. I’m not judging people for doing this I’m objecting to a what I see as a horrendous polution.
Renegaderevolution: Yes, knowing that you support Gonzo porn is most certainly enough for me to see you as a traitor to humanity, no matter what else you do with you time.
Also, making the assumption that my views are erroneous without any proof, and when they have been misrepresented is a pretty judgemental thing to do. We all deserve a voice and for what we are saying to be heard.
Matey:
Hum. I’ve done and made a lot of gonzo, and to date, firing squad or any other form of…oh…murder has been part of the plan. And you know, I guess I need to say this…the gonzo directors I have worked for, that I know, so on? My gosh, they are people, who treat me and other performers like people. Shocking, I know.
And as far as enjoy goes, you are looking at one act. Personally, I don’t mind ATM. I don’t relish it, but I don’t mind it. However, other acts that are common in gonzo porn, I do actually enjoy those. ATM is the current buzz act as it were. It used to be anal. Then it was double/mutliple penetration (still is in some ways), then…ATM. It’s the WORST thing people can think of. I guess some people actually figured out people can enjoy anal or multiple penetration, so ATM is now it. However, even though I merely “don’t mind it” I am not going to say no women like it, and oddly enough, a woman can make a decent pay check in porn without doing it.
And I fully respect your opinion to not like porn, to not watch porn, and to seriously question the way it might affect people and society. Even I admit porn can affect some people negatively and everyone has a right not to like or watch it. I have zero problem with that. I am all for women saying what they do or do not want in sex, in erotica, in life…voicing that for themseleves. If that makes me a traitor to women and humanity, oh well.
Really? You’re not judging? Then what the hell was this?
Matey:
Wait, wait…
“I am not assuming the rest of the world’s women dislike what you do, just that I do and that I don’t like what I think and can see that the films you produce do to my world. I don’t think men are particularly weak in being influened by porn, I think we are all vulnerable to that. Just as we are made vulnerable by any short hand mass produced representation - I see sex as our softest, most vulnerable spot that’s all. I’m not judging people for doing this I’m objecting to a what I see as a horrendous polution.”
Then:
“Yes, knowing that you support Gonzo porn is most certainly enough for me to see you as a traitor to humanity, no matter what else you do with you time.”
That’s not judging people?
Amber Rhea and RenegadeEvolution (sorry for getting you name wrong in previous posts!)
Ok, that’s opinion about people and according to my dictionary (which I have just consulted) that is a form of judging, it comes last on a long list of meanings for the word. So I am judging/forming an opinion about people, oh well!.
Amber Rhea and RenegadeEvolution (sorry for getting you name wrong in previous posts!)
Ok, that’s opinion about people and according to my dictionary (which I have just consulted) that is a form of judging, it comes last on a long list of meanings for the word. So I am judging/forming an opinion about people, oh well!, don’t we all? I am not ordering you stop, just givng my opinion, that’s what this site is all about.
So if it’s an opinion, then no one is allowed to take offense, huh? Is that how it works? “Yeah, I think you’re a half-witted deginerate who doesn’t wipe properly - but it’s just my OPINION!”
Matey-
By all means we all do…and interestingly enough, you provide a fine illustration of something, really. There are a great many women, sex workers and not, who have no use for feminism/anti pornography critique because if they do not feel as anti pornography people do about the matter they are considered traitors and then no longer seen as anything but an issue or a job…which is by default, objectifying and othering. I personally find it amusingly ironic when people who complain about how porn is damaging and reduces women to sexually available objects and what not can then turn around and say “I don’t care about anything else about you, you like gonzo, OMG, traitor!”
Never fails to put a grim smile on my face. Ever.
RenegadeEvolution: I’m not at all suprised the Gonzo producers treat you like a human being and are nice to you, I’d expect them to. And I also bet they pay their actors/actresses alot of money. It’s a business and it always pays to be nice in business, they need to keep you doing what you are doing. Just in case you thought I meant they would set up an actual firing squad and execute you, I was being ironic (I’m British), I meant it could make a scenario that would sell - porn star shot by feminist firing sqaud with plenty of action n between… the fact that it’s never been done before would surely add to the novelty value. And if you do sell that to them, no I do not want any money from the proceeds.
Huh, that is a film I’ll have to make…its strangely appropriate. Thanks for the idea, and I’ll be happy to keep the money.
RenegradeEvolution and Amber Rhea, I’m not completely anti - porn, just some porn, the stuff that I think incites serious damage to people. Stuff which makes violence and bullying look like fun for everyone and which simplifies complex BDSM relationships into something unrecognisable and that is what I am talking about. To me, if someone incites rape or violence that overrides any other activity in their life, that is my view and my opinion and it is derrived from a concern for a world we all share.
Amber Rhea, I am so sorry you find slack bottom wiping so offensive. Hugo may run a thread on that soon, if you ask him, but for now we are discussing porn.
matey-
okay, so bdsm is different? this is not to knock on bdsm at all, in any way, bdsm nor porn make anyone do anything…but if we’re going for “inciting rapes and violence”, bdsm does not get a pass. nor does pretty much anything else, from politics to religion. now, it is not as if I have not been called a rape enabler or rapist before, but i’ve never personally forced anyone to do anything…and I’m probably (as a human with access to, oh, kitchen knives and fire arms and so on) more capable of doing so than ANY pornographic mag or movie- of any kind. I do not think porn of any sort makes people rape any more than I think goth/metal music makes school shootings happen, and I find that argument to be a huge cop out.
RenegadeEvolution:
On BDSM: I do see your point about BDSM, but it seems to me that there are issues of control about the submissive partner taking complete control in actual BDSM activities which makes it seem not as bad to me. And it strikes me that if those relationships were represented sensitively, recording their complexity then they may even make people more aware of the devestation caused by the different kinds of rape.
I know from personal experience that porn incites rape because the man who has raped me several times, and a few others that I know of, is an avid user of porn and seeker of ever more extreme porn novelty. He uses it when he rapes. The abusive boyfriend I had as a young woman who was obsessed with dominating women did too. Aside from personal experience, there is alot of research on this topic in which clear links are made between porn use and men who rape. This is seen as established phenomena and I’m sure there are plenty of proofs of this on the net, but it’s not something I have the strength to look up at the moment.
I DO NOT see you as a rapist, I see you as complicit in something which encourages rape. And yes there are lots of things in our world that do that, some traditions of the catholic church being one of them. And I see anyone who is complicit in anything which encourages rape (not just porn) as a traitor to the human race. I also believe you don’t think you are harming anyone, but I know you are.
matey-
I’m sorry that such things happened to you at the hands of men. It’s most unfortunate, and I hope such things do not happen to you again, or to anyone else, but can the porn solely be blamed for their behavior? I ask that not to be callous, but as a serious question. I had a physically abusive partner who really liked speed metal and very violent action movies, and would partake of those things before becoming physically abusive, but I put the blame on her, not the music or the films, because she’s the one who did it. There was a lot more going on there than media influence, and I tend to think such is the case with all abusive people.
As for studies linking porn and violence, for every one that says they are linked, there is one that says they aren’t. Studies in an of themselves are problematic because of countless reasons, from the intent of the examiners to the subjects examined. Ted Bundy blamed porn for his actions, but most scientists and whatnot have determined that Bundy was a violent sadistic sociopath and nothing, other than him, made him do what he did.
And actually, I don’t think I can say I am free from harming anyone, but then again, I think every human walking the earth harms other humans, intentionally or not, in some way. It’s a tough and raw deal all around for certain, but I also think I have the right to have a beer if I want, and other adult people have the right to have a beer if they want- even though booze is related to countless cases of addiction, violence, assault, absuse, murder, rape, and auto fatalitites.
I also do not think I, in any way, have a right to judge or talk about any sort of sexual behavior engaged in by consenting adults and records they make of it, even if personally it is not to my tastes…and I do think I have a right to engage in what I enjoy with other consenting adults, and make a record of it.
I’m afraid that going by your theory of causing harm, there are more traitors to humanity out there than there are actual humans.
@Faith: “My next question is this: If the genitals are blurred out, would this reduce the rating from NC-17 to R? If this is the case, I don’t see why any college campus would have to worry about checking IDs for college students and faculty.
What is the rating for TPOP?”
I’m not sure if anyone else answered this but since you asked me specifically, I will answer you back specifically as best I can. Honestly, I do not believe the rating would be reduced from NC-17 to R. The viewer can still see the sexual action taking place below the waist in some scenes and though it is blurred, you still know what is going on; then of course there are the sounds layered on top of the scene. In mainstream US films, sex/love scenes that show infinitely less than that are often given an R.
I am not sure what TPoP’s rating is if it has one yet. Since this hasn’t exactly been a theatre released and is only screened at certain venues. I haven’t looked the MPAA rating system up so take that as you will.
As far as why the colleges would need to ID check: the simple fact that this is definitely not PG-13 material. Though it RARELY happens, mainstream movie theatres are supposed to do an age check of anyone buying tickets for movies with an R rating and over if they LOOK under 18 and are unaccompanied by a parent or guardian. With that in mind, that is why the colleges should ID check whether TPoP’s rating is R or NC-17.
RenegadeEvolution: I am also sorry you had a physically abusive partner.
As I said, I don’t blame you or porn for the attacks on me and the other women I referred to, I very much blame my abuser. But I do think his existing sense of entitlement was encouraged by porn (and instigated by a culture which readily accepts the abuse of women in fictional and real settings). Porn gives people ideas, that is what people very often use it for. And if you want to engage in behaviours which you enjoy and make records of them, then of course that is none of my business, but commercial porn which is very much out there in the public sphere and is increasingly looked to for sexual inspiration, perhaps by a man I may share a lift with or a taxi driver etc, is a different matter. Also, the idea of distributing images of women pretending to enjoy acts they do not like (that they ‘don’t mind’ or ‘will do for money’)creates a level of expectation.
As you say, for every study proving porn does not encourage rape there is one which proves it does. I know I am influenced by what I watch and read, and I think other people I have known are too. I also think some violent films incite violence (I have also had a partner who became more aggressive after watching violent films), and yes I do think there is alot in our culture which makes rape easier and is therefore treacherous to humanity. Just one example of this is the fact that only 5% of rape cases which make it to court result in a conviction and only a fraction of rapes result in a court case. So yes, I think the world makes rape easier, and much of porn is part of that picture. Just because there is alot of it out there doesn’t mean any of it is ok by me.
First of all….props to Hugo for at least being fair-minded.
To Matey and Faith: Well, you are entitled to your opinions, however some might feel that they really suck for passing judgment on people who have committed no crime or slandered no one. Ren Ev’s and Amber Rhea’s personal sexual proclivities really should have no bearing on the merit of their positions…but if you insist on bringing them in to label Ren a “traitor to humanity” or Amber a closet support of pedophiles, well, that’s your axe to grind.
On the subject of AtM sex: maybe you may have missed the memo in your gross misinterpretation of Violet Blue’s essay, Faith, but porn performers who do AtM actually do some major hygenic preparations prior to the act….I assume that they are well aware of the risks before they involve themselves. You are far more likely to get infected from e-coli bacteria from consuming tainted/contaminated food than from tainted AtM sex…but, I guess that going after meatpackers or companies that handle food produce would make for such an emphasis with the TPoP boosters, right? And if you are going to condemn gonzo porn for the great health menace of AiM sex, then why not go all the way and go after films where porn performers do AtM with their own fingers or a sex toy rather than a man’s penis? Or, would that run the risk of going after real people who do such acts in their real lives for free? Yes, Faith, real people do anal play for free and not just in front of a camera for pay.
And to respond to Matey’s most recent suggestion that porn incites people to horrible acts of rape: really?? OK…so does that mean that countries and cultures where porn is basically discourages and disparaged as harmful to women and society in general are that much more positive to women regarding rape and sexual assault and battery? Does that mean that the likes of James Dobson and Pat Robertson are now virulent radical feminist role models now?? What’s next…a shoutout for Sarah Palin as a feminist hero??
Just because you say it doesn’t make it any more true….and just because you cloak your biases in radicalfeminist drag doesn’t make them any less reactionary than they actually are. If there is a conspiracy against rape victims, it is certainly not because of the existence of or popularity of porn — the majority of which is simply non-violent activity involving mutually pleasurable and consenual acts involving freely willing adults. Amber’s personal enjoyment of sex or Ren’s love of gonzo is far from the main issue here…the general misogyny of this culture and the fundamental inequality is. Only ideologues who are more focused on controlling other women’s sexual choices — like those who produced this travesty called The Price of Pleasure, and those who continue to defend and promote it — would think otherwise.
Oh…and while the issue of whether TPoP would be actionable under 2257 or the proposed update 2257A regs is certainly relevant due to the fairness of the original rules being applied equally and fairly…but that’s secondary to the main issue of the constant slander and libel and total distortion and dehumanization of the performers featured in this “documentary”. Ernest Greene and others so smeared in this film may have every right to seek legal action for their false and misleading portrayals, and that’s for them to decide for themselves…but he and they definitely have the right to use their bandwidth to openly and solidly refute such a libel. That’s not “silencing”, Faith….that’s rebuttal.
As always, my views and mine alone.
Anthony
Matey:
First, I’m sorry that you had to go through that, and I’m not at all surprised that such experiences would make you very uncomfortable with porn, in general.
“But I do think his existing sense of entitlement was encouraged by porn (and instigated by a culture which readily accepts the abuse of women in fictional and real settings). Porn gives people ideas, that is what people very often use it for.”
But Matey, there are two ways to interpret this.
1) Porn gave him the idea that it was OK to do what he did. If not for porn, he would have felt just enough shame about whatever it was in his makeup that drove him to hurt you to have avoided doing so.
2) He would have done it all anyway. Porn, however, gave him an easy way not to feel guilt for harming you.
I think the difference is important, because in the first example porn actually had a direct role in the harm. In the second, the person is just looking for something to turn to to validate “I want to hurt this person.” In that case, it wouldn’t matter if the person found porn, the Bible, the laws of his community, or a pile of goat cheese, as long as that thing gave him a convenient excuse for behaving the way he did.
And if that was the case, then getting rid of porn or whatever else won’t change much — because the person will just find something else to read or see “Husbands, spare not the rod on your disobedient wives” or “Men have a right to sex.” If someone wants to find that message and use it to justify his flying fists, he’ll be able to, with or without porn.
Wow. Just wow.
Oh wait, did I get labeled as that, too? Well, it’s hard to keep count these days. I must have missed it with all the other sneering and judging going on.
matey- I don’t do this often, because I love a good debate…but I do think here, perhaps, we have to agree to disagree? i mean, I am getting the impression that I think bad people do bad things and looks for excuses, and you think that things give some people with the bent to go bad a reason and inspiration to do it….and that is one of those fundmental differences that just won’t change.
but I will say, a lot of people do things in their jobs they don’t mind or do for the money…why would porn be different? If 80% of what I do is stuff I like, and 20% is stuff I do not mind….I think I dig my job better than most people.
Here we have a fascinating interpretation of what I actually said vs. someone else’s highly redacted version of what I said, and what the law clearly states.
Faith is quick to quote this part of my observations concerning TPoP’s disclaimers:
“So let’s start at the beginning, with some title cards containing pertinent information the producers want us to know.
The very first one asserts that all the copyrighted material shown in the program is covered under the Fair Use doctrine as commentary, criticism, and education and is therefore exempt from claims by the creators of said material.
To just get that part out of the way quickly, I agree. I don’t think there is an issue with copyright infringement that would hold up in a court of law concerning the work as a whole.”
And why not? It acknowledges that there may be a law or two the producers somehow failed to violate.
However, as the rest of my comments cast them in quite a different light, she gives us bit of spin:
“As for the rest of his statements about 2257, since the images have already been assured to be 2257 complaint by the pornographer themselves, then why exactly would someone doing a documentary need to get the same documentation when it has already been established that documentation of the models age and consent for the images to be taken has already been obtained?”
A truly fascinating piece of casuistry, especially coming from someone who imputes the worst of motives and actions to pornographers. Obviously, the word of pornographers, including those whose identities are not revealed in the film in any way and who may have obtained the material the producers stole from them in whatever manner, that all participants in the sexually explicit images TPoP uses contain only consenting adults. Clearly, either the filmmakers believe so or simply don’t care, because there is no legal way they could have obtained the records necessary to prove this one way or the other. For all they know, and as they have often conflated child pornography with that made legally by adults for adults with it as a rhetorical device, you would think there would be a concern, or care, that there could well be minors or non-consenting adults in some part of images they ripped off. While most of the content is at least remotely recognizable to me, some of it appears to come from off-shore Web sites that may never have been compliant in the first place.
Whether or not this is the case, Faith’s paraphrasing significantly misrepresents what I wrote:
“However, the producers get themselves in much deeper water with the next title card:
“The following film contains explicit sexual activity, explicit and offensive language and violence. Viewer discretion is advised.”
That disclaimer might do just fine for a network TV episode that had a flash of skin and the word “bullshit” somewhere in it, but for the material to follow here, it is completely inadequate as labeling under federal law. Here is what the video disclaimer looks like on nina.com:
“Videotape 2257 notice.
All models appearing in this production were at least 18 years of age on the date of principal photography. The records required pursuant to 18 USC ¤ 2257 pertaining to this production and all materials associated herewith are on file with the Custodian of Records M.L. Levine at MLL, Inc. 2404 Wilshire Bl. #10 D Los Angeles, CA. 90057.”
TPoP carries no such statement of compliance, does not warrant that all models appearing therein were at least 18 years of age on the date of principle photography, does not claim that records required by federal law are on file with the producers, identifies no keeper of records by name and offers no information regarding where such records, if they exist, might be found. Given both the producers’ own warnings and the fare they proceed to deliver up, this is hardly a minor omission.
BTW, if anyone cares, that’s our real address up there and I have no hesitation about posting it here or anywhere else. Anyone who wants to can find us, and our records. See, as professional pornographers, we live with the risks inherent in obeying the law, including the exposure of sensitive personal information, such as our legal names and addresses, to potentially hostile strangers at the click of a mouse.
The producers of TPoP evidently lack either the concern or the courage needed to make such information about themselves available to the public. Of course, since they don’t have the records, they would be violating a few more laws by claiming they did. I guess they figure they’ll just break the law big-time at the outset and not bother to enhance the major violation with any additional counts of fraud. Probably a wise decision.”
Bloggers who link to sites containing sexually explicit material would be exempt because they don’t post the images themselves, which is to say that Google is not a secondary producer.
However, bloggers or anyone else who do publicly post sexually explicit images without meeting all stipulations of 18 U.S.C. 2257 are, in fact, breaking the law.
While there might be some wiggle-room where words, such as a Web link, are concerned, there is none regarding the images themselves. They are either compliant or non-compliant. Even blurring them does not exempt those who knowingly display or disseminate them from those requirements. The purpose of the law is to require the keeping of records unequivocally establishing that all participants in the creation of the images were consenting adults, and to identify who keeps those records and where they can be found. That is the core of 18 U.S.C. in all its iterations. TPoP blatantly flouts the law’s intent.
Since pornographers have suddenly become so credible on this topic, here’s a useful summary of how the statute works from writer Mark Kernes of Adult Video News (a porn industry trade magazine TPoP repeatedly quotes as an authoritative source):
“I’m betting next week’s paycheck that few if any of those naked bodies they’ve depicted fucking each other (or in some cases, participating in bondage or sadomasochistic activity) have provided them with government-approved photo IDs containing their real names and birthdates.
(Of course, we all know — don’t we? — that in a movie that shows “actual human beings engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct,” EVERYONE in the movie, whether fucking or not, whether clothed or not, has to provide those picture IDs — and each missing ID is one more violation of 2257 — and each violation is good for five years in the federal slam!”
If you have any doubts about the facts in this regard, here is a link to the wording of the law itself, straight form the Department of Justice:
” Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct that is produced in whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce and that contains one or more visual depictions of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July 3, 1995 shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the following:
(1) The legal name and date of birth of each performer, obtained by the producer’s examination of a picture identification card. For any performer portrayed in such a depiction made after July 3, 1995, the records shall also include a legible copy of the identification document examined and, if that document does not contain a recent and recognizable picture of the performer, a legible copy of a picture identification card. For any performer portrayed in such a depiction after June 23, 2005, the records shall include
(i) A copy of the depiction, and
(ii) Where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction or, if no URL is associated with the depiction, another uniquely identifying reference associated with the location of the depiction on the Internet.
(2) Any name, other than each performer’s legal name, ever used by the performer, including the performer’s maiden name, alias, nickname, stage name, or professional name. For any performer portrayed in such a depiction made after July 3, 1995, such names shall be indexed by the title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, URL, or other matter. Producers may rely in good faith on representations by performers regarding accuracy of the names, other than legal names, used by performers.
(3) Records required to be created and maintained under this part shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or given name), and shall be indexed or cross-referenced to each alias or other name used and to each title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, URL, or other matter.”
Furthermore:
“Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) that contains one or more visual depictions of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July 3, 1995, and produced, manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued on or after July 3, 1995, shall cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement describing the location of the records required by this part. A producer may cause such statement to be affixed, for example, by instructing the manufacturer of the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter to affix the statement.”
This language seems pretty clear to me, but what about so-called secondary producers?
” producer who is a secondary producer as defined in §75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in §75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records.”
And just what constitutes a secondary producer:
“A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.”
But wait, isn’t TPoP exempt because it isn’t made for commercial use?
http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=235
Hm. It would appear that anyone who wants can by a copy from those nice folks by mail order for $250.00. Unless they start giving it away for free, they’re engaged in compensated distribution, making them secondary distributors.
But wait, what about that exemption for educational use?
“commercial distribution of a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, but does not refer to noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter, including transfers conducted by bona fide lending libraries, museums, schools, or educational organizations.”
Not included in the exemption are paid sales via mail order to strangers, public screenings at film festivals, in commercial venues or exhibition to the general public on university campuses. The exemption is meant to apply to institutional use as an aid to study and/or research, not to audience display open to all. So far, in no account of a screening of TPoP I’ve read anywhere, including those laudatory of the film itself, have I read a single word suggesting that viewers were vetted according to the definition above prior to viewing it.
While Faith may maintain that pornographers only concern themselves with the viewing of sexually explicit material by minors in anti-porn contexts, in fact, the limitation of the viewing of such material to adults is crucial to maintaining the legality of pornography and is taken very seriously by producers, who do not sell their products to anyone without proof of age presented at the time and place of sale.
Web sites that do not require proof of age - more than just an implication made by a mouse-click, but rather the use of a credit card with an actual name, number and address attached, are generally pirate sites doing so illegally. They are the bane of lawful pornographers, who report them to the authorities and sue them in civil court whenever and wherever they can be identified. A little research would reveal a history of such legal proceedings, including a multi-million-dollar judgment obtained against Internet pirates in Canada by Evil Angel Productions, but I’ve taken up quite enough bandwidth here making my point.
And that point is that TPoP, in addition to being a pack of lies made by individuals attempting to disguise their true intentions, violates federal criminal law repeatedly and without compunction, and that its defenders don’t take this seriously and pornographers do says much more about them and their apologists than it says about us.
Hugo, Faith, interested people:
An article on TPoP by someone in the porn community- it talks much about 2257…
http://www.avn.com/law/mark-kernes-mental-floss/33047.html
“Yes, Faith, real people do anal play for free and not just in front of a camera for pay.”
Thanks for the memo, Anthony. Now since I’m feeling particularly inspired, I think I’ll go grab my very own personal steel NJoy buttplug and indulge in a bit of anal play myself…for free!!
What’s that you say? Anyone complaining about ATM is clearly anti-anal sex? Well, who knew, huh?
Guess you learn something new every day.
“Well, you are entitled to your opinions,”
Yep, and I’m entitled to believe you’re a misogynist who has no business being involved in this conversation.
Ren and Amber can defend themselves quite well on their own. They do not need your help.
To clear a few things up, I said SOME porn incites and validates rape. Porn in which women are shown enjoying violence and degredation which is not consensual, and rape. Yes I do think images of women pretending to be in the throws of ecstacy about these things make some men feel better about raping or wanting to rape. They also make some judges feel better about giving minimal sentences. And yes, I think the countries in which THIS KIND OF PORN is not in use have fewer rapes - Norway is an excellent case in point.
“I’m not sure if anyone else answered this but since you asked me specifically, I will answer you back specifically as best I can.”
Thank you, Aspasia.
“You are far more likely to get infected from e-coli bacteria from consuming tainted/contaminated food than from tainted AtM sex…but, I guess that going after meatpackers or companies that handle food produce would make for such an emphasis with the TPoP boosters, right?”
I don’t know why I’m bothering responding to you at all..
But actually, Anthony, I have just as much an issue with the meat industry, indeed even the food industry in general as I do the porn industry. That you don’t see that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a reality. We are not here to discuss the harms of certain foods, we are here to discuss PORN.
As I have already stated, to me there is a great deal of difference between what people choose to do for sexual pleasure in their private lives and the wide dissmenation of material which is depersonalized and out of context.
I have no interest whatsoever in other people’s personal, consensual sex lives. I would very much appreciate it if people read my contributions before responding - If I wanted to be inflamitory I could accuse people of being reactionary because they are choosing not doing so and fitting what I say into what seems to be some pre - established view of what femininsts say to pornogrphers. Hugo set this thread up so that all women could be listened to and I deserve to be heard to just as much as any other woman.
Feminists have the right to an opinion too, and I feel absolutely no shame in being one.
“While Faith may maintain that pornographers only concern themselves with the viewing of sexually explicit material by minors in anti-porn contexts, in fact, the limitation of the viewing of such material to adults is crucial to maintaining the legality of pornography and is taken very seriously by producers, who do not sell their products to anyone without proof of age presented at the time and place of sale.”
Then I suggest the industry start making a real effort to actually keep porn away from kids instead of simply saying, “We care! We care!” As it stands right now, my preadolescent children could both log on to the internet and be subjected to any and all types of porn with the click of a mouse.
Oh and I also have some VERY serious issues with the meat industry and when/if Hugo sets up a thread addressing that then I will be just as vocal. As faith wrote we are discussing our opinions about PORN here.
Also Trin:
You are right to suggest I think that SOME porn helps some men (and women, I was at an academic conference recently where a woman suggested a female character may have “wanted to be raped, in the way some women do”)feel comfortable about rape, but your assumption that all rape is driven by a wish ‘to hurt this person’ is misguided. I can say from personal experience that motivation to rape can stem from a sense of entitlement to have sexual desire satisfied. Full stop. Rape, for the rapist, in my experience is not mainly about power but desire combined with an overriding sense of entitlement - and the possibility that the person being raped can be converted and ‘enjoy it’. It has been about powerlessness for me, but I am pretty certain my actual feelings were nowhere in the equation for my abuser.
The fact that my abuser lives in a world which so often sanctions his actions by failing to recognise the truth about rape and in which men, and women, are encouraged to fantasize about it and believe some women actually want it has, I believe, made it easier for him to be who he is.
Faith
And even if the child didn’t have access to the internet, he/she could very well discover daddy’s pornographic magazines, stashed on top of the bedroom wardrobe. What are the publishers of Penthouse and Hustler doing to prevent that, I want to know? They should organize a private security-force to do spot-checks on the houses of porn-buyers: “No, sir, the top of your wardrobe is by no means safe from prying eyes. As a father of two, you should know what children are like…you must keep your pornography under lock and key at all times when you’re not using it.” Now that would be an intervention.
Going down the line in response to Faith:
[Faith, responding to me]
Yep, and I’m entitled to believe you’re a misogynist who has no business being involved in this conversation.
Ren and Amber can defend themselves quite well on their own. They do not need your help. [/Faith]
Sorry, Faith, but you just don’t get to say who belongs in this conversation or not. This isn’t your blog; it’s Hugo’s.
And..I don’t recall ever even asking Amber or Ren for permission to post here; I can do that all by myself. My words are just that…MINE.
[Faith, responding to my point comparing AtM/anal]
“Yes, Faith, real people do anal play for free and not just in front of a camera for pay.”
Thanks for the memo, Anthony. Now since I’m feeling particularly inspired, I think I’ll go grab my very own personal steel NJoy buttplug and indulge in a bit of anal play myself…for free!!
What’s that you say? Anyone complaining about ATM is clearly anti-anal sex? Well, who knew, huh?
Guess you learn something new every day.
[/Faith]
Nice try, ma’am….but that’s not what I said. If you don’t like AtM, then that’s your right, but to boldly assert that anyone who practices such acts at home and in private or performs it on film is automatically spreading disease and that the act should be essentially banished merely because it “degrades women”??
And why all the histronics about doing anal, anyway? I never brought your personal sex life into this conversation to begin with; what you do is your business and none of mine. It’s your need to mettle in the personal sexual affairs of other people who do no harm to others that is the issue here.
[Faith again, responding to my point about AtM health issues]
“You are far more likely to get infected from e-coli bacteria from consuming tainted/contaminated food than from tainted AtM sex…but, I guess that going after meatpackers or companies that handle food produce would make for such an emphasis with the TPoP boosters, right?”
I don’t know why I’m bothering responding to you at all..
But actually, Anthony, I have just as much an issue with the meat industry, indeed even the food industry in general as I do the porn industry. That you don’t see that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a reality. We are not here to discuss the harms of certain foods, we are here to discuss PORN.[/Faith]
Funny…I thought that we were here to discuss The Price of Pleasure, myself.
The main point was that YOU, Faith, quoted Violet Blue in asserting the direct harm of AtM (if not all anal sex acts) in causing health issues. All I did was to point out that there is a greater risk with more conventional non-sexual actions like contaminated food regarding e-Coli than there is with sex acts. It’s all about the context here.
I’m so sorry, Hugo, to turn this thread into yet another round of Feminist Porn War Smackdown!…but I do feel the need to respond when someone decides to attack the messengers rather than address the issues. Having said that, I will simply agree to disagree and let this thread pass.
Anthony
“Sorry, Faith, but you just don’t get to say who belongs in this conversation or not. This isn’t your blog; it’s Hugo’s.”
I have absolutely nothing to say to you, Anthony. Not here and not anywhere else. You are part of the reason I don’t comment at Ren’s blog. You and the rest of the white night male pro-porn brigade who like to hang out over there. I have no objection to having this discussion with Ren, other sex workers, women, and a few select men.
You are not one of those men.
“And even if the child didn’t have access to the internet, he/she could very well discover daddy’s pornographic magazines, stashed on top of the bedroom wardrobe.”
Tom,
Well, let’s see. Given that I’m anti-porn, what do you honestly believe my feelings are about that particular matter? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, I believe daddy shouldn’t have the damn porn in the first damn place.
Nah, that couldn’t be my suggestion.
“You and the rest of the white night male pro-porn brigade ”
Make that “white knight”.
Faith, it was you who suggested that the producers of pornography have a responsibility to make sure it doesn’t end up in the wrong hands. All joking aside, how are they to do that?
(Ignoring the “pro porn men vs anti porn women” stuff…)
Faith-
A few simple basic questions that I’d like to see addressed directly:
-Is it okay to exploit women?
-Is it okay to exploit women without their consent?
-Is it okay to exploit women whom you know nothing about?
-Is it okay to use women for a purpose or ends with which they do not agree?
-Is it morally okay to use misleading information and pestering tactics to get a woman (or man) to do an interview, then edit that interview down from a few hours to a few minutes, selecting only the most useful footage to your agenda, then go on using it when the person interviewed objects strongly to this final product, and even gets so upset about it they are shaking, shocked, and crying?
-Is it okay to set up a screening of a film, then when you realize some of the people who you used in this flim who object to it and have legal questions for you, change the venue at the last moment?
Now, this latest round of some exploitation and use of women is okay, and some is not thing has really left me bitter and jaded, and I’ve not been particularly shy about saying so (http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com/2008/10/porn-death.html), but I would really appreciate some straight answers to those questions.
I said::
“While Faith may maintain that pornographers only concern themselves with the viewing of sexually explicit material by minors in anti-porn contexts, in fact, the limitation of the viewing of such material to adults is crucial to maintaining the legality of pornography and is taken very seriously by producers, who do not sell their products to anyone without proof of age presented at the time and place of sale.”
Faith said:
“Then I suggest the industry start making a real effort to actually keep porn away from kids instead of simply saying, “We care! We care!” As it stands right now, my preadolescent children could both log on to the internet and be subjected to any and all types of porn with the click of a mouse.”
Nice try at distracting everyone from your specious attempts to “prove” that TPoP is actually legal, no matter how the laws really reads.
But let’s get back to bashing those evil pornographers for not controlling the entire Internet to make it 100% child safe for your kids. Clearly, adult supervision of computer use in the home doesn’t work, so the Web should be stripped of all material suited to those past the demographic of Sesame Street.
And this after a detailed explanation of the operation of adult site firewalls and the industry’s ongoing efforts to shut down pirated material posted without those protections. But of course, we don’t “really care” about keeping porn out of the hands of minors, which is why we spend literally millions of dollars on technical safeguards, age verification enforcement and litigation to do so.
The law, when shamelessly violated by porn-haters, doesn’t concern you. Our efforts to conduct our business as responsibly as possible don’t concern you. Harm that anti-porn crusaders do to actual sex workers doesn’t concern you. You’ve got your opinions and mere facts don’t concern you.
Fine. Though I am not a white knight of any kind, and am a career sex worker myself with 15 years experience as a performer in front of the camera as well as the producing and directing I do now, speaking as I sex worker, I have no more interest in “engaging” with you than you have with me.
But I will continue to challenge false arguments where I find them without regard to their sources.
Hugo - while I applaud your attempts to be fair-minded in these things and to foster reasoned dialog, I think you’re beginning to see why many of us find rational discussion with those who clearly despise us and what we do essentially impossible.
Our intention is to get on with our lives and our work, which we believe it is both legally and morally our right to do. Their agenda is to make this impossible by whatever means at their disposal.
So what’s left to discuss?
BTW, you will note that I am posting here under my legal name instead of my stage name.
I have nothing to hide and want to make clear that I stand behind what I say not as an emissary of the pornography industry, but rather as myself, a human being and not a symbol of an ideological position.
This is the most depressing thread I have read in some time. People seem to be talking past each other.
Why do I feel I am listening to a Sunday School lesson? Why do these conversations always come back to what is “decent” middle-class sexual behavior; what is simply “understood” to be nasty or bad? (According to whom?) Gonzo, AtM, BDSM, porn in general, whatever: it is apparently assumed that only evilll gurls could be involved in such terrible, gross activities. The argument is reduced to “Ew!” Thus, Ren and others are forced to repeat “I am an intelligent, fair person, and this is my free choice”–over and over and over, while these statements (as well as their experience and lives) are virtually ignored.
How is that feminist?
And, what Amber said.
::whistles, still waiting for answers:::
Let me fix up the phrasing in my last question though-
“-Is it okay to set up a screening of a film, then when you realize some of the people who you used in this flim who object to it and have legal questions for you plan on attending, to change the venue at the last moment?
It now appears that the screening may be canceled altogether. Jensen gave an interview on KPFK here in L.A. this morning hinting at “institutional issues” with The Fuller Theological Seminary, where the showing has been rescheduled for Sat. Nov.1. He seemed to want to blame the folks at Fuller, but when I contacted them this a.m., they very politely told me that as far as they knew, the event was still scheduled and looked forward to seeing us there.
Those wishing to know for sure one way or another if this showing will actually happen were invited to email Jensen directly for confirmation, conveniently giving him the opportunity to check out who might be planning on attending before rendering an answer.
If there is a problem, I doubt it’s with the venue.
More likely, the problem is simple cowardice. Many people, most especially female performers, who were exploited and defamed in this film, live in the area and it’s no secret that some might be in the audience.
Evidently TPoP’s dauntless campaigners for the rights of women are simply too craven to face the women they trashed to make this mendacious piece of agitprop.
I invite Dr. Jensen and any of those involved in the making of TPoP to prove me wrong on Saturday night, but somehow I suspect they won’t.
Ren, Ira:
Wow, that’s crappy. I really *hope* that something else is going on, but not making it publicly known whether this is happening or not does raise a red flag for me.
Hugo,
I know you’ve said you feel that criticisms of Jensen are wildly unfair, but… it’s things like that that make us terribly leery of him. I recognize that you get a lot out of his book, and out of his articles. Fine with me, though I think they’re awful. But I keep wondering: why, when our side asks “Why is this not public information?” or “Why is it that those women at the trade show asked you to stop haranguing them?”… it seems like there are crickets in response, not only from the big J himself, but from his fans as well. Do you (plural) recognize that people have legitimate issues with him? Because it sometimes seems like he’s a saint. I’ve never seen anyone on the anti-porn side agree with any criticism of him, even of his tactics. Why is that? I hope some people on the anti-side think that one over.
And I don’t mean “decide that he’s wrong” or “not get anything out of his work” by that, either. I just mean, hmm… why do anti-porn heroes get a free pass from so many people? Why is it never “Well, yes, Dines did say something really horrible just then but her slideshow in general was bang-on in my mind because …. ?” Why is it that the big figures seemingly remain untouchable?
(er, that “you” in “why were you haranguing them?” was aimed at Jensen, obviously, not Hugo)
I’m out of the States for the weekend, but right now I understand the Fuller presentation will go ahead on Saturday night in Travis Auditorium. Walking distance from my place, and I’m not around…
Hugo,
For what it’s worth, I’m willing to vouch for a modicum of civil behavior from out side. I have some notion regarding who cares enough about this to attend, and I’d characterize them as the more thoughtful elements of our community. That doesn’t mean that Jensen et al won’t face some tough questions, only that they have no legitimate fear of deliberate disruption, and that any claim made to the contrary would be simply an alibi for flight in the face of reasonable opposition.
This is turning into very much a test of character, and either those who made this film stand behind it and the means by which they made it, or its claim to credibility is entirely meretricious.
As I said, whatever expectations may have been raised as of this point, the actual screening of this film before an open house in Los Angeles would be the first commendably out-of-character act I’ve seen from these individuals since I first made their acquaintance.
Sorry. Make that “our side.” Very small type around these parts.
“Nice try at distracting everyone from your specious attempts to “prove” that TPoP is actually legal, no matter how the laws really reads.”
I wasn’t attempting to distract from anything. I was making a quite clear point.
::whistle…still waiting::
“::whistles, still waiting for answers:::”
Sorry, Ren, this is the first time I’ve been back to this thread since I made my last post.
Please keep in mind, I’m saying all of this without having seen TPOP. Without having seen TPOP, I’m hesitant to answer some of these questions. I don’t mind discussing the legal aspects of 2257 and fair use for TPOP or using pornographic material in general to make an anti-porn statement…But here ya’ go…
“Is it okay to exploit women?”
No, and I’m not convinced that what has taken place here is actual exploitation.
-Is it okay to exploit women without their consent?
See above.
-Is it okay to exploit women whom you know nothing about?
See above.
-Is it okay to use women for a purpose or ends with which they do not agree?
“use woman”, no. Use their words, yes. As I’ve stated before in this thread, this is the nature of the beast when it comes to making political arguments. You do this all the time yourself on your blog. You link to other women’s posts, quote them, and then say what -you- think that means. You don’t have to like it or agree with it. You are fully within your right to get infuriated. But legally and even ethically, all sides involved have a right to make their case. I detest MRAs. I quite sincerely believe that over half of those assholes are rapists, child molesters, batterers, or any combination of the three. I really wish that MRAs would just shut the fuck up and crawl back into the hole from which they came. That being said, MRAs have the right to make their case as disgusting as I find their case to be.
“-Is it morally okay to use misleading information and pestering tactics to get a woman (or man) to do an interview, then edit that interview down from a few hours to a few minutes, selecting only the most useful footage to your agenda, then go on using it when the person interviewed objects strongly to this final product, and even gets so upset about it they are shaking, shocked, and crying?”
Misleading tactics? No. Pestering tactics? I say it depends on what exactly is being defined as pestering tactics. It’s my understanding that it’s quite “normal” for reporters, researchers, etc. to do basically whatever it takes to get their story. Is this acceptable? Again, I say it depends on exactly how far they go. As for dwindling down the interview, I would assume that they would only have a select time frame to air the interviews. Obviously they are going to choose the parts of the interview that best show what they intend to show. That’s the nature of the beast when doing a documentary. As long as they haven’t portrayed them as saying something that they didn’t actually say then I don’t see an actual problem.
““-Is it okay to set up a screening of a film, then when you realize some of the people who you used in this flim who object to it and have legal questions for you plan on attending, to change the venue at the last moment?”
No. The only reasonable excuse for such behavior I can see would be a fear that the people attending might cause a disruption.
Ren,
I’ve responded to your questions. The response is currently in moderation.
Faith- okay
Re: Jensen -
Hugo, I really do want to respect your right to disagree and your willingness to engage. But on the topic of Jensen, I admit my patience is wearing VERY thin. Women - sex workers and non-sex workers - are saying Jensen does not speak for them; that he uses harassing techniques to try to strongarm them into giving him interviews/answers which he feels entitled to; he is dismissive of women who don’t sing the tune he wants them to sing; all around, he is DISTURBING and an example of some of the worst ways a man in feminist spaces can act. So, why the continued defense of him? I really want to know. And “he means well” or something like that will not cut it. It’s not enough to mean well - he has to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk.
He gives me the creeps and he most certainly does NOT speak for this woman.
Faith:
First, thank you for answering. I appreciate it.
“No, and I’m not convinced that what has taken place here is actual exploitation”
Exploit:
–verb (used with object)
1. To utilize, esp. for profit; turn to practical account: to exploit a business opportunity.
2. To use selfishly for one’s own ends: employers who exploit their workers.
3. To advance or further through exploitation; promote: He exploited his new movie through a series of guest appearances.
I would argue that exploit is exactly the word to use here, especially definition two. The images in this film are used, selfishly I would argue, for anti-porn’s ends. I would say the same of the interviews (which lasted for hours, then were edited down to mere moments for choice effect.) of various people in pornography. Joanna Angel gave a lengthy interview to these people- in the final cut the only actual words of hers from the interview are pretty much “how can you turn a woman into an object” and “I think this can be feminist if it is their choice” (or something real similar) slipped amid some of her most shockingly rough porn footage and their version of her biography. Hours of footage of these folk cut down to a few select sound bites and mixed in with the roughest of their work (or work that isn’t even theirs) and certainly not representative of, as the film claims, the top grossing/rented porn films of 2005…and then passed off as a fair and honest film? I’d say that is pretty exploitive and selfish.
“use woman”, no. Use their words, yes. As I’ve stated before in this thread, this is the nature of the beast when it comes to making political arguments. You do this all the time yourself on your blog. You link to other women’s posts, quote them, and then say what -you- think that means. You don’t have to like it or agree with it. You are fully within your right to get infuriated. But legally and even ethically, all sides involved have a right to make their case. I detest MRAs. I quite sincerely believe that over half of those assholes are rapists, child molesters, batterers, or any combination of the three. I really wish that MRAs would just shut the fuck up and crawl back into the hole from which they came. That being said, MRAs have the right to make their case as disgusting as I find their case to be. “
Use their heavily edited words utterly out of context and their images without consent or notification? That’s a whole different beast. Yes, I do quote people…but I LINK THEM FOR CONTEXT so people can go and read everything they’ve actually said, and I have never, ever stopped anyone or deleted anyone from then speaking their peace on the matter and making clarifications. I’ve also apologized when I’ve fucked up on that. I am not saying these folks do not have a right to do this. I am saying it’s a sloppy hatchet job and this movie is in no way what it claims to be: Which is a fair and non judgmental look at the top selling/rented porn movies of 2005. I’m saying it is exploitive and unethical and not at all what it claims to be, and it’s not just me. Obviously.
“Misleading tactics? No. Pestering tactics? I say it depends on what exactly is being defined as pestering tactics. It’s my understanding that it’s quite “normal” for reporters, researchers, etc. to do basically whatever it takes to get their story. Is this acceptable? Again, I say it depends on exactly how far they go. As for dwindling down the interview, I would assume that they would only have a select time frame to air the interviews. Obviously they are going to choose the parts of the interview that best show what they intend to show. That’s the nature of the beast when doing a documentary. As long as they haven’t portrayed them as saying something that they didn’t actually say then I don’t see an actual problem.”
I’d say having to be thrown out of industry events because you are annoying / upsetting the people there so much that they are yelling/crying at you is a good sign of “pestering”. I’d say telling a performer you were working on a neutral film about porn and say you will let them have their say, when you yourself are legendarily anti porn is misleading. And sure, some reporters to that…paparazzi comes to mind. However, these are university academics complaining about how women are forced or coerced into porn quite often. I find the whole thing hypocritical in the extreme- as they have engaged in everything they accuse pornographers of, from yes, exploitation to lying to pestering to make their film. And sure, there are time constraints for any film, things end up on the cutting room floor- but is it fair or honest to see that everything that makes it is the shocking stuff that suits your real agenda? No, its not.
“No. The only reasonable excuse for such behavior I can see would be a fear that the people attending might cause a disruption.”
Right, and thus, moving it from USC, a location where many of the people in the film- those interviewed and those who had their images used without consent or notification could and might attend is quite telling. It is pretty evident some anti porn people do not like dissent or the people they use for their agenda getting to speak their peace or clarify their side of the story. Fair and honest, right? Ethical. As is implying, via moving the event, that these folk might be “disruptive” or whatnot…which I’ve seen that tactic used before, and worse, in order to keep ones point of view unchallenged and pass it off as truth free of dissent or question.
And I have to say, even as a person who only has BA degrees, for a group of academics with impressive university creds, this whole thing is sloppy school work and to me, seriously puts those academic creds in question. The true test of any academic work is its ability to withstand critique and remain, well, standing. It’s apparent to me now that TPoP cannot do that, in any way…it is not fair and honest, it is not a selection of the top selling/renting/most popular porn films of 2005*, it is not representative of the current trends in pornography, or in sexuality. The fact that the makers and supports of this film seem so hesitant to face any sort of thought out criticism of their “educational film” says a whole lot really, none of it very good, and not of it speaking too highly of their academic credibility.
If the makers and supporters of this film are so assured of its truth and necessity, why the fear of facing those who would challenge them…most specifically the people whose words (edited in the extreme for effect) and images (without consent, consultation, or notification) they’ve, why yes, used? Why fear the people in such a horrible industry speaking truly fully and unedited for themselves?
It’s grimly curious, amusing, and very, very telling, really.
And my attitude towards the whole thing, that there is sick double standard about exploitation and use and abuse and silencing for profit and gain and what not? Stronger than steel at the moment, and with good reason. These people are no “experts on pornography”, they are experts on anti-pornography spin.
And yep, I am entitled to that opinion. I find it a shame that other people cannot see that I’m right here…but then again, most folk who disagree with me? They don’t do porn and don’t see how people in porn are treated by this lot. That, I’m afraid, remains typical.
* Please see this for more information and thoughts on that: http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com/2008/09/price-of-pleasure-i-am-skeptical-of.html
This right here? My major complaint with the whole film (other than its total dishonesty regarding lack of bias and judgment):
“-Is it okay to use women for a purpose or ends with which they do not agree?
“use woman”, no. Use their words, yes”
But they did not use the words of active female performers. Fewer than seven minutes of the film’s one hour running time are given to active performers speaking (and no this does not include ex-stripers who did a couple of solo webcam shoots before retiring to write their memoirs). No interview with a working performer, male or female, gets more than three minutes screen time, and there are exactly two of those - Joanna Angel and Annie Cruz. And they were interviewed for hours.
Their images, however, are used repeatedly,
Anti-porn “experts” drone on and on uninterrupted for long sequences of this movie, but women in porn: seven minutes.
I think it would have been just lovely if they had used these women’s words instead of visually presenting them as degraded victims and giving them no voice in the picture of any significance.
As I’m sure the producers found to their dismay, many of these women are intelligent, articulate and perfectly capable of explaining what they do, how and why.
But those voices are all but completely silenced in this movie because what they would say, and undoubtedly did say in their interviews, runs counter to the producers’ opinions.
As for the pestering v. reporting question, I have been a newspaper reporter and while reporters can certainly be annoying without violating basic journalistic ethics, it is never okay to lie about who you are and what you are interviewing someone for.
To claim, as these interviewers did, that you are making a documentary about porn that will “not show it in a bad light,” as several of those questioned were told, when you know full well that the end result will be a hatchet job, is unethical under any circumstances.
And how, exactly, does someone who admits to not having viewed this picture make a credible claim to having “seen no exploitation” in it?
Perhaps a better-informed opinion, such as those of virtually every one of its interview subjects who have seen it, might carry more weight.
For me, a title like “The Price of Pleasure” conjures up a silent film by D. W. Griffith, in which a protagonist strays from the “right path” tempted by the sirens of sensuality, and who ends up living with dissolute people, ne’er-do-wells, and (gasp) people of African descent. It stinks of the worst of American anti-hedonic puritanism. Forty years ago, Tom Lehrer said about pornography that “we know what’s really involved… dirty books are fun.” In the forty years since, opponents of pornography have repeatedly claimed that they don’t object to the pleasure, only to the exploitation, or the hatred, or the bad labour practices. But all that time, they have found reason to object to a multitude of pictures and movies that don’t appear to express hate, they have refused to address proposals to remedy the labour practices, and they have ended up with a muddled case against the pleasure.
When Bonnie Sher Klein made a film about pornography, she titled it “Not a Love Story“. Klein allowed us to hear the voices of sex workers loud and clear, whether they agreed with her, or came to agree with her, or not. And Klein’s work quite possibly had a genuinely liberating effect on her subjects. From what Ren and Amber write here, it does not seem that “The Price of Pleasure” will have a similar effect, and why should anyone expect it to? If you define pleasure as the problem, you can hardly escape the fear that some of the performers may enjoy what the film makers ask of them. And if pleasure constitutes the gravamen of the offense, than how can we avoid judging the performers?
Illusion is the first of all pleasures.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Do not bite at the bait of pleasure till you know there is no hook beneath it.
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
Just to make it clear, this is what happened on Saturday.
The film did show at Fuller.
Jensen showed to defend it.
About ten people also showed up, the majority of them from the porn community.
In the Q&A afterwards, no minds were changed.
The producers, who might actually have been called to account for their underhanded tactics in making this odious thing, did not show.
One of the more irritating issues that perpetually percolates from the raging anti-porn machine is the obsession with utilizing data from porn addiction studies coupled with emotionally-moving anecdotal data from recovering porn addicts.
Also composited into this already persuasive mix are the cunning and manipulative bodies of thought posed by the moral-absolutist who is conveniently packaged in God-endowed organized religion. These folk are obsessed with male sexuality, the nebulous ’slippery slope’, and social control mechanisms.
And to top it off we have the inclusion of highly-educated, passive-aggressive and internally-seething females who are male-intolerant and female-centric.
Most men and women who utilize porn responsibly feel little impetus to go out into a world seemingly packed with pathology and encourage other adults to access the various forms of adult entertainment for the occasional temporal pleasure.
Unfortunately, this lack of sharing by the moderate crowd creates a tremendous disparity concerning adult vice:
On one hand we have the porn-producers who will state exactly what is expected, which lends zero credence to the support of adult entertainment. On the other hand, we have a concerted and emotionally-charged anti-porn cartel so ridden with extremity (some of it understandable) that the intelligent man or woman views them with a practical distaste.
Many folk should avoid interacting with adult entertainment and many folk should NEVER own a gun, start a business, drive a car, drink or bear children.
If we allow those who are predisposed to addiction or grapple with deep-seated psychological issues to determine adult behavior across the ‘entire collective’ we will slide slowly back into reliance on social repression schemes that impose a ready dictatorship on personal responsibilty and independence.
**I don’t disrespect those who’ve suffered with porn addiction.
**I don’t disrespect those who desire to improve the lives of woman.
**I don’t disrespect religious abhorrence of the base pleasures.
I DO avidly disrespect and reject the propensity of these groups to dispense their ‘wisdom’ without little, if any, acknowledgement or respect for those that do, indeed, engage happily, comfortably and responsibly with various forms of adult entertainment.
There are too many of us out here that actually have a working brain in our heads and are perfectly capable of making decisions relating to our sexuality without the pointless disctraction of projected guilt and fear from the anti-porn cabal.
These discussions need more balance. Hopefully this will improve over time.