Being Amber Rhea

Yesterday this post by Hugo Schwyzer showed up as a referrer in my StatCounter: Bridging the Porn Divide: sex, feminism, empathy, and the commitment to stop pathologizing the other side.

It’s a long post, and I suggest you read it all before reading my response to it, so you’ll be sure to have the full picture.

(I suggest you not read the comments on his post, unless you aren’t quite as harrowed by such things as I am; more than a few of them provoked this response from me.)

Anyway.
Read the full post »

Regarding this, here is what I sent to whoever receives the messages from Stop Porn Culture’s contact form:

Dear SPC,

As a feminist and social justice activist, I have serious concerns about your slideshow, “Who Wants To Be A Porn Star?”

I am sure you are familiar with 2257 regulations, the set of guidelines for enforcing record-keeping laws by primary and secondary producers of sexually explicit material. (Full regulations here.) The law specifies that producers must obtain and keep on file proof of age for every model appearing in their productions, to ensure that no minors appear in sexually explicit films or photographs. Web sites containing sexually explicit material include a statement of compliance with 2257 regulations, and who to contact for verification of their records.

I am deeply troubled by the fact that I find no such statement on the Stop Porn Culture! web site. Where is the assurance that the women in the slideshow are of age? And beyond the legal implications, there are also the larger ethical considerations. SPC claims to oppose the objectification and exploitation of women. Yet, were the performers in the slideshow contacted and asked whether they consent to have their images used in the slideshow? If not, then SPC is guilty of exploiting these women’s images for SPC’s own gain. It is dehumanizing to simply use an image of a woman in porn as a poster child for a cause. SPC, of all places, should understand that these are actual women who exist and have lives outside of the images on the screen. Does their voice not matter? Is it more important to make a point, even if it means denying the agency of the very women SPC dubiously claims to want to help?

I find this extremely problematic.

- Amber Rhea

I would have said more (I certainly wanted to!) but I felt I should keep it short so they’d be less likely to just pass over it completely.

I urge everyone to contact SPC and express your concerns about their flagrant hypocrisy.

This is what needs to be stopped.

Call to action, please redistribute widely.

The Stop Porn Culture Slide Show Training Program includes a script, tips for conducting the session; it also includes the power Point Visual presentation, which contains pornographic material. They are saying that this slide show falls under the preview of Fair Use.

However, as it can now be watched, downloaded, viewed, reproduced, and yes, even sold, the creators of Stop Porn Culture, or anyone and everyone else who wishes to showcase, distribute, or otherwise use the material in the slide show is in violation of Federal Law 2257.

Never mind that not a one of the performers featured in this “educational tool” were asked their opinions, or for their consent, nor were the companies that originally produced the images… but now see, there are questions of a Federal Law which applies to Pornographers, and as these people have essentially made themselves such, the law also applies to them. Any person exhibiting pornography, even if it is free, is beholden to 2257, this includes SPC, and those who run this seminar. You will note, at the end of the presentation, there is a claim of copyright over images already subject to copyright, and used without permission.

You will also note, their attempts to keep this material out of the hands of minors are scant at best.

I encourage everyone to write a letter of protest the organizers of the SPC Training Program, inform anyone and everyone you know who is pondering doing one of these sessions of the lack of 2257 compliance and lack of consent on the part of the performers and owners of the images, and if necessary, alert legal authorities to the use of this slideshow where ever it may occur.

Oh, and I am curious, are people CARDED before attending one of these events? Viewing the slideshow on line? If not, then anyone and everyone involved in this program is guilty of showing pornography to minors… oddly enough, John Stagliano is in court for such things” do the same laws not apply?

Enough. If Pornographers must comply with 2257, so must their adversaries.

[Re-posted from Renegade Evolution. Please spread the word! I'll be writing my letter today; what about you? It should take only a few minutes.]

Meant to post this stuff sooner, but that is the eternal blogger’s refrain, isn’t it?

First, a must-read from Monica at the $pread blog:

Douglas had some pretty amazing things to say, starting with an explanation of the Max Hardcore charges that highlighted the wrongdoing of his distributors, Jaded Video. Basically, Jaded sold a “Euro” version of a Hardcore film to a US Federal Agent and sent the video through US mail, which was what allowed the obscenity charges to be brought against Hardcore. Of course, the real guilty party here is Jaded, not Max Hardcore, just as if a 7-11 sells beer to minors, 7-11 is guilty, not the good makers of Nattie Light. Jaded was granted immunity from prosecution.

As if all of those details weren’t scary enough, the jurors were exempt from watching the entire DVD, and instead the prosecution selected scenes for viewing. This is the most distressing aspect of the case, because it violates the “taken as a whole” stipulation of the Miller test. The jurors didn’t see behind the scenes footage demonstrating affection between performers, female performers smiling and able-bodied after the shoot, how scenes are edited, etc; they just saw excerpts selected for maximum shock value. Max Hardcore will appeal, but while he’s waiting for his follow up trial, by estimate of his lawyer, he’ll spend at least 30 months in federal prison. FEDERAL. PRISON. For, according to the DOJ: “anal penetration, urination, insertion of an entire hand into a vagina or anus, vomiting, and severe violence.” Ok, so severe violence sounds bad (although that’s a vague term which has no meaning without an actual description of what went on) but as far as pissplay, anal sex, and fisting go…? That merits federal prison? It sounds like an average weekend at my house. (I’m kidding. Maybe)

So this brings me to the point of why anyone besides those in the porn business should care about the Max Hardcore conviction. There are obvious reasons: the jaw-droppingly brazen trampling of the legal system, the tax payer money spent on these sort of trials, the possible disruption in supply of porn, if you’re an avid porn consumer. But sex workers of all walks should be especially alarmed, because when any type of sexual material or right is successfully attacked, it’s like another block laid in the wall separating us from the rest of the world. And the sad fact is, I feel like it’s pretty rare to see any sex worker solidarity in these situations.

Ren has an excellent (as usual) post on the matter as well. And at Pro-Porn Activism, Anthony wonders what the effect will be on the rest of the adult industry.

Be sure to stop by Caroline’s first:

• UK Criminal Justice Bill Clause 63 - but what is “extreme”? - A Beginners Guide - Seriously, if you read no other post, read this one.
• Kink

Ren also has several posts:

• It’s late, I can’t sleep, and I am obsessing over this new UK porn law…
• Head,desk…headdeskheaddeskheaddesk!!!!!
• Content Regulation and Porn Laws

A few from SnowdropExplodes:

• “Honk if you like kinky pictures!”
• The Day They Came To Arrest The Book
• If the government could read my mind, they’d ban it.

A hodgepodge of others:

• Polyamorphous Perversity: On the UK’s new pornography law
• Sex, Life & Frilly Bits: Return to 1959 & ‘Obscenity in the UK’, or How to Create a Blackmarket
• Pro-Porn Activism: “Extreme Porn” Banned in U.K.
• Aiken Area Progressive: Blatant display of censorship in the United Kingdom
• The Strangest Alchemy: On Graham Coutts , and why the UK anti-porn law was not the answer

So here’s the long and short of it. This coming Monday, Ren was supposed to be involved in a forum at William and Mary College about porn, sex work, and feminism. She and Jill Brenneman were going to debate John Foubert, the W&M professor who had a conniption fit about the Sex Workers Art Show coming to the campus, and renowned friend to women everywhere (seriously you guys, she loves women, now shut your stupid face about it before she sics her minions on you) Sam Berg, whose accomplishments include popularizing the portmanteau “pornstitution” and refusing to leave a beaten horse good and dead.

I was all set to write a post about it and encourage anyone within driving distance of W&M to head up there to witness the dressing down of John and Sam this historical meeting of the minds.

But now it seems, Ren has been “uninvited” to the forum. If you said “WTF??” to that, you’re not alone.

Apparently Ms. Berg is “uncomfortable” being in the same room as Ren. (She’s got the sex pox cooties, ya know!)

Seriously y’all… give me a fucking break!

So presumably, the forum will go on, and will consist of a bunch of people who are not sex workers opining loudly, vehemently, and at great length on the evils of porn (with plenty of salacious details and X-rated language, no doubt), and the ins and outs of the ritual whippings that take place on every porn set in America, and the secret chip that’s implanted in the neck of every sex worker who says she enjoys her job… and all the other various top-secret info only they have access to, being super-special Select Feminists™, of course.

God forbid Sam have to actually spew her hateful tripe directly in the face of a living, breathing sex worker. That would make things too difficult; it might threaten the One True Path! In that case, I can’t say I blame her for not wanting Ren there… you know, a sex worker who isn’t a walking embodiment of a stereotype (which, btw, the caricatures of sex workers as drug-addicted, self-loathing victims of untold travesties is totally not patriarchal, no, not at all).

Update: Ren clarifies that she hasn’t officially been uninvited yet. Apparently one of the students organizing the forum (the same group of students, btw, who brought the Sex Workers Art Show to W&M and had to deal w/ Foubert’s ensuing brouhaha) is trying to talk some sense into Sam Berg. We’ll see how that goes… I really, really hope they don’t let her walk all over everyone.

Once again, file under “Typical.”

This is all I have to say about tomorrow night’s Nightline special:

I don’t have time for much of anything other than work today, but I do want to post something real quick in response to a discussion at Ren’s place. Over there, I said:

Octo,
As I said before, I agree w/ a lot of what you are saying re: the gendered tilt to “sex week” being problematic. In fact, we agree on much more than we disagree on here, so I don’t want it to seem like I’m nit-picking. But this did irritate me a little:

And “age is just a number” notwithstanding, college girls and guys aren’t that savvy about longer term issues.

Now I realize I have this thing where I personalize everything. I’m not sure how to stop doing that, or even if I *should* stop - but what it boils down to is, when I see a general statement made that doesn’t apply to me, a little red flag goes up, because that means the general statement isn’t so general. And sure, I could be an outlier, and there is value in speaking in generalities if they apply to a large majority - I certainly understand that. And yet, that statement rankles. When I was in college, I absolutely was savvy about longer-term issues, and I was very annoyed and insulted by people assuming I wasn’t, simply because of my age or because I was in college.

I really like and respect Octogalore and so I didn’t snap at her or anything. I want to understand where she’s coming from. But it might end up being a fundamental difference in perspective, and I do take umbrage at the suggestion of college girls being “impressionable” and, basically, infantilized.

This is something that always bugged the shit out of me in college, the way some people insisted on treating college students like high school students in slightly bigger bodies. (I saw more of this at UGA than at NYU, but I have no doubt it happens to a degree at every college.) I was always like, goddammit, college students are adults! We are over 18. Hence, ADULTS. So fucking treat us like adults!! If you continually treat college students as NOT adults, what good does that do? It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And yeah, some people come from sheltered backgrounds. But you know what? They’ve gotta grow up and learn how to deal in the real world at some point. So quit with the coddling, because it’s fucking offensive!

I may have even blogged this sentiment when I was in college, because I’ve had my blog that long.

As for this Yale Sex Week business, hey, Gail Dines, did you even bother to look at the schedule? The “Who Looks Most Like a Vivid Girl” contest contest is one part of a full week of diverse programming. As in many situations, parts of the programming might not be nearly as “progressive” as they are marketed to be. Color me skeptical. And yeah, if I were at Yale, that contest would likely stick in my craw. But as far as the actual women involved, it all boils back down to a pretty simple concept for me. I don’t have to like or endorse or sing the praises of every woman’s choice. DUH. But see the thing is, other women don’t NEED my approval to do whatever it is they want to do, and vice versa.

From Wendy McElroy, via Ren:

Degrading is a subjective term. I find commercials in which women become orgasmic over soapsuds to be tremendously degrading. The bottom line is that every woman has the right to define what is degrading and liberating for herself.

The assumed degradation is often linked to the “objectification” of women: that is, porn converts them into sexual objects. What does this mean? If taken literally, it means nothing because objects don’t have sexuality; only beings do. But to say that porn portrays women as “sexual beings” makes for poor rhetoric. Usually, the term sex objects means showing women as body parts, reducing them to physical objects. What is wrong with this? Women are as much their bodies as they are their minds or souls. No one gets upset if you present women as “brains” or as spiritual beings. If I concentrated on a woman’s sense of humor to the exclusion of her other characteristics, is this degrading? Why is it degrading to focus on her sexuality?

<hint type=”passive-aggressive”> McElroy’s book XXX: A Woman’s Right to Pornography has been on my Amazon wish list for a while now. </hint>

As a precursor to my eventual full book review of Robert Jensen’s Getting Off, I wanted to post an excerpt from the chapter entitled “Pornography as a Mirror,” in which Jensen colorfully describes scenes from several porn movies in order to drive home the point of how awful and misogynistic all porn is.

With all the porn Jensen has watched (for research purposes, you understand), one can only assume that he summarized these particular movies because they’re the most effective at validating his thesis - and the most likely to garner a reaction of shock from readers. So what’s the deal with this…?

A scene from Delusional, a 2000 release from Vivid:

Lindsay, the film’s main character, is a woman slow to return to dating after she caught her husband cheating on her. She says she is waiting for the right man - a sensitive man - to come along. Her male coworker, Randy, clearly would like to be that man but must wait as Lindsay explores other sexual experiences, first with a woman named Alex, whom she meets online and assumes is a man. Later, after Alex and Lindsay have sex with a man in the kitchen of a restaurant, Lindsay is finally ready to accept Randy’s affection. He takes her home and tells her, “I’ll always be there for your no matter what. I just want to look out for you.” Lindsay lets down her defenses, and they embrace.

After kissing and removing their clothes, Lindsay begins oral sex on Randy while on her knees on the couch, and he then performs oral sex on her while she lies on the couch. They then have intercourse, with Lindsay saying, “Fuck me, fuck me, please” and “I have two fingers in my ass - do you like that?” This leads to the usual progression of positions: She is on top of him while he sits on the couch, and then he enters her vaginally from behind before he asks, “Do you want me to fuck you in the ass?” She answers in the affirmative. “Stick it in my ass,” she says. “I love the way you slide into my asshole. … Deep in my ass. … I’m coming on your cock in my ass.” After two minutes of anal intercourse, the scene ends with him masturbating and ejaculating on her breasts.

So, wait. Where’s the degrading part in that scene?

It just sounds like sex. And by some people’s standards, pretty vanilla sex. Even for people who would consider it at the kinky end of their personal spectrum, due to the dirty talk and assplay, I really can’t imagine anyone finding it degrading who didn’t have bigger hang-ups about sex in general. In fact, the only part of that excerpt that I see as degrading to women in any way is this:

Lindsay lets down her defenses

Note, that’s not a line from the movie. Those are Jensen’s chosen words to describe the onscreen events. I find it very telling that he uses language which casts the woman in the passive role, and the man in an active, even conquering role, with the implication of sex being a conquest and women having “defenses” which must be “broken down” by men.

This is, of course, the sexual script that’s reinforced by the dominant culture day in and day out, to the detriment of everyone. This skewed view of gender roles (as Figleaf would say, women as the “no-sex” class) is exactly what Jensen claims to be opposing. Yet with a few words, he’s revealed volumes about how entrenched he still is in sex-negative cultural norms.

So, Robert Jensen has a new book out, called Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. If you’ve been paying attention to this sort of thing, you already know my feelings about Mr. Jensen. But now, with the release of his book, plenty of people who call themselves progressive or liberal are falling all over themselves to praise him. And it makes me sick.

I don’t know if I want to read the book or not. On the one hand, I feel like I should, because of the “understand your enemies” thing (which is why I suffered through Female Chauvinist Pigs and Pornified), and also because I think if you talk about a book without having read it, you’re talking out of your ass (this was one of my main gripes about the Full Frontal Feminism fallout).

On the other hand, I don’t know how much head-desking I can take. I’ve read enough of his articles to know what Jensen’s M.O. is. And would a fisking of his book really accomplish anything? If it would, then I might be convinced to read it. But also, Chris Hall has already posted an excellent, thorough review at Sex In the Public Square. Here are a few key excerpts:

I can go on for hours and hours about what irredeemable psychic flotsam the great mass of porn is, and could probably fill several volumes thicker than Jensen’s on the mediocrity, body fascism, poor production values, labor abuses and sexism that dominate mainstream porn. These are all things that people of good conscience should find troubling about porn as it exists today. And yet, even as I calculate all the sins of pornography to the nth degree, and catalog the ways that I find it disappointing and trivial in taxonomies so detailed that the Library of Congress would have to invent a whole new indexing system, there’s something else: I think that in porn lies our salvation. For those of us who hate the ugly gordian knot of fear and loathing that our society ties our sexualities into, porn is essential. We need a genre of literature and art devoted to sexual arousal just as much as we need those that make us laugh, cry, or cringe in fear. And at the same time, we need to develop a critical language that we can use to think and speak about pornography. Without these things, we’ve resigned ourselves to remaining forever mute about our sexual desires.

[...]

By using this thin sliver of pornography to talk about the whole, Robert Jensen has eliminated alternative genders and sexualities entirely. He doesn’t have to wonder what it means to have a transgendered man like Buck Angel making a good living billing himself as a “man with a pussy.” Dykes who make porn for other women, like the Cyber-Dyke network, are not even acknowledged. There is not even a whisper of the thousands of web pages and videos and magazines that focus on women dominating men, or cock-and-ball torture, or any other of a million practices. These sexualities do not even exist in Robert Jensen’s cosmology; he has written them out of existence as neatly as a respectable family who resolutely doesn’t speak the name of the cousin living as a “confirmed bachelor.” But all of these identities and practices come with legal and social consequences. To simply discard so many lives in a book that claims to honestly explore the nature of desire in our society is not only intellectually dishonest, but hateful.

[...]

Robert Jensen’s passion is reserved for visualizing women’s sexual pain. Never once does he turn that passion the other direction to look at the possibilities for women’s sexual pleasure. There is not, in the end, so much difference between Jensen and the most misogynist, exploitative porn director; neither can imagine the sexual role of men as being anything other than to fuck, nor can they imagine women’s roles as being anything other than to be fucked. And that’s why, regardless of my doubts about mainstream porn, I can never, never imagine aligning myself with Jensen and his ilk. Because at the heart of his arguments, I see the same misogynist bullshit that I want to excise from pornography.

[...]

One of the things that keeps misogyny a thriving monster in our society is sexual shame and guilt. Violence against women and gays comes not from people who are comfortable being open about their desires, but by those who feel that their desires are somehow wrong. People have a limited capacity for accusing themselves. There are only so many times that a man will look at women and feel guilty about his lust before those thoughts whip around like a serpent devouring its tail. Then, the problem isn’t him. It’s that bitch in the short skirt, the whore who’s tempting him and who deserves whatever she gets. And then, we know the rest of the story. We’ve heard it too many times to forget. November 19 was the Transgender Day of Remembrance, and December 17 will be 5th Annual International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers precisely because we know how the story of people driven by sexual self-hatred turned inside-out ends.

So what do you think? Should I bother reading this book and posting a review?

I linked to Dacia’s latest post about “feminist porn” in my del.cio.us links yesterday, but I had such a “yes yes YES that’s IT!” reaction to it that I feel compelled to quote liberally here…

To me, making feminist porn is not about what is actually shown on screen and much more about what is happening on the production end of things. This is very clearly an expression of my years working in the sex industry and working for sex workers’ rights, but like Petra says in the beginning of this paragraph, “our tastes on what we find sexy in the bedroom or on film differ.” We can have a whole argument about the nurture and nature of “taste” - but I don’t think liking or not liking specific acts can make or break a feminist.

I don’t care if porn shows a woman masturbating by herself (like in many of the Abby Winters photo sets and videos), a woman fucking a guy with a strap-on (like in The Bi Apple, a woman enthusiastically sucking cock (like in Erika’s films), or a pregnant woman getting fucked up the ass with a baseball bat (like in Belladonna’s Fucking Girls Again). What I do care about is: does that performer want to be there? Is the director/producer respecting her needs and paying her appropriately? Did she get blindsided by requests for acts she doesn’t want to do?

The answers to those questions determine whether or not the porn is feminist, sex-positive, and ethical for me, not what is happening on screen.

Do you get it now, people? Do you? I still do not know why this is a difficult concept, but clearly it is. And so these things must continue to be said, emphatically.

I might write more about this later. I need to crawl into bed now, though, because I got up at 6:00 a.m. on a Saturday.

A few weeks ago, Tristan Taormino sent me a copy of Chemistry 3, her latest film. Rusty and I watched it off and on whenever we had a free moment, and finally finished it before we left for vacation last week.

Chemistry 3 won Best Gonzo at the 2007 AVN Awards. I found this interesting because a lot of people equate gonzo with degradation and, basically, all the ‘bad’ in porn. But Chemistry is closer to the real meaning of gonzo than all that other stuff people equate with the term:

Gonzo pornography is a filming style of adult video. It is characterized by a filming style that attempts to place the viewer directly into the scene. The name is a reference to gonzo journalism, in which the reporter is part of the event taking place. By analogy, gonzo pornography puts the camera right into the action — often with one or more of the participants both filming and performing sexual acts — without the usual separation characteristic of conventional porn and cinema.

What I liked about Chemistry 3 was that it included lots of laughter and a generally laid-back, not-forced feel. That’s the whole point, of course; the three guys and three girls could fuck whom they wanted, when they wanted, and had cameras on hand to film as much of it themselves as they wanted.

There were also several “confessionals” with the different performers, where they talked about their personal preferences, their experiences in the adult industry, and a variety of other topics. When I saw Ren’s comments about porn companies putting “behind the scenes” stuff on DVDs, I immediately thought of Chemistry 3. The entire film has the feel of those behind the scenes extras. And I think that’s important - a lot of folks could stand to be reminded that people who work in the adult industry are, well, people. Shocking, I know; but porn performers have likes and dislikes, interests and opinions, and parts of their lives that don’t involve fucking - just like the rest of us.

To anyone who goes around spouting off at the mouth about how horrible and exploitative porn is, I’d recommend watching Chemistry 3. The women aren’t getting slapped around and referred to as bitches and sluts, and at no point does anyone have a bored, going-through-the-motions look on his or her face. If you watch Chemistry 3 and call it degrading, to me that says that you think sex on the participants’ own terms, where everyone is enjoying themselves, is degrading.

Oh, and for that matter - because why end with snark? - I recommend Chemistry 3 to anyone who wants to see some good porn. Always Aroused Girl is even having a contest at her blog where you can win a copy. If I were some kind of pseudo-professional porn reviewer with a rating system based on stars or thumbs, I’d give Chemistry 3 the maximum number of those.

[Cross-posted at Pro-Porn Activism]

In a recent post, Figleaf says:

And then as soon as I realized that it occurred to me that maybe that’s why there’s such a huge, huge, huge disconnect between, say, Ren or Amber Rhea and their critics. The *external end result* of Ren’s work may or may not appear to have any agency for women but she clearly, and correctly, feels an incredible amount of agency during its *production.* The *external end result* of pole dancing may be a bunch of lolmenz going “hur hur lukkit hur shaken em ta-tas! On a polez!” but she clearly and correctly feels an incredible amount of agency while she’s doing it.

Anyway, under such circumstances it’s possible for both pro-porn performers and anti-porn critics could be 100% right *from their perspectives* (though in practice I’m not sure anyone can be 100% right about anything.) They’d just happen to be right about *totally different things.* Which would, of course, account for some of the vitriol that’s spilled in, um, let’s call it debate between the two sides.

I think he’s got something there. Maybe in these seemingly endless “debates,” a big problem is we’re talking about two different things. One side frames it in terms of the viewer/consumer, and the other frames it in terms of the actor/producer.

If the issue is agency, obviously I think it makes much more sense to focus on the latter. But maybe we can agree that this is what we’re disagreeing on, and go from there.

Would write more about this, but I’m on vacation and on a mission to track down some family history.

I sent my letter to the Department of Justice; have you sent yours?

Here’s what I wrote:

To the U.S. Department of Justice:

I am writing, as an adult US citizen who votes, to object to the proposed revisions to Section 2257 regulations. The proposed changes would not stop child porn, but they would put legal porn performers at risk for harassment and abuse (of which they already experience more than there fair share, from the public at large), in addition to identity theft. Fundamentally, this is an unreasonable government intrusion into the lives of adults conducting legal business. No other professions require this amount of personal information to be collected and stored on a national level.

Most disturbing, to me, is that the proposed revisions would allow the Attorney General to conduct unannounced warrantless searches at will on the sites’ records, including reviewing and presumably seizing the personal information on site users. This is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Threatening and potentially putting out of business legal adult businesses will do nothing to stop child pornographers from continuing their illegal practice. Instead of focusing time and money on persecuting legal performers, focus these resources on prosecuting actual criminals.

Sincerely,

Amber Rhea

You have until Monday, Sept. 10th to voice your opposition to these regulations. Check out the 2257 Fact Sheet (PDF) for more info.

First of all, I’m staying the fuck out of the latest porn thread at Feministe, because my patience is running very thin these days. But for those who are interested, the over/under on “how long will it take for this thread to derail” was 20. Turns out betting on the “under” was a good call.

And so far, Dacia is the only one speaking sense over there:

However they position themselves politically (and especially if they avoid that entirely), its extremely important to listen to people who work in the adult industry and respect their experiences and knowledge of the way the industry works. So many conversations about porn seem to spin rapidly out of control without giving voice to the people on the inside.

On a practical level, with porn, I find that people sometimes complain about issues of representation that are a function of logistics. For example: porn viewers often complain about the lack of real female orgasms in porn. As many women know, orgasms can be difficult to achieve - sometimes much more so in a roomful of expectant film crew members with hot lights and time/tape a-wasting. As a viewer, I’m totally into the real orgasms. As a producer/director they stress me out. When I used to get naked for money and had clients/photogs demand that kind of authenticity, I would get annoyed and feel put upon if I couldn’t deliver.

I’m glad she decided to drop by and attempt to bring everybody back down to Earth a little, but if I were her I wouldn’t go back another time.

ETA: Mythago is speaking sense, too:

Well, having been one of those “actual women”, I couldn’t agree more. Because my role, apparently, is to either wail about how terrible and exploited I was and how lucky I was to get out, or to STFU because if I don’t spout that line, I’m a brainwashed gender-traitor tool of the patriarchy. I’ve had some anti-porn feminists get angry with me because they’ve been talking about The Poor Sex Workers and I had the nerve to pipe up and say “You don’t speak for me.”

Argh, I must, must stay away… starting… now!

Transcript of a story told to me over IM… (Posted all in a row like this, it looks kind of like poetry, with all the line breaks. And that makes it even funnier.)

—

so my roomie was showing me stuff around the apartment
and he was like, “this is where my videos are
feel free to watch any whenever you want”
and then he gets this slightly sheepish look on his face
and he’s like, “um, there might be some porn in there.”
and i say, “i don’t care.”
and he rushes on, “it’s all softcore stuff, like playboy. i mean, there’s nothing hardcore.”
to which i reply, “well, that’s a shame.”
and he looks at me like i have two heads or something
and i’m like, “i really don’t care.”
and he starts stuttering apologies/justification
and i’m like, “really, I DON’T CARE.”
and he stops and he’s like, “so, what. women watch porn?”
and i’m about to fall down b/c i’m trying so hard not to laugh
b/c he’s SO sincere
and i’m like, “look.”
“one of my friends has been taking pictures to be naked on the internet…”
“and another sent me an email this morning asking what i thought about searching for a fuckbuddy on craigslist”
i REALLY DON’T CARE that you have porn.
“unless it’s tony comstock. then i care.”
…which he didn’t understand, but that’s probably just as well. :)
anyway
that made MY day.
first time he’s lived with a girl. :)

—

Heh.

[Cross-posted at Pro-Porn Activism]

Why do I laugh in that not-so-funny kind of way whenever I see anti-prostitution/anti-porn crusaders supporting yet another law, program, or “vice crack-down” tactic purported to end the great societal evil that is the sex industry? Well, here’s one example of why, from Deborah Jeane Palfrey (also known as the D.C. Madam):

These cops — the vice cops, you know, the lowest on the food chain at the police department — they love to go after defenseless women. You know, it’s, it’s… It is something that I want to explore when this is all over — when my actual civil/criminal case is all over. I am even talking to some folks right now about putting together a documentary on what the police have done, do, and will continue to do to defenseless women in this country involved in the sex industry.

The very first person who emailed me when this all broke was a woman. And the subject header was: “My mother is an ex-madam.” She went on to explain who she was, and the terror that she, her mother, and her family experienced at the hands of the police. This particular email was followed up by many many others, all having their own little monikers. Some were very well-known madams who have stories to tell that will make your blood curdle.

And that’s why it gets ten times not funnier when it’s self-identified feminists signing on to support anti-prostitution legislation. What’s a little hypocrisy, in the grand scheme of things? We can overlook misogyny for the good of The Cause (as long as it only affects those women).

Oh, but I forgot, sex workers are Teh Patriarchy™’s darlings. Riiiiiight.

On a somewhat related note, write to Admin.ceos@usdoj.gov by Sept. 10th to oppose the proposed changes to Section 2257. Include in the subject line: Docket No.Crm104. The changes wouldn’t stop child porn, but they would put legal porn performers at risk for harassment and abuse (of which they already experience more than there fair share, from the public at large).

Ren has a post up about the whole “pornified” concept, and how women who do certain things or look a certain way basically become whipping girls for all of society’s ills, including poor body image among women and the impending demise of feminism, and oh yes, did I mention the terrorists hate us?

Over there, I wrote, in response to a thoughtful commenter called seven (quoted portions from her are in italics):

I think, though, that women look around and see that their significant others are spending their time looking at the pornified women. And we are told in this culture that if your man is even looking at someone else, you are failing as a woman.

A few things there:

Not every woman’s is S.O. “spending time looking at pornified women.” But I don’t think you necessarily meant all women, which brings me, more to the point, to…

Not every woman is threatened by her male S.O. finding other women attractive. I have blogged about this before, and how I think this weird jealousy/insecurity thing is built into our culture as an expected part of what makes a relationship, but really it’s dysfunctional as hell.

And it all boils down to communication, really. What are your expectations in the relationship? What type of behavior do you expect when it comes to acknowledging sexual attraction toward others? (To deny it exists at all is silly; we’re all human.) Nobody is a mind-reader, and it’s unfair to expect someone to adhere to a standard that they don’t even know about. This goes for men, woman, straight, gay, bi, everything.

So, I don’t think that your choice to be pornified changes what my choices ARE, but the fact that some women choose to be pornified lessen my chances at getting laid, or even looked at as an option by men.

Well, seven, I have to ask: if that’s the case, then would you really want to have sex with those guys? If all they’re looking for is a very specific kind of physical appearance? Would that make you happy, if the physical appearance they were looking for matched yours?

The responsibility here is with the guys, not with Ren or any other women who happen to fit a certain standard of beauty. This is not to say there’s no pressure from society (I wrote about this on another post, in fact); obviously there is! You’d be living under a rock not to admit it. But societal expectations or no, it’s still the responsibility of each individual adult to make decisions for him and herself, and not just behave as a mindless, hapless cog in a machine.

Later in the thread, someone called mr. deet comes along and points out something that I’ve found to be true for a lot of men (emphasis mine):

Not all men want porn looking women. Most men don’t really. They might look, but part of it is because we’ve been told to look.
…
Most men could also probably not handle being with a woman who does what Ren does for a living. After all, we get jealous too.

And, again, this is the men’s responsibility. All of it stems from what we’ve been taught about sex, men, and women in our culture; Figleaf aptly describes it as the “no-sex class” phenomenon.

This is an example of the concerns and critiques I have with the porn industry.

A porn actress Tuesday settled her wrongful termination lawsuit against an adult film production company, which she accused of firing her for complaining about unsanitary work conditions.

This is why it’s so crazy-making to me when anti-porn folks completely dismiss my position as “YAY PORN; IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MEN; I HATE WOMEN.”

Because, this is the kind of thing I am very concerned about, and this is where I think a truly sex-positive, worker-centered approach to change is needed. It’s not about OMG TEH SEKS, which is what many people seem to get hung up on; it’s about safe working conditions, and employment policies that are fair to both employer and employee.

This is the kind of thing that concerns me about the porn industry. It’s a workplace issue, not a “sex is so degrading” issue.

As Anthony said:

[This case] is one more example of how a progressive, sex-positive analysis of both the sex media and the talent responsible for creating it is so badly needed… neither the more libertarian Right “let ‘em do it and damn the consequences as long as they get paid” meme nor the radfem “Poor oppressed women, let us liberate them from their plight, even if against their will” doctrine can do much good to help those like Kira Kener who deserve the right to perform her craft on her terms.

For those who were (snidely) asking a week or so ago on a few other blogs, this is what pro-porn activism is about.

…from a commenter at the Pro-Porn Activism Blog. This was in response to the ubiquitous but ridiculous (it rhymes!) platitude, “Porn is a threat to relationships.”

It’s a threat to the relationships that base themselves on the idea of sexuality being taboo. Many religions push this view because they use [it] to invoke shame, and through shame they have control.

As long as sex is something dirty that should be locked away in the bedroom, relationships will remain entwined with shame.

Well said.

Btw, did I mention that I’m loving the Pro-Porn Activism blog? I feel very inspired.

For the longest time (am I the only one singing along to Billy Joel in my head now?), the term “pro-porn” really rankled me. And I mean up until about two days ago. As a matter of fact, on a certain level it still rankles me, because, like Trinity, I see it as a nasty, reactionary label slapped onto those of us who don’t toe the anti-porn hardline, by certain smug internet denizens who do.

But when I saw Ren had started this blog, I decided, “Fuck it. It’s time to take the label that was used to hurt and dismiss, and make it our own.”

Because, really, I am pro-porn - but, again, as Trinity has shown, one of the problems with that term is that it can mean so many different things, and if the people having a conversation are all operating from different definitions, there can be some pretty big misunderstandings. So, when I say I’m pro-porn, here’s exactly what I mean…

I think the free, open, uninhibited, joyful expression of sexuality, in whatever form makes people happy and gets them off, is a good thing. What you like might not be what I like and none of it may be what that person over there likes; but that’s beside the point. We all should feel the freedom from shame (or more severe, tangible punishment) to express whatever it is that gets us off. We should not feel that we have to “rein in” our sexuality because it makes someone uncomfortable, or because it’s seen as dirty, or sinful, or silly, or unimportant, or offensive, or whatever else. As women, we get all of this and more from the society around us, every day. And frankly I am sick of it. I am a highly sexual woman, and I am NOT going to apologize for it, or “tone it down,” or anything else. I am going to be ME.

So where does porn fit into all that? Well, I truly believe that porn can be an expression of these things for women. Note the word can. I shouldn’t even have to say it, but obviously this does not mean all porn is awesome. Most porn, in my opinion, isn’t awesome; but that doesn’t mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. To go back to my music analogy, if I were to say I’m “pro-music,” I seriously doubt many people would immediately jump to “So, you support all the drug and alcohol abuse in the music industry?? So, you want to run independent artists out of business??”

And, too, there’s the very basic, fundamental concept that many people have already mentioned: consenting adults should be able to do whatever the fuck they want. None of us get to be the morality police for other adults.

I’m pro-porn as part and parcel of being sex-positive. And I’m sex-positive because, well, I just can’t imagine being any other way. It just feels right. This society is sex-negative, no two ways about it. And what’s bizarre is that sex is either dirty, nasty, base, shallow, frivolous, scorn-worthy; or it’s sacred, holy, extraordinary, on a pedestal above the rest of the world.

Neither of those are right. And it saddens me that those are our options (and astounds me at how often the two polar opposites are conflated). So how could I not be sex-positive?

[Cross-posted at Pro-Porn Activism]