Sex In The Public Square - anti-porn - Comments

a subtext

CelticWarrior — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:23:01 -0700

In reference to my last post:

The next time I get Bushed, I hope there is some K-Y Jelly at hand...

Gotta have big pictures becaus no one reads anymore

CelticWarrior — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:13:58 -0700

They put their mixed messages up with big pictures because they assume no one reads anymore. I don't have a billboard to post because I can't see them anymore. But I can still have my computer read to me and still remember what I have read. I wonder if any of the ROCKbrains and their ilk ever consdered this:

A recent decision of the Supreme Court leaves to each community the right to decide what is pornography. Speaking for the majority of the Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger admitted that although no link has yet been found between the consumption of pornography and anti-social behavior, any community may assume that such a connection exists if it wants to -- in other words, an outraged community may burn a witch even though, properly speaking, witches do not exist.
The Court's decision has of course alarmed and confused the peddlers of smut, who claim, disingenuously, that guidelines are now lacking. They complain that the elders of Drake, North Dakota, may object to the word "damn" in a novel while the swingers of L.A. may want to read even worse words. Must the publisher, they ask, bring out two editions, one for permissive L.A. with the word "damn" and another for hightoned Drake with the word "darn"? Or settle the matter by publishing only for Drake?
This is a deep problem which I have solved. Wanting in every way to conform with the letter as well as the spirit of the Court's decision, I have carefully eliminated from this book those words that might cause distress to any one. Since books are nothing but words, a book is pornographic if it contains "bad" or "dirty" words. Eliminate those "bad" or "dirty" words and you have made' the work "clean."
In this novel I have replaced the missing bad words with some very good words indeed: the names of the justices who concurred in the Court's majority decision. Burger, Rehnquist, Powell, Whizzer White and Blackmun fill, ,as it were, the breach; their names replace the "bad" or "dirty" words. I have also appropriated the names of Father Morton Hill S. J. and Mr. Edward Keating, two well-known warriors in the battle against smut. I believe that these substitutions are not only socially edifying and redemptive but tend to revitalize a language gone stale and inexact from too much burgering around with meaning.

Gore Vidal, Myron (opening comment to the book)

Subtexts?

Elizabeth — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:56:17 -0700

I can't help but read into this a message that if you vote republican you too can terrify children and tear apart the fabric (social) that protects their communities!

Unfortunate juxtopositions

Elizabeth — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:52:01 -0700

At least one of the two I saw was across the highway from an adult bookstore sign, also. And you know, there is something about a billboard with a child gazing out at you with big doe-like eyes and XXX in enormous letters that also risks sending a mixed message when you zip past at 70mph.

LOL! Life imitates parody!

Iamcuriousblue — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:18:18 -0700

LOL! Life imitates parody!

Nothing new

Michael — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:37:00 -0700

Pittsburgh, PA 1949

http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/

I just saw that same

sunburntkamel — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:20:54 -0700

I just saw that same billboard last week. The interesting part is that they're putting these things up right in front of adult bookstores, which winds up being further advertising for said bookstores.

Re: Anti-sex?

Iamcuriousblue — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:41:51 -0800

I agree that pro-sex doesn't mean pro-exploitation. The part on pro-sex not meaning pro-degradation deserves some qualification, because what constiutes "degradation" can be pretty subjective. There are a lot of people who are all-too-willing to read consensual BDSM or rough sex (or any number of other sexual acts) as "degrading", even if the receiving party desires the "degrading" act in question.

I think that point 1 is a very important one – there needs to be ways to better insure that everything done in the production of porn is done consensually and that realistic standards of health and safety are met. The details of how exactly to implement this in a global industry where most of the models and actors are in it on a short term basis is the more difficult question. (I also think no matter what you do, there's always going to be an element that claims that there's no way anybody in their right mind could freely choose to do that.)

And point 2 is also an important one, espcially because the feminist branch of the anti-porn movement plays such a shifty game in this regard, claiming to be against censorship, yet supporting legislation that most certainly amounts to such, such as the Dworkin/MacKinnon Anti-Pornography Ordinance or the recent propose British anti-"extreme porn" legislation. An essay by Jensen that should get more publicity "Feminism and Free Expression: Silence and Voice" in the anthology "Freeing the First Amendment" in which he explicitly does come out for removing First Amendment protection from pornography and "hate speech" (which Jensen conflates). You are absolutely right to point out that Jensen blends the theraputic and the political, with the potential for some very harmful outcomes to sexuality, culture, and civil liberties.

Anti-sex?

John G. Spragge — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:55:57 -0800

You can't expect pro-sex feminists to accept hostility to women. Pro-sex doesn't mean pro-degradation. It doesn't mean pro-exploitation. Pro-sex doesn't mean you have to like Joe Francis, Seymour Butts, or the BangBus. I believe that it will take two things to answer Robert Jensen: 1) First, make sure actors on dirty movies want to work there. Yes, I know, the argument that pornographers kidnap women off the street and serially rape them to make movies has long and not very good history. Let's dispel it now. We have laws to make sure nobody under eighteen works in porn, and the industry can live with those laws; I suggest we find a way to make sure they all want to work there. The same thing goes for health and safety issues. 2) Make the issue about controlling what we think. Taking a position in opposition to pornography doesn't have to mean wanting to control what and how other people think, and what emotions they experience. But taking the positions Jensen does definitely does mean wanting to control other people's (other men's) thoughts and emotions. Ultimately, Jensen's arguments come from a perspective that blends the therapeutic with the political, that not only wants to prevent us from harming one another, the traditional role of government, but wants to make us happy and good. If you want a strong answer to Jensen, an argument based on freedom of thought probably works better than anything else.

RJ and Church

Chris — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:53:27 -0800

That Jensen joined a church doesn't surprise me in the least. One of the things that I kept on thinking while reading the book was how much he reminded me of certain religious figures who manage to be arrogant and self-righteous about how humbled they are before the might of God. You wouldn't think it would be possible to be arrogantly humble, but it's quite common. Similarly, Jensen spends a great deal of time confessing his own sins, telling us about how he's engaged in "rape-like" behaviors, flaunts his anguish about the misogyny of himself and other men, but in the end comes off as singularly self-righteous, the more so for all his self-condemnation.

I'm glad you liked the

Chris — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:45:42 -0800

I'm glad you liked the review, Blue. I've enjoyed your work for a long time.

This is a point well taken and one I agree with, and yet at the same time, I think that positing "queer", or "pansexual", or "feminist" porn as the sole examples "good porn" leaves the implication that everything else is unreservedly monolithic and bad. I don't think this does the porn world justice at all....

More broadly, to imply that porn that's made for straight men who are into conventionally attractive women as somehow inherently reactionary or beyond redemption is to largely write off the idea of transforming porn. Like it or not, men are still the majority of the porn audience, and demographically, the majority are largely heterosexual. That's who's buying the most porn, so its inevitable that that's who the majority of porn is going to be produced for. Writing off the idea of positive porn for this audience is myopic.

I wasn't trying to leave the impression that queer/feminist/etc porn = good and mainstream heterosexual porn = bad. My main purpose in writing that was, in fact, to point out the huge gray areas that do exist between not only the different subgenres of porn, but the diverse ranges of people who make and watch it. For over 150 pages, Jensen harps on this one sliver of the porn market and builds his argument that porn as a whole is corrupt based on the vision he sees there. I chose the examples I did specifically because they contrasted most starkly with Jensen's narrative in which porn is by definition about men dominating women. I was trying to portray the diversity that Jensen ignores in as concise a manner as possible and point out the innate dishonesty in pretending that the entire genre can be critiqued through the lens of such a tiny, tiny sample.

And yes, there's good stuff even in the mainstream. I myself love Belladonna, and particularly hold up The Fashionistas as an example of what really good porn could be. What's particularly appealing about Belladonna is that she has an enthusiasm that's absolutely contagious. She genuinely loves ass, and even though I'm not big on it myself, I can get off on her charisma and enthusiasm. She's very distinct from the porn stars who seem to be phoning it in.

What an excellent review! – addendum

Iamcuriousblue — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:22:18 -0800

Another point I forgot to respond to: "Jensen advocates repudiating "shame" (by his definition), but thinks that guilt should be encouraged in men to make them aware that they are committing wrong acts in using pornography or patronizing prostitutes, strippers, or other forms of sex work. Guilt, Jensen claims, will make men take responsibility for their attitudes towards women. This is Jensen's worst idea in a litany of bad ideas."

I really like that you emphasize the corrosive and counter-productive effects of guilt, because there's a big part of the political left that seems to be hooked into the idea that more guilt and self-denial is what is needed to tackle all manner of social problems. I think its this "hairshirt" streak of the left that goes a long way towards marginalizing progressive ideas.

I think this gets to the root of where Jensen is coming from, too – the fact that he's all about guilt is pretty apparent in his writings on race and on capitalism, as well. Most notably, he made a big to-do last year about his decision to join a church, in spite of his professed atheism. I don't think its any coincidence that the church he joined is a Calvinist one. Similarly, Hugo Schwyzer is also a socially conservative Christian (albeit, an Episcopalian), and John Stoltenberg holds a Masters of Divinity from Union Theological Seminary. This religious streak among male radical feminists really calls into question the idea that they're coming from an perspective that's fundamentally different from anti-porn activists from the religious right.

What an excellent review!

Iamcuriousblue — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:51:36 -0800

What an excellent review! (I'll have to link to it over on BPPA if somebody else hasn't already.) It really hits the nail on the head about exactly what's wrong with Jensen's line of argument. Its also something that I've argued about porn for a long time now – porn is a genre or even an artistic medium. Condemning all porn across the board is like condemning all westerns or all musicals or even all movies because you don't happen to like a popular subset of them. In fact, it smacks more than a bit of religious sects that condemn visual art as a whole as "sensual" or "idolatry". Some thoughts on particular points you've made –

"It’s not immediately obvious, but Robert Jensen and I have a lot in common. We both grew up as scrawny, physically inept boys with no aptitude for athletics. We were the kind of boys who were by default identified as “faggots” by our peers and, at least in my case, sometimes by teachers. On the playground and the streets, our status as “sensitive” boys made us easy targets for insults and physical abuse."

I've so been there! And yet, I strongly reject the whole "sensitive politically correct guy" role that writers like Jensen, John Stoltenberg, and Hugo Schwyzer are trying to shove down our throat. At best, it divests you of your personal power and makes you into a doormat and totally ineffective in the world. At worst, it turns you into a passive-aggressive asshole that serves as nothing more than an annoyance and dead weight on the very people you're trying to ally with.

"Corporate porn might be the elephant in the room, but it's not the whole story, not by half. As porn has become more acceptable, the voices and forms that are available have also become more diverse. Writing about corporate gonzo porn gives us little basis for insight into magazines like On Our Backs or its descendants; slash fiction (written largely by heterosexual women); sex blogs; alt-porn sites like ThatStrangeGirl (now defunct, but certainly influential) and I Shot Myself; or independent, sex-positive porn producers like Maria Beatty or Audacia Ray. You can praise or damn any of these subgenres as you will, but the fact remains that if you're going to do so, you have to look at them for what they are, not what you expect them to be based on what you've seen in a Slutbus or Seymour Butts production."

This is a point well taken and one I agree with, and yet at the same time, I think that positing "queer", or "pansexual", or "feminist" porn as the sole examples "good porn" leaves the implication that everything else is unreservedly monolithic and bad. I don't think this does the porn world justice at all. To my mind, the grey area between I Shot Myself and Bang Bus is huge. Porn, even "mainstream porn" is extremely diverse and full of both positive and negative messages about sexuality, often in the same package. (Kind of like most people, huh?) Where does one put alt porn that's still very much part of the commercial porn world, like Eon McKai or Joanna Angel's work? What about the extreme, but nonetheless very sex-positive gonzo videos of Belladonna? Or non-degrading high-production glamour porn like Viv Thomas' work? I don't think this stuff should be written off just because its too close to the "mainstream". (In fact, it seems to me like the "mainstream" vs "non-mainstream" porn dichotomy has simply become a rehash of the tired old "porn vs erotica" warhorse radical feminists occasionally still trot out.)

More broadly, to imply that porn that's made for straight men who are into conventionally attractive women as somehow inherently reactionary or beyond redemption is to largely write off the idea of transforming porn. Like it or not, men are still the majority of the porn audience, and demographically, the majority are largely heterosexual. That's who's buying the most porn, so its inevitable that that's who the majority of porn is going to be produced for. Writing off the idea of positive porn for this audience is myopic.

"I'm a little dismayed though, at how much credibility sites like Feministe and Alternet have been giving Jensen, although Feministing has an interesting review by Courtney Martin, which, while I don't wholly agree with, I can at least respect it."

I was really disappointed by that review – it was basically in agreement with most of Jensen's points, even if Martin thought the "elimination of masculinity" idea went to far. Most of the feminist "big blogs" – Feministe, Feministing, Pandagon, and Alternet – have been quite positive (even gushing) in their reviews. Feministing surprised me, since I thought it leaned more-or-less sex-positive. Similarly, the majority of mainstream feminist writers were highly uncritical of Melissa Farley's anti-prostitution PR campaign a few months back and quite a few came out for a Swedish-style "bust the johns" criminalization. I guess feminism is going through a puritanical phase again, like it did during the late 70s through the 1980s – hopefully this too will pass.

Quoting grendelkhan:The

Anthony Kennerson — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:03:10 -0800

Quoting grendelkhan:

The anti-porn folk argue that the pro-porn folk aren't really feminist, because they're just acting as patsies, giving feminist cover to the patriarchal horrorshow whose perpetrators couldn't care less about those high-minded principles, and that they're the true vanguard of liberation.
The pro-porn folk argue that the anti-porn folk aren't really feminist, because they're just reiterating musty old anti-sex attitudes that were previously used to keep women enslaved, and that they're the true vanguard of liberation.
Someone more motivated than I should make one of those bingo charts.

Sorry, friend, but you seem to have it all wrong.

None of us on the "pro-porn" side has ever even hinted that we are the "true vangard of liberation"; not even that those who support Jensen's view are neccessarily "anti-feminist".

What we DO say is that Jensen, in his attempt to reduce all male sexual desire and intent to its worst common demominator and offer his brand of "feminism" as the cure all for the impacts of "masculinity", is doing more to hurt legitimate progressive causes than any of the porn he supposedly criticizes.

You have your perogative to a "pox on both your houses" belief...but do try to catch some accuracy first.

Anthony

Oy, vey.

Chris — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:49:28 -0800

That's what happens when I try to write these things late at night. Thanks for the correction.