See, this is exactly what I am talking about...

wrt to dismissal, disregard, demonzing and ALL those good things. Some of it sounds oddly familiar...


Jill Brenneman writes: “We are deeply concerned by the rigid ways in which the complex issues of feminism and pornography are portrayed. In the broader society as well as within academic and feminist frameworks, there is a lot of disagreement about the extent to which pornography reflects and promotes sexism and violence.”

Andrea Lavigne writes: You mention the broader society as if this broader society is some gender neutral egalitarian international community.

Anti-porn feminists are against rigid sex roles bestowed upon us by the patriarchy, the broader oppressive, male chauvinist society in which you subscribe to, Jill. Sex roles are rigid for the fact that they are patriarchally based on private ownership, class division, hierarchy, male supremacy, inheritance via the male line, a male God, sexual discrimination, etc…. It is the anti-porn feminism who maintain non-rigid sex roles. In fact, any deviation from anti-porn feminism’s non-rigid sex roles toward patriarchal sex roles is a direction toward the most extreme rigidity. Anti-porn feminism is to non-rigidity what patriarchy is to rigidity. Any deviation away from anti-porn feminism is a move away from true sexual liberation, toward sexual repression/oppression. The disagreement in which you speak about is really a disagreement between anti-porn feminists and so-called pro-porn feminists. The disagreement is amongst those who claim to be feminists, but are really sex liberals who really are not feminists, but people who have co-opted feminism. These “pro-porn” feminists really subscribe to traditional patriarchal standards of female sexuality. Amongst true feminists, there is no substantial disagreement. The so-called pro-porn feminists are really the lackeys and apologists of the patriarchy.

Furthermore, I should not have to put the words anti-porn in front of the word feminism to distinguish me from so-called feminists. To be a feminist is in part to be anti-porn amongst other elements that make up feminism. Within true feminism, there is no room for pro-porn. For the sake of the feminist movement being high-jacked by “pro-porn feminists”, “pro-sex feminists, or sexual liberals, I will make the distinction and keep the anti-porn words in front of the word feminism. A person can’t be a pro-porn feminist anymore than s/he can be a pro-meat vegan.

Jill writes: “Though this conference is about pornography, none of the presenters on the agenda are performers in the pornography industry. Various important voices are excluded from the list of presenters, such as sex workers, feminists and scholars with opposing views about pornography, and advocates for the legitimization of consensual sex work.”

Andrea writes: One doesn’t have to be a “sex worker” to have an objective opinion on the oppressive influence patriarchy has on our sexuality. Secondly, you don’t know whether or not the conference presenters ever performed sex work or intimately know someone else who has. You don’t know the historical plight of those who presented at the conference. Thirdly, all of us women are seasoned into the sex trade to some degree whether entered into the sex trade or not at some point or degree. You can’t say a “sex worker”, is going to be more objective about pornography, than a non-“sex worker”. An objective interpretation of the sex trade by a “sex worker” or other, no matter what, requires in someone a high degree of liberation from internalization of oppression. This would be someone most likely in a refuse and resist mode. There is no such thing as legitimate consensual sex work under patriarchy. Consensual implies making a decision free from coercion. When a human being is reduced to a body, objectification to sexually service another, whether or not there is consent, violation of the human being has taken place. In the American legal system, consent has become the defining factor in determining whether violation has occurred. In this way the human experience and self is reduced to will, intent or consent, as if that is all that is involved in violation. In this way, liberal legal theory does not consider the oppressive condition of class domination which invokes consent.Anyway, “sex worker” implies a simplistic employer / employee relationship. Just like you would not reduce the relationship between a domestic batterer and survivor of domestic violence to one of employer / employee relationship, you would not be correct to reduce the pimp/prostitute relationship to a simplistic employer / employee relationship.

Jill writes: “Furthermore, the genre called “feminist pornography” is not included on the agenda. This genre of pornography is inspired by feminist principles, such as gender equality, bodily freedom, and mutual sexual pleasure. Women play a major role in producing this genre of pornography, so this genre is not produced just by men for a predominately male target audience.”

Andrea writes: There is no such thing as feminist pornography. The term pornography, porno- means whore. Feminist pornography is an oxymoron. Just because pornography is made by women does not mean that it is feminist pornography. For example, Boink magazine, founded by a “sex positive” woman is suppose to display “egalitarian” sexuality. But, when you do an analysis of the magazine, it has a stark resemblance to the same old tired patriarchal genderistic ethics / portrayals of female and male sexuality. Boink caters exactly to a male target audience, even though it’s founder is female.

Jill writes: “…we contend that conferences such as this one must be more balanced in the name of academic integrity. Though the organizers and presenters of this conference have the right to their perceptions, it is important to understand that their attitudes toward pornography do not reflect the views of all sex workers, feminists, and scholars.”

Andrea writes: You mention that this conference has to be more balanced in the name of academic integrity. Wow. Earlier you had a beef about academia, now you want academic integrity. Anyway, the patriarchal pornographer’s have a long history where only their voice was heard, and heard loud. The voices of anti-porn feminists at an anti-porn conference once a year does not even come near to the loud mouth pornographers that we have to contend with all year around. Even if you wrote to your local pornographers to cut their sexist bullshit in half, their loud mouths would still muffle out the voices of anti-porn feminists. You want balance, go tell your pornographer buddies this. You and your buddies need to stop infiltrating and co-opting the feminist movement once and for all.

Andrea Lavigne