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.