The organisers of Canada’s Third Annual Feminist Porn Awards (Toronto, April 4th and 5th 2008) think so.
In 2006 we decided that it’s not enough to criticize adult films for not adequately representing women’s – and in many cases, men’s – sexuality. So we decided to do something about it. As porn star and performance artist Annie Sprinkle famously said, “The answer to bad porn isn’t no porn…it’s to try and make better porn!” Good For Her couldn’t agree more. We believe the world is inundated with cheesy, cliché, degrading, no-budget, patronizing and stupid porn. But we also believe that erotic fantasy is powerful, and that women and marginalized communities deserve to put their dreams and desires on film, too. As feminists and sex-positive people, we want to showcase and honour those who are creating erotic media with a feminist sensibility.
It doesn’t take long for anyone reading about feminism to realise that there’s a lot of disagreement amongst the feminisms regarding porn, porn vs erotica and the larger picture of the sex industries generally. These tend to get summarised as “anti-pornography” and “sex-positive” stances, both of which terms are overly simplistic. “Sex-positive” especially casts opponents as “sex-negative”, when it is more true to say that they are “sex-industry-negative” or even better “sex-exploitation-negative”.
So, when I received this email about the Feminist Porn Awards I thought it was a good kick-off for an open thread on feminism and porn. Have at it. (ducks and runs)
Update: For a good collection of posts from advocates of the anti-prostitution/pornography feminisms, try the Third Carnival Against Pornography and Prostitution
Filed under: 101, Sexuality & Health, feminisms, objectification | Tagged: anti-pornography, awards, feminism, feminisms, feminist porn, porn, pornography, sex-positive, sexual expression & exploitation
tigtog
tekanji
shakesville
“If it’s “joyful” and “celebratory” of sex and shows truly loving, real people, it isn’t porn. It probably deserves criticism as well, but not necessarily because it’s porn. And a closer examination might reveal that even joyful, celebratory sex between committed folks, when recorded for the purpose of getting people off, might be porn too.”
Because arousing an audience can never be considered a legitimate aim for a filmmaker right? It’s okay to scare them, to make them cry, but god forbid you should arouse them!
http://www.alternet.org/sex/81655/?page=entire
“spike said: I see the patriarchy as a tool of porn and not the other way around.
L asks: Really? Can you explain that a bit more, please?”
Forgive the threadjack
My critique of porn is quite practical. Essentially I am in agreement with Ell. Porn is an industry— and like all industries it has a primary objective of making money. Industries usually are not the ones to promote dogma. It’s just not good for business, really.
An analogy would be like trying to argue that oil companies are the tool of an “anti-environmentalist capitalist agenda”. No. Oil companies are simply in business because they serve a demand. It’s perfectly reasonable to go after oil companies for egregious harms that they do in the process. But it is equally reasonable examine the demand and the system that creates the incentive for them to be greedy and destructive in the first place.
The porn industry and its products should be examined similarly. Yet I have noticed that on both sides of the argument people are afraid to really ask questions from a demand side aspect. Many people in particular seem to be stuck in a logic pattern that doesn’t allow for room to discuss general differences in male and female sexuality, for fear that these differences will turn into justifications; and although creating such false justifications is common tactic, is it almost always based on a logical fallacy–that is, an error in reasoning. It would be like reasoning that because some humans have the capacity for violence that murder and war are justifiable.
Porn makers have simply been very efficient at tapping into consumer demand. Consumer demand has been shaped of course in part by our patriarchal society. And that is how porn uses the patriarchy: like any successful business, it exploits peoples’ fears, desires and fantasies (no matter how benign or how sick) for a profit.
When I think about porn (especially the violent, mean-spirited stuff), I keep in mind that everything presented is something that people are willing to pay for, thousands of times over. And I simply ask myself why.
I guess the reason your statement about patriarchy as a tool of porn confused me is that it implies that if you get rid of porn, you get rid of patriarchy. According to that statement, porn is the umbrella concept that controls patriarchy. I don’t agree with this conceptualization — obviously, if you get rid of porn, you’ve gotten rid of a big arm of patriarchy, but you haven’t gotten rid of patriarchy altogether. I see where you’re coming from in that porn supplies for a demand — but that demand is created by the patriarchy and reinforced in porn, and porn also works to encourage demand by desensitizing users to worse and worse images of degradation, dominance, and non-consensual control. I think making porn out to be a group that only reacts to a demand and does not actively work to keep that demand in place is a shallow examination of the issue.
Im not a very um… knowledgable poster… but it seems to me that the statement: “The patrarchy are a tool of porn”
Really means that men are manipulated by the porn industry, in the same way that they are manipulated by women in general, …well by the same mechanism, for which they have know one to blame but themselves……… and a few million years of evolution maybe. Whoops… lets see how long this post lasts….
I’m a woman who runs several porn sites made for straight women. I consider myself a feminist pornographer. I regularly write about the intersection of feminism and porn in my blog, as well as what I perceive to be the problems with mainstream porn.
I haven’t read the full thread in detail but I wanted to post a quick comment with my thoughts.
I don’t believe that creating a visual depiction of sex is automatically anti-feminist. As always, context is the key.
I don’t believe the old Dworkinist line that sex is automatically anti-feminist because it’s a patriarchal construct. This line of thinking condemns any woman who enjoys heterosexual sex as some kind of traitor to the sisterhood and it’s this attitude that has resulted in millions of young women determinedly saying “I’m not a feminist…”
I also don’t accept the suggestion that all women who appear in porn (or prostitution for that matter) are victims who have been forced into it. Remember when feminism was about giving women a choice? About making people understand that women have their own thoughts and desires?
Plenty of women happily choose to appear in porn. And if it’s only for the money, well, that’s their choice. In plenty of cases it’s a bad choice, and certainly there should be an effort to ensure that porn doesn’t present that situation, but you can’t offer up a blanket statement that denies that those women made a conscious decision to be involved in some way.
I will say that I have serious problems with a lot of the porn that’s currently out there. A lot of it is offensive, misogynist, cruel and hateful and I do worry about the mindset that creates it. But my rejection of SOME porn does not equal a rejection of ALL porn.
And I truly believe that the only way to solve “the porn problem” is to create sexually explicit material that is feminist.
I’ll also add that I think gay, dyke and queer porn are important things to consider in any discussion about whether porn can be feminist, because the conversation usually focuses on hetero, male oriented porn. Making broad statements about victimisation or the patriarchy come up short when you’re talking about lesbian-made lesbian porn like, for example, the site Posteriority or The Crash Pad series. Who, exactly, is the victim there?
OK, enough from me… I’ve gotta go away for a few days so I’ll miss the rest of this thread. Great conversation, anyway.
[...] there be feminist porn?” For a bit of a pro-and-anti on that, check out this thread at Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog. For a few radical feminist viewpoints on the “anti” side, check out the Third Carnival [...]
It seems to me that in order to create feminist porn in a visual medium, we’d need to create a feminist visual language. Since our culture’s visual representations of everything, especially women, are presented in a patriarchal framework, porn has the same “general culture” meanings, even when this is unintentional. For example, we have all learned to judge women’s bodies according to certain criteria. So most women, upon seeing a picture that depicts a woman who fits our cultural ideal, will feel crappy about themselves. That’s not a feminist goal. And most people, upon seeing someone who doesn’t fit the cultural ideal, will not be turned on. That’s not the goal of porn!
Perhaps until we have gained more control over general representations of people (in advertising, etc.), it will be difficult or impossible to make visual feminist porn. But I don’t see any reason we couldn’t write it or make something auditory, and struggle our way through how to make it “feminist” … The only remaining issue then would be how to create a situation where those engaging in sexual acts (of making sexy noises or whatever) were not doing so because of the coercion money brings to the process.
So, in answer to the original question of whether there can be feminist porn… Yes, but visual mediums are pretty fraught, so I’m not sure that’s possible just yet.
And most people, upon seeing someone who doesn’t fit the cultural ideal, will not be turned on.
Really?
I think people deserve a little more credit than that. In real life, men and women are often turned on by other men and women who do not match the cultural ideal. Sometimes their relationship with these bodies are fraught, certainly – beauty standards offer already-abusive partners another wedge for demoralizing their partners – but many other men and women genuinely enjoy bodies of a type that isn’t often depicted onscreen. So why would they not enjoy these bodies in porn?
Furthermore, the language of film is already a persuasive language. . . lighting, camera focus, and other techniques are always directing the viewer where and how to look. Should an unconventionally attractive woman be cast as desirable in film (as happens, but not often enough), the film itself directs your attention to her and asks you to look at her as beautiful. (i.e. that radiant newcomer in Hairspray.) Feminists have been playing around with a specifically feminist version of this film language (including Laura Mulvey, whose theorization of the male gaze is often cited) for decades; it’s our misfortune that we don’t see this celebrated more often, but it’s out there.
So I think there are already starting points for what you describe, and there isn’t much benefit in waiting for our other rooms to get cleaned up before straightening this one. But I do like your thinking here, pinpointing some of the specific things that could be improved and suggesting alternatives. It’s important to note that some filmmakers are presently trying to find ways around the fraught-ness, but it’s also important to have criteria by which to measure their success.
tanglethis,
Maybe you’re right that I am overly pessimistic about people’s ability to work outside of traditional ideas of beauty. Eh-probably I am, actually. Maybe there’s hope on that front. There are multiple issues though, to be worked out by someone much more artistically talented and generally smarter than me, regarding representations of everyone in porn. For example, what does it mean to include people of color, when porn has been one of the single most racist mediums out there, and the meaning inserted by certain viewers (no pun intended) will be inevitably racist? And what does it mean to exclude people of color? It seems like, given our cultural context, unless there is explicitly anti-racist content in porn, it makes a racist statement, whether people of color are included or excluded… doomy doom made an excellent point here:
“Personally though, what I would like to see more of is breaking the boundaries between porn and film and porn and art. People represented as sexual beings, but with their sexuality as part of their identity as a whole. ”
Maybe this would be a way to create porn that works against oppression. If the dominant culture has already given people’s bodies oppressive “default” visual meanings, feminist porn would have to include content that challenged these racist, sexist, heterosexist, transphobic, ableist, etc. cultural meanings.
Like I said, a challenge for someone much smarter than me.
Well I’m going to have to say that whether or not feminist porn can exist depends entirely on the definition of feminist porn. One of the things that really annoyed me as I read through the comments was what seemed to be the lack of a common language between people especially when it comes to the word porn. So for the rest of what I’m going to say porn will consist of all media whose purpose is primarily to create sexual desire in the a audience (be they a reader, viewer etc).
In this case I believe that it is possible that it would be possible to create porn that would be non exploitative to the person or persons making it, that would portrait the participants as people, that is not racist, sexist ageist, ableist etc. So assuming this more or less describes the ideals of feminism (I may have left things out I meant to include and my definition of feminism and its goals may not be accurate) then I think feminist porn is a possibility.
I do not know how popular feminist porn would be with society and the consumers but I think that if feminism manages to have a great affect on society as a whole there should be no reason to say that feminist porn can not in a future time replace most or all of what is currently porn.
As to how to change the current porn industry towards a more feminist friendly industry I would suggest the following things. The most obvious in my mind is reducing poverty and hunger in the world as much as possible. If there are jobs, food, clean drinking water and education available to more (and hopefully all) of the people in the world this can help to reduce the number of women who are in porn out of desperation. If there is not a huge need to go into porn as a way to provide for a better life for yourself and others then the people who do choose to create porn will be there because its a way they want to do things with their life.
Also I want to say that I like what that site (what was it kink) did with their policy for how they treat their employees and what should be included with the films to try to crack down on the inclusion of non-consenting women in porn. I do however agree with the criticism of the policy as being potentially just a face saving measure. Thats why I would like to see a banding together of porn artists and studios preferably of their own volition to create a guideline of acceptable behavior things like for films a discussion before and after the filming of the experience. With this it would also be good to see a union for the actors, models, and others to see that their concerns are heard and not just that of the producers. Of course there should also be a system for lodging complaints against people who abuse their employees (in addition to criminal charges were necessary).
Then I think feminism should continue to try to change opinions, values and ideals in society as a whole. If more and more of the consumers of pornography are exposed to feminism in a positive light and descrimination is reduced on a larger scale then there will be a greater demand for porn that is with a closer standing to feminism.
Any way that’s my 2cents on the issue I don’t think it will be easy, I don’t know if it will happen in my life time or ever really. However i do believe that it should be possible to create a feminist porn.
Any way I’d love to hear any criticism or agreement with what I’ve written. In the interest of full disclosure I do view and enjoy pornography including elements of BDSM and of fantasies that may lack the consent of an individual (ie rape fantasies).
I believe that porn, at its core, is deeply distorted. No one could possibly argue with it. Would there be a difference for feminist pornography?
In all likelihood, yes. And that would probably be the reason for its difficulty in becoming mainstream. The porn industry is incredibly wealthy, and the reason for that is marketing ideas, fantasies, and “standards” of sexual interaction that caters to a majority of people, for the lowest possible expense. When your entry-level contract states you must have a D-cup, perform bisexual acts, anal sex and partake in scenes with multiple partners at the same time, it’s difficult to make it as a feminist porn actress all of a sudfden without, for lack of a better term, prostitute yourself in hopes of attaining that opportunity.
One has to keep in mind that women can eventually get a lot of power in the porn industry, and some of them transform that influence into a keen business acumen. But taking into account what they have to do to get there, is it worthy of being called a feminist power struggle? I don’t know. I honestly don’t; I’m too uninformed about it.
Should there truly be feminist porn out there, it’s bound to remain underground, unless we go through a new sexual revolution with feminist values at its core.
[...] Most topics get this way after a while, if you continue reading them. One of them is the topic of feminism. I generally read about it with interest, but like every other topic, it has its share of bores and repetition; generally speaking, I’ll see a mangled version of the famous Cheris Kramerae quote every other week or so, plus there’s the usual, ongoing spats between the sex-poz and radfem camps which oscillate between hostile silence and full-on war, as well as that perennial favourite: is teh pr0n evol? [...]
To the commentor whose comment has failed to appear here (it ends with “…well ok, what do you say tig?” ) you need to read why I decline to publish some comments even though they contain no unacceptable elements of either content or tone. You’ll find the necessary link in the sidebar, and if you wish to discuss this decision you can take it to email.
tigtog:
Thank you for your comments on my question regarding the definition of pornography, and your direction to this thread.
I read through all, but I am not sure if there is a working feminisms definition of “pornography” or “feminist pornography” contained therein. I would appreciate it if you could fashion one.
I like wikipedia’s definition, though I suppose there are more scholarly treatments, and maybe wikipedia is “subject to manipulation by the dominant patriarchal cultural paradigm.” Anyway, It says: “Pornography is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer.” and “the term applies to the depiction of the act” and “In most countries pornography is treated as a separate entity, both culturally and legally, from depictions of naked persons in art or photography. See ‘nudity.’” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography
So nudes are not pornographic. Who thinks so?
This is a gender and power neutral definition. We should be able to look at and create depictions of a sex act which sexually excites the viewer. Right?
“So nudes are not pornographic. Who thinks so?”
No one whacks off in an art gallery or museum. Works of art are usually intended for public display, not private consumption (except for the rich). (Though one might imagine someone whacking off in a private setting to a painting or photograph or reproduction of a piece of art featuring nudity)
“This is a gender and power neutral definition. We should be able to look at and create depictions of a sex act which sexually excites the viewer. Right?”
It’s a gender and power neutral definition because the overt mainstream cultural narrative about porn (which wikipedia reflects) is that it’s just sex, it’s between consenting adults, it’s harmless, it’s natural. This definition is what feminist critiques of porn are contesting; bringing to light and questioning the gender and power dynamics in porn.
Who is the “we”? Who is doing the looking, who is doing the creating? Who is performing for the viewer? Who is profiting? There are multiple human beings and power relationships hidden in that short sentence of yours, which foregrounds only the viewer’s imagination or right to fantasise.
Why should the viewer/purchaser expect that other human beings should allow their bodies and sexual performances be filmed/photographed so that he or she can buy and view that visual record? Arousal in response to things that a person finds sexuallly exciting is natural and neutral. A multi-billion dollar industry that overwhelmingly is devoted to sexually stimulating straight men by focussing on women’s bodies and women’s sexual performances is not and is riven through with gender and power dynamics.
Side thought about nudes – much “soft” porn in magazines does not feature a sex act, it simply features a naked woman. Usually a sequence of pictures of the woman stripping off until she is naked, and then posing in various ways that enact willing availability to his gaze and imagination. The depictions of nude women in art undoubtedly arouse many straight male viewers despite the “cultural” setting. It is as if the mere fact that a woman is depicted naked is interpreted as an invitation to use the image of her body to masturbate to. Most porn is about the sexual availability of women, not a gender/power neutral sex act.
The reason people don’t jack it to nudes in art galleries is because art galleries have other people in there, watching. That’s the only reason. You know that teenage boys can and do masturbate to the National Geographic, you think that “The Birth of Venus” is going to be off limits?
“It is as if the mere fact that a woman is depicted naked is interpreted as an invitation to use the image of her body to masturbate to.” — What does this mean? Do you think this is unnatural, depersonalizing, a coherent or intentional action? I don’t want to start in here and respond to something you didn’t actually say.
True, I’d agree that the artist’s intent does not determine whether an image is pornography, the use to which the viewer puts the image is what makes it pornographic. Hmm, so no depiction of a naked body is “off limits” to being used as an aid to masturbation? I can’t quite articulate why I find that phrasing striking – reading in it an overtone of entitlement and co-option of the image/body of the depicted person perhaps?.
“Do you think this is unnatural, depersonalizing, a coherent or intentional action?” Yes to the first two descriptors. Because of the gender inequality in our society. Whether it is coherent or intentional is not relevant to the effects of such an attitude. Overwhelmingly, the norm is that bodies that presented as to-be-looked-at sexually – whether because they are nude or wearing clothes that are revealing and which show the shape of the body by fitting it closely – are women’s bodies and not men’s bodies. (I’ve realised recently that conventional masculine clothing is very modest – the body is not revealed or drawn attention to).
You’re coming back again to your question of whether there can be a gender and power neutral context of using some image that is arousing to masturbate to. As I said above the problem is the existing unequal gender/power dynamics. Feminist critiques of porn deconstruct and challenge those dynamics. For me as a feminist, the end result I seek is precisely for sex and sexuality to be gender and power neutral. We are not there yet, and the gender/power dynamics cannot be wished away.
I meant to post to this thread when it first went up, and never got around to it. I don’t think I’ve yet fully processed my thoughts on the question “can there be feminist porn?”, but here’s a sidethought:
My pipedream is that somehow for a year it could be arranged so that women are not objectified during that time – only men’s bodies are used to signify sex, are depicted as desirable, are used in sexy ways in advertising, films and so on. For example a camera operator filming the performance of a woman dancer or singer would not pan up and down her body – but would for a male performer . Hell, even six months would do it. We would have to find a whole different visual language to depict and signify male desirability – luckily we could borrow from gay culture
I think that this could not help but mainstream a more equal kind of erotica, plus would have the bonus of helping break down homophobia, since straight men would, in my plan, have no alternative but to get over any feelings of squickiness about fancying men/being fancied by men.
[...] reading on this in a post at Feminism [...]
I said in response to Huitzil “You’re coming back again to your question of whether there can be a gender and power neutral context of using some image that is arousing to masturbate to.”
Sorry Huitzil – I just realised that was marlo’s question in the comment I originally responded to and not part of your comment.
I think one facet that has not been fully addressed in this discussion on porn is the principle of a viewer and a performer that is created through the mechanism of media. Since this also exists in non porn scenarios, the same issues that apply to any media based mechanism of profit, power etc, will also be relevant to porn, feminist or otherwise. Porn has its own specifics added to the mix. Issues of commercialism, power, exploitation, choice, enjoyment exist in all forms of media, where those who consume the media, and those who perform for consumption are engaged in a complex balancing act of trying to achieve desirable outcomes through others. This is never easy, and are implicit in all social interaction. We should not ignore the specific issues of run-of-the-mill porn that shows stereotypical male/female scenarios of copulation, with predictable outcomes and geared for a mostly male audience. Neither should we reject porn as not being an appropriate vehicle for women, feminist or otherwise, in getting some titillation. We should just not lose sight of the social dynamics that frame most interactions. I consider that TV soap operas are a form of emotional and romantic porn, just as stereotypical as sexual porn. It shows stereotypical scenarios with predictable outcomes, bad acting, low budget, and caters mostly for a female audience. We could posit that the actors themselves are being exploited, not truly enjoying all the falsehood, and that it is demeaning to both the viewer and performer. Yet it gets consumed by a seemingly insatiable audience, just as sexual porn does.
I have not taken a position for or against porn or feminist porn, just a perspective of the way society frames interaction between groups. If we lose sight of the bigger picture we tend to demonise certain behaviors and sectors of the community, perhaps forgetting or denying that we too are targets of other peoples bigotry with equal justification.
On the rare occasions that I write erotica, it’s focused on the women involved—in a male way. I can’t possibly feel, let alone evoke, a woman’s subjective experience of sex, if such an abstraction can even be pinned down. I do try to avoid female characters whose desire conveniently happens to be mindless nymphomaniacal subservience, because it holds no appeal for me (sorry, TMI).
What I found most ridiculous about a lot these comments is that I am a feminist, a woman and I regularly watch and masturbate to porn that’s allegedly only designed for men.
Does that make me male? I think not.
The fact that women can, and DO watch mainstream pornography AND (oh my gods) are actually AROUSED by it says a lot.
Abby Winters is a great site. So is Kink.com. The only kind of porn that ISN’T great is ACTUAL rape porn (yes, it exists), BESTIALITY, NECROPHILIA and CHILD.
Pornography is a censorship issue imho rather than a feminist one.
I consider porn hate speach (including kink.com and any other mainstream porn). While I think poeple are allowed to be racist and sexist if they want to be – it won’t stop me from pointing out the error of it.
A lot of porn is racist… and that’s okay with you because you are against censorship? I’m against censorship too but that didn’t stop me from showing up to a KKK rally with some signs combating their racist hate speach.
Women can feel more powerful than the women being sexually degraded in porn and get off on that – just as men do.
Pointing out the errors of certain industries is not a form of censorship and I honestly get really tired of people accusing those of us who are against degrading porn of being about censorship. Typically – in feminist communities, we are also against censorship for the real reason that if I try to censor the porn industry – the porn industry will probably try to censor my negative opinions of it.
“The fact that women can, and DO watch mainstream pornography AND (oh my gods) are actually AROUSED by it says a lot.”
but it doesn’t make it feminist.
i am not pro-censorship, other than the illegal stuff.
but i am a male who is disgusted at the messages of (legal) porn,
( yes, all while returning for more, back then)
i have turned to asexuality for solace. it’s still a price to pay,
but a justifiable one in my opinion, my commitment to my choice
deepens with the passing years,
that doesn’t change the fact that socially, as a man, this material
is penned in my name, it will continue to exist and degrade
my name, announcing boldly and incessantly that i am scum and filth and have not the slightest potential to be otherwise.
Ugh, this thread was downright painful for me to read, but I’m going to give my opinion because it’s important that some of y’all hear this.
I get really frustrated at discussions about porn that take place on the internet between people with lots of spare time with which to engage in this sort of banter, extensive vocabularies which evidence extensive schooling, English skills, the ability to casually reference the companies they own, etc. I’m also willing to bet that people of color are vastly under-represented in this conversation, but I hate to assume.
I mean, you might as well limit the discussion of neoliberalism to CEOs of Fortune 500s. You might as well assess the merits of Coca-Cola as a company by interviewing their American office-workers exclusively.
As an actual former prostitute whose feelings about what I went through are consistent with those of the majority of former prostitutes in the world, I’d have to say that I AM DEEPLY INSULTED BY THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE PURPORTING TO BE INTERESTED IN MY LIBERATION COULD ACTUALLY HAVE A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER IT’S OKAY TO MASTURBATE TO OTHER HUMAN BEINGS HAVING SEX FOR MONEY. UNTIL MONEY IS NO LONGER NECESSARY TO LIVE, THE ANSWER IS NO.
Yes, I know, we all do things for money, and all work is inherently coercive. But being forced to allow somebody to jack off inside you is worse than being forced to sit in front of a computer screen all day.
It’s quite possible that this isn’t only related to feminism. I think that there are issues of class and race involved as well. Women who make money from porn and have no reason to suspect that they will ever be relegated to the bottom rungs of a vicious sex industry seem more prone to making apologies for the rapes that occur within. They also seem more able to get off to pictures of other people having sex under coerced conditions for which NOBODY CAN NEVER KNOW WHETHER REAL CONSENT EXISTS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT PRESENT.
I repeat, you cannot know whether or not a person whose sex life you are only viewing by camera has consented without off-camera coercion. The only way you could know consent is heartfelt is to watch them in person, no money involved. (And I’m not actually against that.)
I think that this literally a case in which some women have noticed that they are near the top of the status-ladder, even if they aren’t technically all the way up, and have decided to uphold all oppressions, even the ones that hurt them, in place in the hopes of maintaining a hierarchical system that gives them relative privilege. They’re willing to put up with the occasional rape (especially rapes which happen to other people) in order to maintain a social order which means that they will never go hungry.
“Women who make money from porn and have no reason to suspect that they will ever be relegated to the bottom rungs of a vicious sex industry seem more prone to making apologies for the rapes that occur within.”
That is such a very GOOD point.
Feminist porn is entirely possible. Just because the vast majority of porn available currently does not cater to many women, and exploits and demeans female porn actresses (and, by extention, females in general), does not mean that this must necessarily be the case.
Judging by the amount of positive feedback towards the idea on this thread alone, there appears to be a market for feminist or ‘female-friendly’ porn. Those who are anti the idea are perhaps being put off by the idea of porn as it is, rather than as it could be.
Lots of good stuff here but I have a quibble with a line in the original:
“Sex-positive” especially casts opponents as “sex-negative”, when it is more true to say that they are “sex-industry-negative” or even better “sex-exploitation-negative”.
The problem with this statement is that it implies that those of us who are sex-positive are also sex-industry-positive or sex-exploitation-positive. We’re not. Sex-positive means we think sex can and should be pleasurable for all involved–and that’s usually not the case in the sex industry. And even when it is, the dominant and ubiquitous tropes of mainstream porn (and media more generally) make it generally more difficult for women to have sex that is pleasurable for them. I think both the ‘anti-porn’ and the ’sex-positive’ folks can agree on this last point.
Sara, the problem is that the “sex-industry positive” folks have appropriated the term “sex-positive” for themselves so thoroughly that I don’t think it can be disentangled. Your attitude strikes me more as what second-wavers meant, and many feminists still mean, by “sexually liberated”.
As an intellectual I am sympathetic to all sides of the pornography debate.
From one pro-feminist view, I agree that Porn is often a conduit of oppression against women in the ways that it depicts and uses women, thereby leading often to both psychological abuse and physical violence against women.
But from a political and legal perspective, I disagree that banning pornography is a viable option. In this respect, I am strong supporter of first amendment rights.
Moreover, from a pro-sex feminist point of view, I can also appreciate the role of pornography as a positive force in sexual revolution and breaking down barriers.
Finally, however, I can also appreciate the arguments and concerns of Christian and religious people, e.g. that frequent porn use can lead to healthy addiction that destroys lives. And I take seriously the desire to escape from enslavement to porn. Of course, I also think that the arguments and concerns of the right are often overblown. E.g I am not convinced that pornography use is in itself wrong and sinful for all people across all time, but again, I can at least sympathize.
Having given some background of my own views on this matter, I am still left with unanswered existential questions.
How does one know when one’s own pornography use has become addictive or problematic? And how does one go about breaking this addiction? Is it necessary for such a person to give up one porn altogether? Or can one channel and modify their pornography use in healthy ways, e.g. using only porn that meets certain standards, only using porn so often, etc.? And more generally, What kinds of pornographic materials are healthy and which are not? E.g. how can a conscientious internet porn user weed out the good from the bad? What “should” a pro-feminist man look for in porn?
If what I read here is emblematic of feminists and their “allies”, then there will never be “peace” between feminists and the majority of the heterosexual male population.
I say this because the posters here fail to understand the basic biological fact that males have been programed by millions of years of evolution to desire and lust for the female body visually and physically. Males are always going to desire porn, whether they are the most stringent fundamentalist preachers (think Jimmy Swaggert), or the most ardent feminist ally (think Ted Kennedy).
No amount of raving and venting will change this fact. Personally I see two solid real world problems here.
1) The incomplete, psychologically damaged, or socially maladjusted male who forces himself on women and is rude and intimidating, or commits rape.
2) Feminist who project their own inhibitions universally on all women and won’t permit those who choose to flaunt their bodies the luxury of doing so.
You seem to be offering this up as a contrast to women. So are women never desiring or lusting visually or physically?
Also, LOL at characterising Ted Kennedy as an ardent feminist ally. He has supported *some* profeminist legislation. There are many more pro-feminist positions that he does not support at all. “Inconsistent” and “lukewarm” feminist ally are better descriptors.
As to your point (2), did you actually read the thread with all the feminists talking about the sort of porn that they DO enjoy? It’s not the nudity of flaunted bodies that feminists object to, it’s the subset of porn that treats women like shit while they happen to be naked. Happy naked people having sex – I don’t think anyone has a problem with that. Except all the men who only create/purchase porn that relies on sadism because apparently watching sex where women are truly enjoying themselves doesn’t turn them on.
In my attempt at brevity, I failled to elaborate.
No I am not contrasting males with females. It’s just obvious to me that too many feminists resent what is in fact normal male sexuality, especially porn which displays the female body very openly and very vividly.
I will never defend sadism where it is real, but what you see on the web is mostly role playing fantasy, or true flagellation with consent and remuneration. I have no use for these types myself.
I do however want to point out that the Sadism Porn are equal opportunity, and both males and females are subjected to it. I’ve seen videos with a male tied up and a Mastrex stepping on or kicking his balls.
I as a guy don’t necessarily agree with or enjoy all the material being put out there. Even tame vids of a guy shooting off into a woman’s face, or into her mouth (yuck) turn me off. Our disagreement is over whether feminists will determine what type of content is deemed permissible or not.
To make my point, a group of feminists recently protested PETA using nude women to advertise their anti fur message. Such nudity they argued was degrading to women. Go figure.
http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsF06f.htm
Makes you think they just want to keep us guys from seeing naked women.
Hi tigtog,
I have an issue with the term objectification, particularly as it relates to sex. Frankly and bluntly we are all sexual objects at some level or other whether we like it or not. Ask yourself how you define objectification and then objectively, explain what is so unnatural about that in the animal kingdom of which we humans are a part.
Just to let you know, I am fully familiar with BDSM, and to be honest I am far more repulsed by the self injury of hardcore BDSM-ers than the whip and chain spreadeagled f*ck machine sites. Of course I wouldn’t interfere with their self injurious masochism
Where I think I disagree with you most is that people should be able to debase themselves to whatever level or manner they wish. Feminist groups I’ve seen keep on insisting that PETA forced the nude models to be nude.
There was no force here. These women agreed to a contract which stipulated that the would become nude as directed by the terms of the contract for an agreed upon remuneration. This is not force. As far as I care/believe women and men should be able to display their bodies as they please within the confines of law. It IS Their Body after all. Isn’t this the same right feminists fought so hard for in the matter of abortion rights? I see no honest difference.
Finally the distinction between legal and ethical objections is immaterial to my argument, because either way someone is standing there telling you what you should be allowed to do. Feminists are still trying to tell people what they should do, and by their successful protests, they have interfered with the ability for people to do as they wish.
I’m glad you addressed the PETA point, tigtog, but if I may, I’d like to elaborate on what exactly many feminists found so offensive about the PETA campaigns.
For a start, feminists were not arguing that nudity is degrading, as stated. As tigtog has said, this is a common misconception. What feminists were protesting about was the use of female bodies in a way that objectified them and used them as a means to an end: the end being to promote a (worthy) cause about animal rights. Feminists protested about a campaign which seemed to suggest that in order for women to draw attention to a cause they needed to take their clothes off (rather than simply voice their opinions on the fur industry or the merits of a vegetarian lifestyle). The slap in the face for feminists was the irony of a campaign which sought to uphold animal rights whilst simultaneously demeaning women by portraying them (and their bodies) as expendable tools to be used for advertising.
It’s no coincidence that all of the women PETA use for their campaigns fit into the narrow mould of what is considered to be conventionally attractive: thin, pretty in a model-type way, and usually white. It’s also no coincidence that PETA doesn’t use men’s bodies in the same way. Thus there can be no argument that PETA uses plain old nudity meerly to gain attention. PETA capitalises on a certain type of nude image – that which portrays women and their bodies as nothing more than tools of sexual gratification.
However, what many feminists found even more objectionable than this standard, run-of-the-mill objectification of women’s bodies (seriously, if we complained about every instance of this in the media we would never get any sleep) is the sexualisation of violence against women that PETA used in their campaigns: naked women in cages in what can only be described as a ‘presenting’ or ‘doggy style’ positions; naked women wrapped in clear plasic with tortured expressions on their faces.
These are not ‘nudity is bad’ arguments. To say so is to present a strawfeminist argument, and to fail to consider these issues seriously.
You’re not the first to miss the distinction, toonjee, but consider this: feminists do not consider nudity per se degrading, but they do consider nudity used as a tool of objectification degrading. It’s the objectification that is the problem. PETA is a repeat offender in the objectification of women for their own purposes.
You are also failing to distinguish between safe and sane BDSM porn and repellently sadistic porn with no safety or sanity whatsoever. If you’re not aware of the difference, perhaps you should read a bit more about BDSM.
As to “whether feminists will determine what type of content is deemed permissible or not” – that’s mischaracterising the discussion. What type of pornographic content is ETHICAL or not is a very different matter from what type of pornographic content is legally permissible. While there is a vocal minority of anti-porn feminists who do want more legal control over porn, most feminists simply want people to discuss unethical porn more openly and consider ensuring that the porn they enjoy truly has been produced ethically. i.e. did the performers genuinely consent and was their safety properly taken care of while the film was produced?
Most feminists also certainly do want unethical porn producers shut down due to negligence and depraved indifference to the health and safety of their performers. It’s in the interests of the unethical porn industry to mischaracterise such ethical concerns as mere prudery about sex, but it simply isn’t that simple.