I can’t sleep, scar issues, so I ended up here reading this. Comment thread from Hell, and we’ll get back there, but why yes, once again, we have a radical feminist making it all about the men…but anyway, my questions on this are as follows.
You say porn is a privilege, and oddly enough, I agree with you. Access to media in general is a privilege, yet the questions do remain:
Do I, as a woman, have a right to earn a living? Do I have a right to pursue and engage in a career I enjoy and prefer over other options? Do I have a right to earn money, buy food, pay bills, insure I have a roof over my head? Do I have a right to express myself sexually, even of others may not like the same things I do? Do I have a right to discuss and document that expression? Do I have a right to tell and show my partners what I prefer? Do I have a right to do sexual acts which I find pleasing? Do I, as an adult woman, have those rights?
If the answer is no, how is this in any way feminist? Also, have I, porn watcher and performer, ever told anyone else how they should have sex, called what they do disgusting, told them what they enjoy is wrong, or ever presumed to suggest I know more about their desires and what works for them sexually? The answer there? It is no.
Now, I will spend a brief moment on the men. 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...
Where have I, in all recent memory, found myself the most marginalized, mocked, stereotyped, dehumanized, othered, and otherwise made less than human and denied the full scope of my status as a human? By radical feminists- who assume they know more about what I really want sexually than I do, who flat out figure they can determine what is always degrading and what is not, and who work in a sense of universals, and who simply put fail to see me as a human on par with themselves as human because of what I like sexually, how I express that, and because I exercise my right to earn a living by doing that. End of story and pure truth. And this is not a phenomena exclusive to me, but one that affects any other woman in the sex industry who says they like it, defends their right to earn a living as they see fit, or in some cases, does not take on the proper attitude regarding dealing with the unfortunate aspects of the sex industry. It also affects every and any woman into non-paid participation in and enjoyment of BDSM (as a top or bottom) or any other sexual practice- from swinging to high heel fetishes- that radical feminists do not approve of.
Now, we will get on with some of the content in the comments. Why yes, we are back here. Once again, we have the assertions that things like, oh, anal sex are vile, that a person who likes one kind of porn or starts out watching one kind of porn will end up watching rape porn, bestiality porn, so on, that men who watch porn are all lousy lovers, that feminist women who do not watch porn are better lovers (hehe, does that make them more fuckable?), that women in porn, or who watch porn, or allow their partners to watch porn, or like various acts seen in porn have no respect for themselves, and interesting enough, note the treatment of commentor Sarah, who dares to assert that sex need not be entered into by women according to Hoyle’s Rules of Appropriate Feminist Sexual Conduct. And why yes, I wonder this too:
Why is it that some women’s sexuality, preferences, and desires are forever questioned, yet that of those amazing wonderful rad fem sex goddesses is not? I figure, if you are going to question/examine/disregard/ and why yes, attempt to shame women for things they do sexually, when the critical eyes of those women turn your way, you better have better argument than “what you do is gross, you have no self-respect, you’re brainwashed, I’m a better lover, and semen is icky like piss, puke, or shit, and oh yeah, you’re doing it wrong!”
You see, I am all for women doing what they enjoy doing in the realms of sex and sexuality, so long as it is with other consenting adults. I know it’s a totally outlandish view, but hey, I guess I just have that level of respect for women…and other humans too. I also think they have a right to earn a living…that is in no way a privilege.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
"... using pornography in a relationship amounts to emotional abuse."
:blink:
Could someone point me to a dictionary of every profane and insulting term and phrase in the English language over the last couple hundred years? I'd like to work all of them into the response, here.
But yeah, [original author], I get it. Accepting an aspect of my own sexuality, on my own time, by my own choice, as expressed in an act involving material produced by people who have accepted their own sexuality, making it as a use of their own time and by their own choice, is an act of abuse. Because someone else is offended by something that we enjoy. Thanks for clearing that up.
Oh -- some more questions, though, before I forget. If I'm remembering something I've seen in porn, does that count? Or if I'm imagining a porn scene... what about that?
Do I abuse someone when I fantasize?
I actually had a girlfriend who said that. Pulled a knife on me when I said that I disagreed, actually. (But don't worry, I don't use her as an example of how all radfems are.)
Have you met? Maybe I should introduce you sometime. Seems like you'd get on like a wildfire.
My, my, my. The amount of work that I'm going to have to do on myself. Maybe some shotgun-based self-applied cranial surgery is in order; seems the only way to fix things so that I'll be a genuinely good guy.
[Somehow I don't think the above would make it through as a comment over there, and I'm not feeling particularly masochistic tonight, anyway. Maybe tomorrow.]
I keep coming to your blog and I keep asking myself this:
How in the fuck can radical feminists call themselves feminists in any way, shape, or form if they're telling women what it is that they can and cannot do?
Really, they're not much better than "The Patriarchy" (meaning any man in general ever) they keep screeching about that's supposed to be controlling the minds of women everywhere.
As I have said, Radical Feminism is not the feminism I know, the kind I embraced that said that women have the right to do whatever the hell it is that they wanted, that a woman's place is anywhere they damn well please, and they had every right in the world to to earn a living however it may be.
I don't think I can call myself a feminist. The radicals are far, far too loud and too batshit for me to want to claim the label any longer.
--Rubyfruit
Maybe I wasn't reading carefully enough, but it looks like the issue of women using porn/performing in porn, did not come up once. Women who watch porn, or even make porn, with their partners are also invisible.
Then again, I guess they have "no right" either, it's just a little harder for the radical feminists to come out and say it.
Much easier to make it all about men.
"The porn industry is completely unregulated, as can be seen from the frequent outbreaks of HIV among porn actors that could have been prevented had the industry been required to test its “actors” or (gasp!) have them use condoms. Women are routinely abused and have no recourse to legal protections because they’re in an industry in which rape and sexual abuse are impossible to prove. And because they’ve supposedly “chosen” the whore role in our society, how much credence do you think the authorities attach to their complaints when they do make them? "
Now, let's see how many lies we can count in this paragraph:
1.The porn industry is completely unregulated, as can be seen from the frequent outbreaks of HIV among porn actors that could have been prevented had the industry been required to test its “actors” or (gasp!) have them use condoms."
The truth: two HIV outbreaks in the thirty years since legalization, involving a total of 11 cases.
Mandatory testing for all performers since 1997 using the most technically advanced test on the market, the PCR-DNA screen. No exceptions.
http://www.aim-med.org/
2. Women are routinely abused and have no recourse to legal protections because they’re in an industry in which rape and sexual abuse are impossible to prove.
No evidence at all to support the first generalization. If such behavior were routine, there would have been numerous reports of it by now. As it stands, there are a handful of ex-performers who claim to have been abused, but no charges have ever been filed alleging such abuse, so the second generalization is simple presumption.
In point of fact, performers have sued producers on at least three occasions in recent years. Two of those cases resulted in judgments for the plaintiffs with significant awards for damages and one is on its way to being settled with substantial compensation to the plaintiff.
Abuse is not routine and performers, who are engaged in a lawful business, have direct access to the legal system, civil and criminal.
Claims to the contrary are either made out of ignorance or in deliberate disregard for the facts. Neither is forgivable in matters this essential.
3. And because they’ve supposedly “chosen” the whore role in our society, how much credence do you think the authorities attach to their complaints when they do make them?
In what way would the choice to engage in a legal occupation damage the credibility of anyone making an allegation of criminal misconduct or bringing an action in civil court?
Historically, there is absolutely no evidence to support these claims, which I hear repeated endlessly but never attached to any specifics.
This dangerous nonsense follows the usual pattern in all respects. If I can catch that many lies in one paragraph without even trying, how many more lies about porn are to be found in the whole dreary catalog of "wrongs" and "harms" that this commentator presents as if her every word was the revealed truth that none may question without getting a good working over?
This source's credibility on the subject of porn: Score 0.
OH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I've been reading that thread:
"why would someone want to ejaculate in your face? And if you’re going to say “because it turns him on,” then I wonder whether he’d let you pee on his face if it turned you on? It’s not unbelievable because I’m rigid, it’s unbelievable because it’s coarse, piggish, degrading, and a sign that we’ve lost the plot."
Please, someone, pass the smelling salts!
OK, all humour aside, I seriously hate this type of approach, because it REALLY IS the same logic as "only missionary is OK, because it's not coarse" or whatever.
'the Man-chine'? That's what my contextual studies tutor would call a neologism
'...that feminist women who do not watch porn are better lovers'
Eh? I'm struggling to get my head round that one....That's like saying you're a better car driver if you don't read the highway code! (an English reference but I'm sure you get my gist).
Does that mean that the rad fems would like you better if you only acted in instructional DVD's like 'The Joy of Sex'?
"And because they’ve supposedly “chosen” the whore role in our society, how much credence do you think the authorities attach to their complaints when they do make them?"
Shouldn't they be more concerned that the authorities will not give said complaints credence? This should be a main concern for ALL people because it's about basic human rights! Gods damn what is wrong with them? That is not feminist at all! How patriarchal.
"'...that feminist women who do not watch porn are better lovers'"
*giggles* Sounds like they're trying to pep themselves up. That statement says a lot of their view about women who watch pornography, especially in the implication that there ARE feminist women who watch porn.
I find it difficult to comprehend that the radical feminist way of resisting the patriarchy is by conforming unerringly to patriarchal standards of feminity.
My partner was very scared to tell me about his most "peculiar" sexual fantasy - not because of society's Victorian attitude to sex, but because he felt it made him anti-feminist (it was a fantasy about women - he's a bit bi).
So... the same effect, then. Fear and loathing of one's own body and desires.
Wouldn't the most useful brand of feminism allow people to be open about those desires, so that they could have what's called a *logical conversation* about whether their reactions to them are harmful?
I had to go right back to basics and ask why he wasn't worrying about all the people he dismembered in our last D&D game.
Sex shouldn't have its own special box with its far more draconian set of rules for appropriate behaviour - and thoughts!
And yes... we're both a bit bi, and would definitely allow a woman to pee in our faces if it turned her on. We have magical things like soap and/or mouthwash for afterwards.
I admire you, Ren Ev, for continuously fighting these battles. Well you sort of have to, in case your job's put at risk... but you know what I mean. I admire your mental strength. I'd be gibbering in a corner by now.
"I have a suggestion for women who are dealing with a porn-using partner: start making out with other men until he stops. Tell him it isn’t cheating because there’s no penetration — and because you don’t feel anything for the other men — and that he’s lucky because you’re coming home to him. Tell him that, since it isn’t technically cheating, he has no right to try to tell you what to do. And then tell him he’s being a hysterical, whiny little bitch if he doesn’t just get over it, that he’s just jealous. I know, yeah right."
You mean the guy who a month or so ago went to a play party with me, felt under the weather and not well enough to play, and when I said I didn't mind, exhorted me to go find someone else to do SM with because he didn't want me not to get to have my sexual fun? You mean that guy? How exactly are you expecting him to react when I make out with someone else?
Compulsory monogamy without negotiation: Ur doin it rite, but WHY?
I'm sorry, I couldn't get past the part where she felt she had the "right" to drive a car. That logic only works if you're never going to use a public road, and given that she lives in New York, I doubt she could ever do more than laps in a private parking structure. Then again, based on the rest of it, she does enjoy going in circles.
Admittedly I haven't read the post. Did they say anything about Dyke porn? About leatherdykes and the porn they watch? Did they mention a lesbian couple watching porn together? Where these examples even on the radar?
I'm just asking. Because if not the heterocentricity of these "discussions" no longer amazes me. It makes me feel like (radical) feminism is a repressed straight woman's cause. I'd also like to throw in lesbian-feminist sexual politics as a repressed straight woman's cause...you know those "political lesbians".
Oh, and like Oliver, I really appreciate that you never "shut up" as it were. I love that you continue to speak out. I think I would have been exhausted a while ago.
"why would someone want to ejaculate in your face? And if you’re going to say “because it turns him on,” then I wonder whether he’d let you pee on his face if it turned you on?"
he'd let you pee on his face? I guess that's supposed to be "if you'd let him pee on yours."
However, if it was supposed to be, "if he'd let you pee on his" then yes, actually, he would.
"And yes... we're both a bit bi, and would definitely allow a woman to pee in our faces if it turned her on. We have magical things like soap and/or mouthwash for afterwards."
SOAP CANNOT WASH OUT YOUR WICKED LITTLE BRAINS
Its obvious Nine Deuces doesn't understand even the basics of free speech rights:
"Or Larry Flynt crying over a perceived threat to his “right” to free speech coming from feminists/human beings with morals who don’t think he ought to be allowed to profit from hate speech and disseminate anti-woman propaganda with impunity."
Well, last I checked, the very definition of free speech is the right to disseminate any viewpoint you want to with legal impunity.
Idiot.
I admit that I read both you and 9-2 and have been for a while. I agree with you most of the time and I find what she did when she lied about trauma you experienced to make a petty point disgusting. There is something to a few points she makes in this post, though I don't agree with the main premise. I do think that you (general) are entitled in a relationship to explain your boundaries and expect the same from your partner. If one person doesn't like porn and doesn't want to be with someone that watches porn they have the right to ask for that. If the other person can't have a happy relationship without without porn, well they should just say so and then the relationship ends without anyone getting too emotionally involved. It doesn't happen that way though. Usually when someone asks for a 'no-porn' rule in their relationships they're lied to, called jealous/ controlling/ hysterical and what not. That kinda sucks. For a long time I though I was asking too much when I asked for exclusivity. It took finding a guy who didn't like polyamory himself to convince me it was okay for me to ask for exclusivity. Also, I have to agree with her that most mainstream porn is made for het male consumption. The difference being that she takes that to mean porn (depictions of people having sex) = bad. I just think there needs to be more porn made for woman's consumption. :) (I'm aware that there is some lesbian porn out there made for lesbian women rather than het men, but I'm a het woman.) I guess that has more to do with the fact that women are socially shamed more for their sexuality than men are, so it's hard to create the market in the first place.
Once again, I admire you for reading that tripe so the rest of us don't have to. I've completely run out of eyeball bleach and don't feel like making a trip to the store in this weather.
In what way would the choice to engage in a legal occupation damage the credibility of anyone making an allegation of criminal misconduct or bringing an action in civil court?
Historically, there is absolutely no evidence to support these claims, which I hear repeated endlessly but never attached to any specifics.
i actually have some examples of that and can try to find the links if you want, Ernest. But once again, to me the radical feminists miss the point here - this is another reason why decriminalization and destigmatization of all sex work is vitally important.
"I have a suggestion for women who are dealing with a porn-using partner: start making out with other men until he stops. Tell him it isn’t cheating because there’s no penetration — and because you don’t feel anything for the other men — and that he’s lucky because you’re coming home to him. Tell him that, since it isn’t technically cheating, he has no right to try to tell you what to do. And then tell him he’s being a hysterical, whiny little bitch if he doesn’t just get over it, that he’s just jealous. I know, yeah right."
I'm sorry but this sounds JUST like conservative/religious "arguments," because they do not ever even consider that polyamory or other forms of consensual, open, honest non-monogamy exist.
Also, god bless this sarah commenter in that thread. She is fighting the good fight. I just want to give her a hug... we've all been there, at least I know I have, trying to reason with some of these people and present everything as clearly as possible and thinking that if only I can explain myself clearly enough, they will understand what I mean and grant me some basic respect? But, no...
...which I guess proves that I *did* go over there and read some of the thread. I need the Eyeball Bleach now, dammit! :P
Stopping the serial commenting now.
"... using pornography in a relationship amounts to emotional abuse."
Nice to see my bf and I are abusing each other (neither of us care if the other watches/reads porn).
Or does it not matter since we're both men?
It is also quite possible to watch porn and be a good lover. ^.^
Of course, if your partner is an asshole with no care for your pleasure, then yeah, you aren't going to have much fun. But somehow, I doubt that demographic is limited to porn watchers.
LX; NO! No mention of dyke porn or lesbians who watch porn...
Liz; The thing is, that male centric porn? I know a lot of women who get off on that, myself included. The whole "you're doing it wrong?" line wore thin with me ohhh, at about age 19...I'll be 37 on Nov 18th. I've even examined, yet my mind has not changed.
Et All: Fighting the fight? Well, I would not have it any other way. I'm loud, I'm proud, and if necessary, I am vicious.
One I agree with her on one thing, it is hard to tell the difference between a right and a privilege these days. However with that said: NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED. Second, if you are in a relationship with someone who likes porn and you think its evil, you are incompatible find someone else. Don't try to tell everyone else they are bad because your boyfriend/husband whatever likes porn. If you think porn is evil do not date/marry people who like it, I think the third or fourth date is good time to bring this up. I am into spanking because I think it’s hot, I don't believe if I was in a relationship with someone who was not into it that said relationship could last.
And even though I have said this before and Ren was right to correct me, I am still amazed at Ren’s ability to go on to blogs like this on a regular basis, me I try to steer clear of them. (I mean once you read one crazy person you pretty much read them all.) However as Ren pointed out to me once they are only out to make me unhappy not destroy my livelihood.
"There is something to a few points she makes in this post, though I don't agree with the main premise. I do think that you (general) are entitled in a relationship to explain your boundaries and expect the same from your partner. If one person doesn't like porn and doesn't want to be with someone that watches porn they have the right to ask for that. If the other person can't have a happy relationship without without porn, well they should just say so and then the relationship ends without anyone getting too emotionally involved."
I've always thought that too. Though if a male partner told me that he thought my porn use was degrading to me myself, I'd possibly have a few choice words before dumping him, simply because I think that antiporn men do a huge amount of making assumptions about what's good for women.
A woman I'd either shrug confusedly at or assume that there are bad experiences with it in her past. I don't think that would make me feel that telling me not to use it isn't controlling in a way I personally find unacceptable in my life, but I doubt I'd be angry.
"It makes me feel like (radical) feminism is a repressed straight woman's cause."
This is what I think too. On the exceedingly rare occasions I see dyke porn or leatherdykes mentioned, it's either to brush them aside as a special case, or to claim that they're aping heterosexuality.
Everything, in the end, goes back to heterosexuality. And not only that, but a really, really narrow kind of heteronormative heterosexuality.
Trinity: They aren't out to destroy us, only erase us and make us monsters/victims/fools...
Guess which I find more offensive? To destroy me, you actually have to fight me.
"I'm sorry but this sounds JUST like conservative/religious "arguments," because they do not ever even consider that polyamory or other forms of consensual, open, honest non-monogamy exist."
Amber, see my comment on this, currently at the bottom of the thread.
Reading people like this is always kind of odd for me. It's like being on another planet. I don't, and haven't for years, assumed that exclusivity of behavior means exclusivity of desire.
And I've thought for years that exclusivity of behavior should be something *negotiated* rather than *assumed.*
And I'm not polyamorous (by most definitions of the word; really strict "never mind sex, no going even so far as to *play* with anyone but your partner ever" interpretations would mean I've actually *never been monogamous.*)
(wait, actually that's not true, I haven't topped or fucked anyone but Monkey since we dated, I don't think. Though I did let a buddy top HIM, so I guess he's an evil cheater even though I suggested it.)
Amber Rhea,
Yes, I would appreciate it if you could dig up those links. I'm not looking to dispute whatever information they may contain, although if I have my doubts, I might raise them. But where abuses exist in porn I always have an interest in seeing them exposed and those responsible identified.
One other good thing about keeping pornography legal is that the opportunity to right an injustice continues to attach to such situations for a long, long time after the fact.
I was being very porn-specific in my critique. I recognize that other forms of sex work don't enjoy the same legal protections, although i'd say there were compensatory disadvantages to porn in terms of the way it follows you around your whole life.
I'm certainly interested in examples to the contrary, but overall, my experience has been that in the lawful business of porn, everybody has to be pretty careful because the cops really do come when called and judges really do hand out damages.
Brooke Ashley, who I mentioned in my previous post, was found to have been infected with H.I.V. during a gang-bang shoot, was ruled an employee of the producers and awarded workman's compensation benefits by the state of California.
A similar event in 2004 led Cal-OSHA to fine production company Evasive Angels for safety violations in the workplace.
I'l grant that these are small compensations for the enormity of the damage done (though in both cases there were mitigating circumstances - a forged HIV test in the former and an inability to conclusively demonstrate which specific regulations were not observed in the latter - these cases among many others, do point to the fact that claims about pornography being "totally unregulated" and "lawless" are simply not correct.
In no other business I can think of, for example, are the owners required to prove that they are not breaking the law by keeping incredibly detailed and complex records of every performance and face spectacular criminal penalties for failing to do so, no matter how minor the infraction. As I've said before, a single misplaced I.D. can get a producer five years in federal prison, even if the performer later comes forward with I.D. establishing beyond a doubt that he or she was, in fact, of age at the time the images for which the producer is prosecuted were made.
As for cases of criminal behavior reported to the authorities and then not followed up, again, I can easily imagine this happening in other branches of sex work where there exist violations of the law on both sides, but in pornography, any performer bringing such a charge would face no issue of self-incrimination or testimony aimed at deflecting guilt, as the performer would have been working in a legitimate enterprise.
None of which invalidates your central point to the effect that decriminalization is a must for all sex work if that work is to be safe for anyone. Rather the contrary, to the extent that pornographers have to be careful what they do because they know they're under legal scrutiny, both performers and producers are better off.
One result of the disaster in which Brooke Ashley was infected was the institution of universal monthly HIV testing in the pornography industry. This was accepted more or less voluntarily by the producers because their lawyers (and, ahem, a few noisemakers in the community) pointed out to them that if they wanted to remain in operation legally, they would need to address this issue immediately and effectively.
This would not have been possible if pornography were still criminalized, as it had been prior to 1970. Black markets of any kind are notoriously difficult to regulate consistently. The thirty-day PCR-DNA test protocol as been uniformly observed since 1997, with over 100,000 tests administered and a single breakthrough infection in 2004 leading to three others being the only instances in which this first line of defense proved inadequate.
No system is perfect, but we'd have no system at all if we didn't have the legal status that gives the one we've got its teeth.
As for the stigmatization part, alas, I'm less optimistic. Getting rid of that would require a huge cultural change at a time when much of this culture, of which we've seen a disheartening example in the inspiration for this thread, is pushing hard in the opposite direction.
liz:
"I do think that you (general) are entitled in a relationship to explain your boundaries and expect the same from your partner. If one person doesn't like porn and doesn't want to be with someone that watches porn they have the right to ask for that. If the other person can't have a happy relationship without without porn, well they should just say so and then the relationship ends without anyone getting too emotionally involved. It doesn't happen that way though."
Agreed, absolutely. I also agree with what you wrote about the way that it usually ends, though I've only encountered the flip side myself (given my tastes, there aren't many forms of porn that, if a partner enjoyed them, would end up crossing a boundary for me). Usually, that's in the form of being told something along the lines of "you know that you're betraying and hurting me, and you don't care."
Which is really a mindfuck of epic proportions. It's one thing to be informed that you've crossed a boundary that you didn't know was there (either because you didn't ask or weren't told, or were told that it was ok even though it wasn't -- protection of the allegedly fragile ego and all). It's another to be told that you intentionally sent someone's emotions through the wood-chipper and have no respect for them as a person, and that this is true even if you say that it isn't (because someone who betrays and hurts will also lie)... all because you chose to do something, privately, that you didn't know would offend them.
Open communication? Yeah: it's a really, really, really good thing.
Ren, I think you misunderstood me. I don't think all porn is bad. I know women use mainstream porn to get off. For a lack of anything else, I do too. (I'm not saying here that all women only watch it for lack of anything else, I'm only saying I do.) I just expressed annoyance at the lack of a particular kind of porn. I don't think it's so much to ask for more egalitarian porn. Also, I don't blame the lack of that kind of porn on the industry itself. What is produced is what sells. There's no more to it than that. The problem is that women are not typically considered consumers of porn, so there isn't a lot that appeals to woman's point of view. Bummer for me, wevs. I'm over it.
I guess my mistake is coming in sounding like I'm trying to defend 9-2. I'm not. I actually only started reading her blog recently through links from your site because I find insanity entertaining. I can see from the fact that you read it that you probably understand what I mean. It's like looking at a car accident or a train wreck. I'm just morbid like that. No brain bleach for me thanks. I'll be laughing at those quotes all week (or until there's something equally entertainingly stupid up somewhere to read/ gawk at).
Trinity said:
"This is what I think too. On the exceedingly rare occasions I see dyke porn or leatherdykes mentioned, it's either to brush them aside as a special case, or to claim that they're aping heterosexuality."
Even rarer when I see gay men mentioned, and that's typically followed by some crap about how they're "made into women" by gay porn and "inegalitarian" gay sex.
Liz, I don't have a quarrel with much of what you said, but this does rub me the wrong way:
Also, I have to agree with her that most mainstream porn is made for het male consumption. The difference being that she takes that to mean porn (depictions of people having sex) = bad. I just think there needs to be more porn made for woman's consumption. :)
I get the gist of what you're saying but I think the way you've presented it here is problematic, because it assumes there is one set of things that are "for men" and another that are "for women." As if all women are turned on by the same stuff. I'm sure you don't believe that to be true, but I do think we have to be very careful when talking about stuff like this not to universalize, precisely BECAUSE women's sexuality - esp. if it steps outside the prescribed notions of what is acceptable - has been so demonized and stigmatized for so long.
I mean, according to Nine Deuce and her pals, I don't exist, because really how could ANY woman EVER be into anal? It's just *unthinkable*!
"Guess which I find more offensive? To destroy me, you actually have to fight me."
Yes, which is why, like I said in my TPoP post, I'd prefer to be called Pinochet by inveterate enemies than to be ignored totally.
Come on, Ren, that isn't fair. You know I have never and will never argue against your right to make a living however you choose to. I even wrote a few special posts to clarify my views on that point. I'm not for banning or criminalizing anything (and you know where I stand on decriminalization). I didn't write this post for people who are OK with porn use in their relationships. It's about men who use porn in ways that are hurtful within a relationship. If that doesn't apply to you, this post isn't about you.
I have a suggestion for women who are dealing with a porn-using partner: start making out with other men until he stops. Tell him it isn’t cheating because there’s no penetration — and because you don’t feel anything for the other men — and that he’s lucky because you’re coming home to him. Tell him that, since it isn’t technically cheating, he has no right to try to tell you what to do. And then tell him he’s being a hysterical, whiny little bitch if he doesn’t just get over it, that he’s just jealous.
Is anyone else horrified by the completely callous disregard for the feelings of those "other men"?
So she's going out with people she has no feelings for and she'd dump them as soon as I stop watching porn? Bye dear, I'll stick with the porn; at least that's honest.
E.
Nine D: I'm not really sure how concerned I am with fair anymore, really. I mean, I can read and all, and the ENDLESS speculation on men who watch porn all disrespecting women, women who do porn or participate in certain sexual acts (anal, so on) having no self respect, the who is a crappy lover and who isn't shit...
Guess what? It gets REAL old. Real, real old. Moldy old.
And what's even more annoying and old? The universals. Did you preface your post with "this is solely for people who feel hosed by men who watch porn?" Nope. No one ever seems to do that. So much of what is written on the matter by anti porn people is painted with the broadest brush possible and full of universals. Well, universals are bullshit. I know you don't believe in banning anything, but as a woman who does make her living this way, that isn't much consolation when stacked alongside the assumptions, universals, and general disdain for people, why yes, including the women, thrown at those in the business....by feminists, including you.
Liz: The lack of a certain kind of porn is purely an economic issue.
"I didn't write this post for people who are OK with porn use in their relationships. It's about men who use porn in ways that are hurtful within a relationship."
9-2,
I'm glad you say this, but why then do you write your posts in a way that really does sound like you're laying down the law about what porn is and what relationships should be like? You're right that a lot of people push boundaries, don't bother to negotiate, etc. But if you acknowledge that that's only some people here, why write your posts as if this isn't the case? Just because it sounds snazzier? Because you don't think we count? I don't get it, I really don't.
And the thing is, I think a lot of these endless back and forth could easily be avoided if people would recognize that what's actually the issue is that antiporn and sex-positive feminists, as far as I can tell, tend to be from different worlds.
Like take the "kiss other men" example. I said here and there that this wouldn't do much in my own relationship but make my partner happy that Sir is having lots of fun. The presumption of a certain very strict kind of monogamy just goes out the window when one is a part of the subcultures I am, unless it's specifically negotiated. And if it was, I'd have no reason to be passive-aggressive enough to hurt someone to make a point about a way I don't actually feel about someone feeling sexual desire for someone other than me.
That just... doesn't bother me in the least. It would be like losing my mind because he thinks I look bad in my favorite shirt, or something. I don't know the way your mind works, 9-2, but *every monogamous person I know* has told me that monogamy is *not* a matter of never feeling desire for anyone else ever, but rather a matter of devotion/commitment. If we know for a given that even the minds of the most monogamous wander, why, aside from concerns about production conditions, should we care at all if the minds wander while looking at a picture? What does it mean when we expect desire to be that tightly controllable?
I really think people should think about that, as much as I hate navel-gazey "examining." Why is the idea that someone feels desire for someone else -- or more accurately an idealized image of someone else -- threatening in itself, even when you DO have the assurances that he's "coming home to you?" If that lack of trust comes from knowing that he is the sort to not care about women, or about you, and to prefer the CRT -- well, fine then, but what does that prove about anything aside from that it's high time you dumped him?
You say you're not presuming all porn users are untrustworthy, but there you are saying that even the slightest waver in desire is an insult to you. Why?
And that's what bothers me so much about anti-porn feminists so much of the time. You all speak from presumptions of what "a woman looking for a relationship" looks like, what "a woman feeling erotic desire" looks like, what "jealousy" looks like, what "being unfaithful" looks like, and they're presumptions that just don't make any sense from the perspective of someone like me, and I gather someone like most of the people here, too.
Love and sex just aren't like that for a lot of us, because we've been navigating Being Weird all our lives, and often so have our partners. The kinds of experiences you're having, that you try to explain all women have and then brush us off -- well, that's exactly why we come back with "Fucking hell, if I get called frivolous one more time because I'm not the Enlightened Feminist Norm, my fist is gonna meet some faces."
Because... who we are and what we want gets erased. We get told we're just pleasing other people, for no other reason we can see but that our own lives don't please the majority of APRFs.
Ernest,
Oops, I think I misunderstood your first comment. I was talking about sex workers not being believed when reporting other crimes, or things like the cop who raped the stripper getting off easy because she was a stripper. It sounds like you are talking speficically about abuses *within porn* being reported by porn performers.
Liz,
Just for the record, I don't htink you sounded lik eyou were defending 9-2. And I also realize that a lot of us here may seem extremely "touchy" about this topic, but it is not a reflection on you. Thank you for engaging, seriously.
More later... gotta sleep.
Trinity,
Very well said indeed. What causes my blood pressure to spike every time I read bullshit like that post is the casual way in which the author presumes to know something - anything whatsoever - about me, my partner, my life, my work, my opinions or anything else.
They don't know. They don't want to know. Fine. They ought to try leaving us the fuck out of it and addressing their observations solely to those of whom they have some direct knowledge - and by that I do not mean crap they read on the Internet on the site of somebody else who already agrees with them.
And Ren, I absolutely share your lack of concern for what's fair in situations of this type. The opposition tells grotesque lies about us, makes no secret of its disdain for us (sorry, not buying the oh-gee-I-didn't-mean-you shit for a minute, having heard it since I was the only Jewish kid in my elementary school class) and feels no compunction about casually discussing the idea of murdering us.
Then they come whiny-ass, to use a phrase I recently read elsewhere, over here to accuse you of being unfair.
I weep through the night at the injustice of you being so thoughtless as to have an opinion of your own and state it on your own blog.
Really, how could you be so inconsiderate?
As far as the opening post goes, it begins with what is simply rhetorical bombast. There's no discussion of the various definitions of rights and privileges, nor of their delineation. It's just a series of arguments from incredularity that certain actions could be considered rights. It gets a little weird when the idea of culture as a defence of actions is concerned, given that cultural and rights based ethics are often in direct conflict.
So coming to the main thesis, that men have no right to watch porn given that it negatively affects women that they are in a relationship with, it is difficult to really mount an antithetical argument. Not because I'm too "porn addled" but instead because I have no idea why such an argument could be made. No philosophical foundations are laid to support this assertion. There are obviously rights that contradict this, such as the right to privacy. However whether Nine Deuce accepts the right to privacy is unknown.
Amber Rhea,
Thanks for the clarification. And it does make the point on which we both agree once again.
Abuses certainly do occur in porn, but they're the exception, not the rule, and there is one reason why.
Making porn is legal. The police, lawyers and numerous local, state and federal authorities are only a cell phone call away.
I've been visited by fire marshals and uniformed police officers on many sets over the years. When you pull a permit, which you must to shoot motion picture in Los Angeles legally, these agencies are notified automatically and they send out representatives to say hello and check all your paperwork.
It's generally just a short, friendly drop-by (at least if you have those papers in order, otherwise they shut your ass down on the spot) but it serves an important purpose, which is to let you know they're aware of your activities and are keeping an eye on you. The performers see them on the set as well and are reminded that everything we do is always under legal scrutiny.
I have no problem with this. I follow the rules as do all but a few dopes who try to beat the system out of a few hundred bucks by failing to meet the permit requirements. Those dopes get their equipment and video masters confiscated and a quick and expensive trip downtown to pay some stiff fines.
This is one reason why I get so fried every time I read a reference to the "lawless and unregulated" porn industry, or the never-supported claim that physical abuse of performers is routine and carries no risks.
I don't know of very many businesses where law enforcement routinely comes around just to say hi, but they make a point of doing it with us.
What does that say about how they would respond to any kind of complaint or disturbance reported from a porn set or by any participant in the making of an X-rated video after the fact?
It says that somebody would get arrested.
That's the thing I want to make clear. We work within the law, and the law does its part by making sure everyone understands that this is expected and better be done.
All forms of sex work should enjoy the same equal protection under the law, but won't until sex work is decriminalized overall.
Well, gee, Nine Deuce....you are so willing to clear Ren of any inferences that she is responsible for men's apparent dependency on porn and the resulting alleged damage to women....so why not give the majority of men the benefit of the doubt as well??
Oh, I forgot...it's men (especially porn-watching men like me and that "pornographer" IACB and Ernest Greene) who are responsible for turning women like Ren to the "dark side" to begin with, right??
Sorry, but you and your allies just don't get to take any more liberties with our motives than you do with Ren's or any other "sex pox" woman's.
Oh...and while pissing on another human's face or body isn't my idea of erotic sex play at all, at least you can shower away the urine afterwards. (And....you do know that women are capable of squirting too, right??) And would you be as condemning of men who freely go down on women?? Or is the clitoris just another male attachment designed to impose patriarchy, too???
The only privilege I'm seeing here is the privilege of GenderBorgians who just can't get the fact that they just don't own the world.
Real women are capable of choosing and loving sex of their choice. Deal.
Anthony
Regarding Unicorns:
http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF103-Nice_Shirt.gif
TEEHEE!
(Oops, commented to the wrong post... never mind that)
Post a Comment