Sex In The Public Square - porn - Comments

Pleasure and Danger

Elizabeth — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 03:18:47 -0700

Iamcuriousblue wrote:

I will note, however, that there really was a feminist counter-narrative to it at the time it came out, its just that that kind of feminist and sex-poz critique was a great deal less mainstream than it is now. That kind of critique was coming from groups like SAMOIS, marginal sex magazines like Spectator, and from a few dissident feminists who were less than pleased with the whole cultural feminist/anti-sex turn in feminist ideology starting in the late 70s.

IACB, it is so important to be reminded of that. Thank you. There was also the 1982 Scholar and Feminist IX Conference, "Towards a Politics of Sexuality" (later just called the Barnard Conference) that produced the essays collected by Carole Vance in the amazing anthology Pleasure and Danger. The anthology contains essays by feminists like Dorothy Allison, Gayle Rubin, Cherrie Moraga, Joan Nestle, and Amber Hollibaugh and from many others.

Given the prolific writing by feminist sex work and sexual expression advocates I wonder if there is a way to pull the best of that writing together into a new anthology! We do so much publishing online - and consider that the Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy is now in its 8th edition - I wonder if we need to be pushing something into print. This might be a good moment for such a thing.

I was on a panel on Sex Work and Left Politics with Amber Hollibaugh, Audacia Ray, and Ignacio Rivera (moderated by Antonia Levy) at last April's Left Forum. Amber and Antonia, having been regulars at the Left Forum - were nervous about the reception we would get. In fact just about everybody who attended, and the room was full, was supportive of our message that sex worker rights were human rights. Is there space right now among folks on the Left to do some coalition building with libertarian-types and advance an agenda that is truly supportive of freedom for sexual expression? If so, we should be using all media at our disposal, including the 'old' ones, perhaps, to provide fuel.

Thanks for the good word,

Iamcuriousblue — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:25:01 -0700

Thanks for the good word, Elizabeth. I plan on concentrating my blogging activity more on posting on the Pro-Porn Activism blog, as well as my own blog , too (where I still post occasionally for topics that don't quite fit on BPPA). I'm scaling way back on my activity among the commentariat at feminst blogs (even sex-positive ones), becuase I just don't think its very productive and leads to a whole lot of strife and petty personal stuff that's a huge drain.

And you're right to point out this Virginia obsecenity prosecution, which is part of a much larger wave of obscenity prosecutions in the US, both federal and local. Its one of the main reasons I blog about this topic, because I don't think the anti-porn movement, including the left/feminist side of it, exists in isolation and I think their claims that they don't want a return to traditional obscenity laws are disingenuous. Its quite clear to me that if a lot of the lies these people are spreading about porn get wide currency, these kind of obscenity prosecutions are a natural outcome.

I have mixed feelings about organized gatherings to screenings of The Price of Pleasure. I think it is a good idea to be present to calmly and respectfully call the agenda of this film into question, but at the same time, I know how much anti-porn folks like to bait their oponents with really ugly personal attacks. Toward men, "this is what you jack off too and this is what it says about you, you scum" kind of rhetorc. Toward women, "you're no feminist and you're betraying women". One has to be prepared for that kind of stuff and have the presence of mind not to respond in kind, which is easier said than done. The fact that these kinds of discussions would be in-person rather than over the blogosphere would certainly have an inherently civilizing effect on discourse to some degree, but if the Feminist Sex Wars of the 80s are any guide, things can get pretty bad , even in real-world meetings.

I remember "Not a Love Story"

Iamcuriousblue — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:27:22 -0700

Yes, I totally remember Not a Love Story, which got an awful lot of press when it came out, about 1981-1982, and was touted by many as the definitive "progressive" line on porn. At the time it came out, I didn't get a chance to actually see it other than the movie trailer, but I remember it as having some word of mouth among my female friends, who would talk incredulously about the things they learned about porn-using men (who were, it was presumed, were a subculture of sexually deviant men, rather than typical guys they knew). This was right around the time I started viewing hardcore porn myself, so it was a rather strange message.

I will note, however, that there really was a feminist counter-narrative to it at the time it came out, its just that that kind of feminist and sex-poz critique was a great deal less mainstream than it is now. That kind of critique was coming from groups like SAMOIS, marginal sex magazines like Spectator, and from a few dissident feminists who were less than pleased with the whole cultural feminist/anti-sex turn in feminist ideology starting in the late 70s. In fact, I remember reading a critique of NaLS in Spectator around that time and it was one of the things that clued me into the fact that there were a lot of half-truths and downright lies espoused by this documentary and the emerging feminist anti-porn movement.

Not a Love Story made a big impression, but was soon buried by the larger Feminist Sex Wars that emerged over the next few years. NaLS has similar self-induced distribution problems to The Price of Pleasure – its producer, The National Film Board of Canada, only made video copies available at expensive academic pricing, a situation that remains true to this day, so unless you make a special field trip to the media center of an academic library or had it pushed on you in a women's studies class, you're unlikely to ever have seen it. (Not exactly the best way to get your point of view out there into the marketplace of ideas, but that's academic radicalism for you.)

However, I got a chance to see it when I was living in Seattle in the mid-90s – the Seattle Public Library happens to have a VHS copy among its circulating videos, so I was finally able to see what all of the fuss was about. One of the first things I was struck by was just how dated the rhetoric in NaLS was. Its a work that wears its cultural feminist perspective on its sleeve, and as a result would totally not work as propaganda today (it probably would have fallen flat any time after about the mid-80s, actually), and in places almost comes across like a parody of a feminist documentary. Its an artifact of late 70s/early 80s radical feminism, which was dominated by some very essentialist views about male and female sexuality and a purist orientation toward "womyn's culture" rather than corrupt male-dominated pop culture. Its a fascinating portrait of radical feminism at the time, and its very interesting to compare and contrast it to radical feminism today. Many things about radical feminism remain the same today, of course, but things like the idea of an innately gentle women/lesbian sexuality or the tendency toward separatism and celebration of rather traditional modes of "women's culture" have gone by the wayside in many cases, Womensspace being the notable exception. (The biggest change in radfem theory that I've noticed is that they've gone 180 degrees from a blatantly essentialist view of gender to beating everybody over the head with more-social-constructionist-than-thou rhetoric.)

The movie is also way too blunt in its rhetorical style, to put it mildly, even having one of its subjects literally stand on a soapbox in Times Square to denounce the evils of pornography. Another thing that stands out is the fact that the main subject of the film, Lindalee Tracy (who is portrayed as making a journey of conversion from sex worker to feminist), later wrote in her autobiography she felt very manipulated by the filmmakers and that NaLS was not an accurate depiction of her views on the subject. She had her own criticisms of hardcore pornography, but was far from anti-sex work. If this pattern of putting words in sex workers' mouths sounds more than a little familiar, it should, because performers as diverse as Linda Lovelace, Belladonna, and Sasha Grey have said much the same thing regarding their experiences with anti-porn feminists or mainstream media.

Bonnie Sherr Klein (who is Naomi Klein's mother, BTW), the director and main force behind NaLS, gives her perspective here and its pretty telling. To be blunt about it, a lot of her statements are pure BS, claiming that positive versus negative reviews were entirely split on gender lines, with men hating and women supporting it. (Actually, many women were among its most vocal critics.) She also implies that third party "radical feminists" gave her flack for putting words in Lindalee Tracy's mouth, when in fact Lindalee Tracy herself stated this in her autobiography.

There are some clips from Not a Love Story from the NFBC website here, here, and here, and very good critique of it here over at the Lucrezia Magazine site.

Speaking of old anti-porn docs, I remember another one, Rate It X, that came out about 5 years after NaLS, which got some showing on PBS at the time. It also managed to garner these clips and discussion on Siskel and Ebert. I think both movies kind of serve as a template for TPoP. NaLS in the sense of showing (often cherry-picked) porn images in order to "expose" porn, and RIX in its emphasis on pointed and confrontational interviews with porn industry people and fans, and with the fact that RIX also similarly veils (rather thinly) its real agenda around the pretense of fostering dialogue.

Remember "Not a Love Story"?

Chris — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:45:00 -0700

In the eighties and nineties, the big anti-porn agitprop film was Bonnie Klein's Not a Love Story. It was shown at film festivals, art houses, and universities, and was essential in defining the narrative about pornography. One very good critique written at the time summarizes the film:

NOT A LOVE STORY focuses on ex-stripper Linda Lee Tracey, Early in the film, we see Tracey performing her "Red Riding Hood" act, which she claims is not to be taken seriously. While Tracey has some reservations about stripping, she does not yet see pornography as harmful. NOT A LOVE STORY is essentially a description of Tracey's conversion. With Tracey and Klein, we journey through the world of pornography in all its forms: porn shops, sex booths, live sex shows, hard-core" magazines, photographs of women in bondage. We hear directly from the workers in the porn industry; social scientists such as Edward Donnerstein who discusses the connection between violent pornography and violence against women; an owner of a chain of pornographic magazines who describes the proliferation of hard-core pornography as a response to the women's movement; and U.S. and Canadian feminists who analyze the phenomenon of pornography.

Not a Love Story was one of the great media successes of the anti-porn movement, and it was years before an effective counter-narrative was established within feminism. I'm sure that the producers would love to reproduce that success. That's why it's important to start picking it apart now. We'll never convince Dines or Jensen, but there's a lot of people out there with little direct experience of porn who could easily be convinced either way, and I don't blame them. Frankly, if films like this were my main experience with porn, there's no way that I'd want to get anywhere near the stuff.

OK, here it

Iamcuriousblue — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:17:05 -0700

OK, here it is:

http://bppa.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-movies-about-porn.html

So timely!

Elizabeth — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:50:58 -0700

Chris, I'm so glad you posted this. And Iamcuriousblue, I read your post on the Blog for Pro Porn Activism and I'm glad you're out there writing. (I was also glad to see the comments there from Ernest Greene, Renegade Evolution and Anthony Kennerson).

I think this is incredibly timely given the news from Staunton VA about the conviction and continued prosecution of Rick Krial on obscenity charges for selling pornography to adults in his adult video store. There is much to say about that case, but for the moment let me just thank the two of you for putting the issue of "unbiased" analysis of porn out there. Certainly "The Price of Pleasure" is not unbiased, and I'm angered by they way they took clips of Ernest Greene and Joanna Angel out of context to slip into their framework.

Chris, I love your idea of organizing a group to attend the screening and ask questions - insistently yet respectfully - so that the bias is revealed and the discussion in the room can become more balanced.

It is important, when possible, to disrupt the ritualistic solidarity-building potential of these screenings by insisting on a more nuanced and less biased discussion.

9 to 5

Iamcuriousblue — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:26:19 -0700

"That’s a film I want to see. That’s a film that needs to be made."

You wished and it was so:

http://9to5-themovie.com/

Also, there are several reviews up about TPoP, and all of them confirm that its anything but "honest and nonjudgemental".

These two things are what I'm blogging about over on the Pro-Porn blog literally right now, so it will be up shortly. I'll post a link when I'm done.

What an interesting idea

CelticWarrior — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:22:56 -0700

Having spent my life in research, I found myself an observer. In the process of going blind (a field of study I had only the experience of the sighted to observe) very interesting. I am now inside the experiment and am the experiment as it were. I am the stable isotope looking out at me trying to make inferences about me from observations of me and sniggering at me for my vague conclusions (is that too much a Rumsfieldism?)

Let's suggest a work with aspects of general 'run of the mill' porn production, i.e. woman-man, woman-woman, woman-man-woman, man-woman-man, dominance (implied), fetish (impolied), oral, vaginal, anal... Gather overall impressions and specific impressions. The data can reduce in both a pure statistical nature and weighted by 'feelings' as a value.

I 'think', hali...

CelticWarrior — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:55:33 -0700

cogni ergo sum

I think you orbit around what I wonder. Your argument is good, and I think, correct. The hetero sex industry is an effect rahter than a cause. This is a patriarchal society. In the case of the dominant sex industry, I find art imitating life.

The focus on this society is one of male dominance. A place where women have been seen, and existed for the most part, as objects. The market is not focused on a female or non-patriachal audience. Thus, the object d' art is the female form in the perception of the target market. You will never sell a lot of cars designed to cross the atalntic because the market does not perceive a car as having theat function.

Still, I wonder. Is the form and function of pornography a function of the market? I wonder if there is an intrinsic difference between men and women based on some inate quality of maleness and femaleness in a Men are from Mars and Women are from Venuse sort of way, or is the difference based on social perception/training?

I wonder how male and female would develop in their attitudes about sex in the absence of conditioned response in upbringing? Is there a difference in pornography in a matriarchal society? Does pornography exists in a matriarchal society?

I hope you don't find this a nonresponsive post. In my career in research, I have discovered that any answer that does not ask more questions than the original question is the wrong answer.

Is it the way we raise our sons and daughters

CelticWarrior — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:19:11 -0700

Stop me if I'm off track, or just skip to the next comment. Pornography, in the public mind, seems to bring images of nude (or nearly so in the more restrictive mind) female bodies with any male body or part being an adjunct to the central image.

Does that come from the way we raise our sons and daughters? When little Johnny got out of diapers, he was put into jeans and a T-shirt and sent out to face the world. When little Suzy got out of diapers, she was put into a dress and frills, told how to sit and how to keep her skirt down, and led by the hand to be protected from the world.

Worse, when little Johnny needed new tennis shoes, he was sent out to mow the lawn and clean the garage to 'learn the value of money'. Conversely, when little Suzy came home depressed because litttle Sally just got new shoes, she climbed into daddy's lap and cuddled and whined her way into new shoes, a new skirt, a new blouse, and a new ribbon for her hair.

Little Johnny got bigger and got the keys to the car and a nod and a wink from dad when he introduced his new girlfriend. Immediately after, growing up little Suzy's boyfriend pulls up for his weekly lecture about what will happen to him if he so much as touches the Vestel Vrigin.

Now that Johnny and Suzy are no longer little, Johnny is looked at by all the Suzies like a dog. He is just a creature of instinct and available at the drop of a hanky. Somehow, little Suzy wins the game. How many men in a relationship have had to wait 'to get lucky', because Suzy has been trained to surpress her natural human desire and make its expression a treasure to be hoarded rather than an experience to be shared.

I might be off the mark when it comes to the question, but I don't think I am far off the mark. The sex industry is mostly female in nature because society, at least American society, wants to insulate itself from it the same way they insulate thenselves from everything else, with money. Culturally, American society is patriarchal, men control the money. The American society that is visable outside the closet is predominantly straight. Thus, the sex industry is predomimantly female.

A side bar: Ever wonder why this homophobic society is willing to pay more for proscribed sex/pornography such as woman/woman etc?

Just my nickles worth.

you are so right i have so

katy — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:43:04 -0700

you are so right i have so many friends who want fit guys in porn. i am from England and we are desperate for it. We go on the amateur sites to find the fit guys we like and we watch a lot of gay porn.

people always bring out porn for girls that loads of girls dont like like romantic or softcore stuff. Where is the hardcore for girls with the fit men? if someone did this they would make a killing because there is nothing in this market to cater for us!!

Money and Opportunity: Changing Times

Sylvie66 — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:38:17 -0700

This has been a really good discussion. I just watched a trio porn film, and even though I found it arousing, I also found myself counting how many times I could see the guys' faces! On top of that, the guys I like to look at irl, and fantasize about, just don't exist on hetero porn. What's on hetero porn are guys who look like my son. um, no. thanks.

Would I pay $3.95 a month to see glimpses of young guys going at a wide variety of women? No. Would I pay twice that to see real men, a wide variety of them, going at a single 'type' of woman? You bet! Lucky for me I have a vivid imagination and a gorgeous and willing partner.

The issue definitely comes down to money, and it's harder to make now than even 10 years ago. Now, you need fresh! new! younger! kinkier! every single day, or you'll go bust. It's supply-and-demand driving each other, only at such a pace that none of us can keep up! For women like me, who really get turned on by healthy and happy middle-aged men... well, we're in the minority, and not worth enough to cater to. Hopefully, that'll change right along with pace of technology.

Off to find my camera!

- Sylvie

I think these two quotes

barkingstar — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:58:39 -0700

I think these two quotes from Elizabeth put this topic into perspective: "But lets face it, many people don't want really imaginative sex. Some just want to reliably get off." And "I guess my bigger concern about the depiction of men in straight porn is that it makes sex look like a lot of work and not really a lot of fun."

So what are the connections between these two quotes? I can make my own observations, but I would be interested in seeing what connections others make. Really my original questions reflected as much (if not MORE) about me than about men in porn. Frankly, I don't think the porn industry really gives much of a shit about intellectual observations or considerations about the industry. It's basically down to MONEY. But I'll hold off my cynical rants for now.

Re: men and women in hetero porn

hali.liana — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:59:02 -0700

The observation I was trying to present was not implying, but centered around the question of women's sexual agency in porn. So yes, referring to "takers and taken" was meant to address the agency question. I want to underscore the fact that this observation is limited to the porn I have seen, which is by no means extensive, but which has impacted me strongly; moreover, in discussions with other women, the question of women's sexual agency in hetero-oriented porn has come up several times, and I have found many other female friends to have been left with the same sensation that something about the portrayal of sexual relationships in the porn they have seen feels negative, and it seems to come down to sexual agency.

Elizabeth, I am happy to hear that the porn you are most familiar with and/or taken by (no pun intended) does not fit this description so neatly, and would really like to check it out. Maybe what I've come into contact with is more mainstream, or just generally uglier, less-glossy stuff...but I've noted through group discussions and personal talks with friends that many people (women in particular, but men as well) are hurt by specific types of pornographic portrayals, but are willing and interested to talk about it. The hurt I'm referring to has to do with our society, and how pornographic portrayals of women and men's agency fit into our actual cultural practices - our characterizations in film and literature, our cultural treatment of heterosexual relationships, and of men versus women in general, et cetera.

I think I need to find some relevant reading on these topics, as I am not well-versed by extremely interested. (Any ideas, anyone?) I am also really interested in the variety of opinions, responses to these ideas, and discussions that might pop up over the Internet - hence my involvement in the forum :)

Also, I think your idea is awesome! I would love to have a discussion about a porn film. I think I'll gather some interested friends and get back to you? It's a great idea; maybe we can open a discussion page for it? So, who wants to pick the first film?

The First Rule about Porn Clubs

CodeMonkeyGirl — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:06:20 -0700

I'm actually only replying to a small part of the conversation, so I'll keep it short. I love the idea of a porn club. Maybe it's just because I'm interested in studying human sexuality and sexual culture, but it seems like you could learn a lot (both academically and personally) from these kinds of discussions.

It also makes me wonder if one reason porn is so notoriously bad is because nobody ever talks about it. If people were introduced to different ranges of porn perhaps they would know what to look/ask for rather than just accepting that all porn is bad and settling for what's easy to find. Passing up bad porn and searching out quality stuff = more demand for good porn = more supply.

Ok, done. I'm going to go look for a porn club now.