Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Why This Blog & What is the Anti Porn Movement?

It’s true, I rant on often enough about the anti-porn movement in my other blog, but recent events have caused me to decide that the subject of the anti-porn movement deserves an entire blog of it’s own…one not dedicated to supporting it, but rather pointing out where it has gone very, very wrong, the tactics it employs to get its message across, and where often times, various groups who make up the anti-porn movement are strange bedfellows indeed. I will also state why I think the movement, if successful, will do more harm than good.

So then, let’s begin!

What is the Anti-Pornography Movement?

Simply put, it is a group of people whom, for various reasons, oppose the production, sale, consumption and use of porn, as well as other sex related businesses, including stripping, prostitution, sex shops and in some occasions, sex clubs. Anti-porn advocates come in a wide variety: male, female, various ages, colors, and economic situations, so on, so forth. The majority of anti-porners object to porn and other sexually related businesses for three main reasons:

One- Humanitarian Concerns: porn and other sexually related businesses are dehumanizing and reduce acts of sexuality to empty, emotionless, unrealistic performance, they may also contribute to the spread of STI’s & STD’s.

Two- Feminist Concerns: porn and other sexually related businesses are demeaning, abusive, exploitive and objectify women, contribute to unrealistic beauty standards for women, do not depict any real sort of female sexuality, and contribute to hatred and violence against women.

Three- Moral Concerns: Porn and other sexually related businesses are immoral, “sinful”, and contribute to things such promiscuity, infidelity, lying, disrespect, and a proliferation of casual sex.

Now, this is all fine and good. Here in the United States people can oppose whatever they want, and that includes porn and other sexually related businesses and activities, so long as they do so legally. However, I’ve found that while in opposing something the anti-porners find unethical and immoral, they often resort to some pretty unethical, immoral, and yes, downright illegal tactics themselves…and often make some dangerous moves and make actions which are detrimental to the very people they claim to be trying to help. Not to mention, they operate using a huge amount of assumptions…

Assumptions: There is a fair amount of generalized assumption that happens within the anti-porn movement, the first being that the Sex Industry and Other Sexually related businesses/practices can be treated as a Monolith, and that is just not true. There is a huge difference between consenting people engaging in BDSM at home or in a BDSM club, consensually made BDSM porn, and the forced torture and rape of a human being. There is a huge difference between a 13-year-old forced into prostitution and an adult willingly engaging in the same act. There is a huge difference between a gang rape and a willingly made gangbang porn flick. There is a huge difference between a person forced into any sort of sex work or sexual activity and a person who chooses to do that work willingly…and that is often forgotten. There is also a huge amount of assumption about the people involved in any and all forms of porn and sex work, and the people who consume the goods produced by pornographers and sex workers. In short, stereotypes are rampant.

Stereotypes:

The anti-porn movement often mischaracterizes people who buy and use porn, or attend strip clubs, or partake of any other sort of sexual service. There are stereotypes everywhere: They are all perverts. They are all misogynists. They are all male. They have no respect for women. They are immoral. They are- if married- cheating, lying, and spending time & money better spent on & with the family on their dirty little thrill. They are addicts. They are more likely to abuse women and children. In short, they are flawed…horribly, horribly flawed. This stereotype is often overused, and often, very, very wrong.

People (particularly women) who perform in the Sex Biz, from stripping to hooking to porn to professional BDSM are also flawed…horribly, horribly flawed. They are uneducated. They were abused. They have no self-esteem. They have no other choice. They are drug addicts. The cannot, due to whatever reason, render a clearly made choice of their own free will to participate in the sex industry. They are, in short, victims. This stereotype is often overused, and often, very, very wrong.

No one, not even me, denies that in some cases these stereotypes are true, but to slap these labels on every single consumer of porn or other sex-related businesses and every single participant in porn or other sex-related businesses is not only insulting, it is damaging, leads to labeling, false characterization, and the denying of a persons sense of agency and autonomy…which helps no one.

Tactics:

There are many methods the APM uses to get its message across. They blog, they have websites, they hold conferences, they hold events to raise awareness, they write letters, they picket, they make newsletters, they speak at feminist events and church events and on college campuses. This is all fine and good, and legal. Free speech, after all, I am a big fan. However, they also engage in other tactics, some of which, while legal, do boarder on unethical, are based heavily on assumption, and employ the very same tactics they are supposedly fighting against…and some which are downright illegal- a few of which I’d like to highlight here…

Picketing and protesting are one thing, but when APM advocates resort to the destruction of peoples property, physical aggression, harassment and foster a total disregard for peoples privacy, they have stepped over the line…they are also not really hurting the sex industry as a whole, they are hurting the business owners, those who patronize their stores and clubs, and those who work in them. Shutting down the local nudie bar or sex shop is not even a flick to the ear of the sex industry, but it sure as hell hurts the dancers or cashiers earning a living by working there. So who is it you are trying to help, again? Are you sure they appreciate it? Guess again.

Also, I’ve noted a growing trend in the APM to use the words, images, and works of women in porn without their consent, out of context, with no payment, and without bothering in the least to find out how these women feel about their words and images being used in this manner. Yes, such behavior is allowed by fair use and other such things, but I find it wholly ironic that people claiming they care about women and their consent basically ignore women’s opinions and consent when it comes to, ahem, their cause. For instance, at the Wheelock College Anti Porn conference, a slide show depicting pornographic images was shown. When asked, it was admitted that the women (and men) whose images were shown had been asked if they had consented to this use of their images, it was shown they were not...

"In what follows, the women’s faces are not blurred and are often recognizable. We cannot know how these women would feel about having their images used in this presentation. We have made the difficult decision to show them, because the women’s facial expressions are crucial to understanding these images. We ask you to recognize with us the moral complexity of this decision, keeping in mind that these women are human beings with dignity."
- Statement at the begining of the slide show

In short, no effort was made to ask these porn performers how they felt about their industry, or how they felt having their images used as part of an anti porn event. Consent? What’s that? I’ve had my own run in with this sort of thing with the owners of the NoPornNorthHampton site…here, I will share with the class:

Upon finding out that an entry I made on my blog had been linked by NPNH, I wrote them them an email. This is what transpired:

"In your "Strip Poker Men's Club: Women's Lib to Blame for Men's Going to Strip Clubs" entry on your blog, you linked to my entry on my blog about stripping, porn and empowerment. Which is fine, I believe in free speech, the entry is public, yet I do remind you that I am pro-pornography, involved in the sex industry, and while under no real obligation to ask to link to a post on my blog, which includes a somewhat pornographic photo of me on it, would it have killed you to ask me first? I have a deep dislike of anti-porn advocates using the words of pro-porn advocates, and their images, without their permission, consent, or knowledge. You fight exploitation of unconsenting women? Great way to demonstrate that, really. I did not in any way consent to being part of your anti-porn agenda, in fact, people like you directly threaten the way I, of my own choice, make my living. Now, you can do what is actually the right thing...perhaps mention that I did not consent to that, point out in that entry that I am pro-porn, and ask in the future if you are going to continue to use/link to the words and images of pro-porn women in your blogging, or you can choose to due what better suits your agenda with no thought to what the women whom you are linking to think about what you are doing, and I will continue to call you on it and disagree with you about it, vocally and publicly. And why yes, you can make this comment public, because I certainly will, along with any response to it. You don't care about how I feel about my industry, or being used for your arguments? Very well then, I will show you a bit more consideration by at least identifying publicly that you are antiporn, and letting you know that if I receive any response to this, I will be making it public...which is more than I can say for you at this point.

Good Day-
Renegade Evolution
Sex Worker"

Dear Renegade Evolution,

Thanks for writing. I believe we are wholly within standard blog practice to link to public information without requesting prior approval. On rare occasions we will ask permission, or people will ask us for permission to link to us, but this is the exception. We do respect the law regarding Fair Use, but that does not require prior permission for linking or excerpting. I believe that such a requirement would unreasonably bog down and impoverish debates.

Just because you are a woman does not mean that everything you do serves the interests of women as a group, that you are immune from criticism, or that you should enjoy special privileges in debates that men don’t.I fail to see how identifying you as “pro-porn” changes anything about how the following paragraph will be read and understood by most people:

"Those who think the sex industry celebrates women's
choices and empowerment should consider the attitudes of many of the participants. Even if stripping makes some women feel personally empowered, they need to consider how they are part of a machine that disempowers women generally. The effects of adult entertainment don't stop at the strip club door or the end of the porn shoot."

Your feelings do matter to me. However, so do those of battered wives, molested children, strippers who experience harassment, and blighted neighborhoods.

Sincerely,
Adam Cohen


Adam:

That is all fine and good, and frankly, I am not surprised by your response in the least. It is fairly typical of those in anti-porn circles...that being a total disregard for the women they speak of, use the images of, and the consent or feelings of those women. Yes, it is fair use, but that does not make it right. I am against anything I say being used for an antipornography argument. You know that. Yes, via fair use you can link to my post, I cannot nor will not demand that you remove that link, because as I said, I do believe in free speech, However, I do not support you, or your movement, and I will continue to find it wholly ironic and hypocritical that movements, such as yours, which claim to want to protect women from exploitation and worry about their consent will, and do, exploit women for your own reasons without their consent.

-RE

They were then kind enough to dedicate a whole post to me...

So you see, this shows me first hand something that I, as, oh, a stripper and porn gal- as well as a porn consumer and pro-porn advocate- already expected: That many people in the APM are all too willing to disregard the feelings, consent, and opinions of women working in the sex business when it suits their needs. Which really does floor me, as they are all so supposedly concerned with the consent and feelings of the women working in the sex business. Consider that the next time an antiporn advocate asks you to empathize and think about what the women in the sex industry think about their jobs and how they feel doing them…

Anti-Porn advocates such as Robert Jensen also will tell you that porn, and the sex found in porn, is inherently degrading to women. And true enough; there is porn out there that is degrading to women. However, his general statement is flawed. To claim that anal sex, for instance, is inherently degrading to women, Jensen assumes he (a man), who claims primarily to speak to men, can determine what acts, in and out of porn, are inherently degrading to women. Which, I’d say, as a man, he is not qualified to do. He may find anal sex, or anal sex as it is shown in porn to be degrading, may assume the men doing it attempt to make it degrading, but he cannot say, beyond doubt, that it is degrading to women. He, like others, also makes the mistake of ignoring women, in and out of porn, when they say they feel otherwise. You will also find in blogging instances when subjects like this come up, those of the APM are quick to silence dissident opinions.

In fact, you will find in the realm of blogging in general, APM advocates, whether they say it or not, are all too ready and happy to block out, gang up on, or otherwise shun and discredit people who disagree with them or question their tactics and motives, even if they do have very valid points.

Members of the APM are also big on changing the subject. Because they view the sex industry as a monolith, it is very hard to actually discuss it as anything but with them. For instance, a conversation solely intended to be about a single issue or subject within the sex industry will almost always be diverted to a debate on another aspect of the sex industry and bent to serve their agenda. Often times in these debates, the voices of the actual sex workers participating are ignored, because they are not singing the appropriate anti-porn tune. In fact, in their defense of and desire to protect and help women involved in the sex industry, anti-porn advocates will often demonize, insult, stereotype and utterly disregard those very women. Ah, with the irony again…

Strange Bedfellows:

Within the AMP, you will find some groups of people who, on all things aside from porn and other sexually based industries, agree on nothing else. Take for instance, feminists and the religious right. Aside from being anti porn, what do these groups have in common? Very little, that’s what. Feminists are known to support the rights of lesbians, be pro-choice, pro-women in the work place, anti-war, pro-religious freedom and tolerance, and well…feminists. The religious right? Well, they tend to be against homosexuality, pro-life, pro-traditional family and traditional gender roles, pro-government, and Christian. In fact, on many APM sites, you will find the religious right and feminist theory right next to each other, and if you look, you can see other than porn, often times these factions are diametrically opposed. I find this alliance odd…for other than this one issue; these camps are generally at one another’s throats.

Oh, and another reason to oppose the APM…

And what happens, dear readers, if the APM succeeds in their overall goal? What if porn and other forms of sex work, strip bars, and sex shops were made illegal? Do they really think that would stop prostitution, stripping, and porn from happening? The answer to that should be no. Because it wouldn’t. The sex business would continue on, it would just do so with less regulation in place. In short, the whole thing would be pushed underground into an illegal, unregulated black-market sort of atmosphere. And let me tell you a bit about regulation…

Contrary to popular belief, this is already happening. Certain aspects of the legal sex industry are already being heavily regulated AND self-regulating in order to avoid obscenity charges- in the case of porn- and uphold civic decency standards- in the case of strip/sex clubs and sex shops- via zoning laws.

There is the assertion that over the years mainstream porn produced in the United States (primarily coming out of CA) has become incredibly raunchy, misogynistic, and violent. It is true that you can see things in porn these days, especially that of the gonzo variety, that you would not have seen 15 years ago. However, you will not see things now that you saw five years ago…because regulations (both enforced by law and self imposed by the industry) have come into play. Under Clinton, pornography ‘flourished’, under Bush, it has in fact become more reserved.

True, you will still see a lot of crazy stuff in porn being produced today, especially gonzo- which, contrary to what a lot of AP advocates want you to believe, is not the only kind of porn out there- things from bukkake to swirlies- yes, you can find all of that pretty easily in today’s porn.

Things you will no longer see that you could have found oh, seven-eight years ago in legal porn? Truly violent sex acts (that left bruises), porn in which the participants are crying, realistic rape scenes, and other such things. You won’t find that as often now, not in the video stores and even less on the net, because the law and the industry is regulating itself. Yes, the anti porn advocates can show you and tell you about some horrific stuff, but, when was it made? How recent is it? Is that “line” of films or sites still putting out new content? Often the answer is no. The industry is still under fire for what is filmed now, new regulations are proposed often, and made into law or not, often times the industry takes them as guidelines and self regulates. Porn is, in fact, becoming tamer than it was in the last decade or so.

Extreme content is still available, most readily on the internet or in films made overseas where regulation is more lax (Germany is notorious for their rough content porn), but in the US it is becoming tamer. A good example of this is the work of Khan Tusion (often sited by the APM), who came under serious fire for his films “Rough Sex” & "Rough Sex II" and his website “Meatholes”. "Rough Sex" has been pulled from the market and Tusion stopped all future work on a similarly themed films, and while the Meatholes web site is still on line, there have been no new scenes filmed for it in years and those which drew the most fire have been removed. Tusion still makes pornography, but it is far tamer than his previous work, and the trends in his work are indicative of the trends in rough porn, gonzo, and the industry over all. Yes there is still rough and degrading porn out there, but not nearly as much as there was a few years ago because the industry is regulating itself.

And yes, I hear you ask, how is this a BAD thing? Why not KEEP regulating and beating back this ‘filth’? Why not make it illegal?

Well, because people will still make it…they will just do it illegally, where there is absolutely no effort to keep track of things like the participants ages, contracts, consent forms, records of payment and health records. You can argue with the content of big time American or a lot of internet porn on moral or feminist grounds as long as you like, you have that right, but there are regulations; legal, needed ones (such as proof of age and consent contracts and health records) in this branch of the industry. They are needed, they are there, and they are enforced. However the more the content is regulated, the more people will go looking for it elsewhere, and they will find it elsewhere, whether it is made legally or not.

The demand for sex, flesh, and visual depictions there of is as old as time itself. It’s called the world’s oldest profession for a reason. It’s not going anywhere. Look at what happens when ‘vices’ are outlawed or heavily regulated: Prohibition? That worked. The War on Drugs? A smashing success, really. A war on Porn? It won’t be anymore winnable, and it will just make things more violent and less regulated, as was the case with booze and drugs. ‘Rape porn’, like it or not, will be made, but if it is going to be made, which it will, it makes more sense that the legal branch of the industry make it, where if demanded (by anyone) the company who made it has to provide proof of age and consent on part of the participants rather than just hope that a film made in Southeast Asia depicting the same thing was made with those same regulations in place.

If people cannot buy sex legally, they will do so illegally. Making prostitution illegal has not stopped the business. If people want to view porn, even the really violent kind, they will still do so. It will still be made, illegal or not.

If porn is made illegal, or if the content is heavily regulated, well, the films will still find their way to the people who want them, and the possibility for abuse of the women involved increases dramatically. Same goes for strip clubs and agencies…you crack down too hard, it won’t stop people from doing it or buying; it will only make it more dangerous.

I believe this to be true for a few reasons, know it to be true, in fact. How is that, you might ask? There is a demand for porn, there is a demand for rough porn. The gross annual income of the porn biz is proof of that on it’s own. There is far less regulation in Europe as far as content is concerned, but the Europeans also tend to use contracts and proof of age, but are also coming under fire. Most pro, legal porn is made in the US, but the US, Canada & Australia have cracked down, so those with a desire to make extreme content have started filming legally (and with age/consent regulation) in Europe (Germany and the Czech Republic are popular) and Japan, but Europe & Japan are cracking down…where to go next then? The demand will still be there…India, Thailand, Cambodia, South Africa? Places where the forced sexual labor of children, sexual slavery and sexually transmitted diseases are rampant? Where there is no such thing as enforced regulation? Does this sound like a good plan to anyone? The demand will still be there… Max Hardcore cannot legally film nor sell a great many of his films in stores here in the US, so he films them and sells them out of Europe, and on the net. Guess what sells better? The less extreme edited, American verions of his films or the unregulated content found in the European versions? Yep, you guessed it. The demand is there, and people will pay more for that European version. There is a demand. It will be fulfilled- regulated and legal or not, so do you really want the illegal stuff to be the only game in town?

So yes, I ask you to consider all these things when looking at the anti-porn movement, and who I am I to ask?

...Well, no one really, just a woman who has been involved in this business for more than a few years now, a woman who watches porn, and a woman who is saying flat out these people do not speak for me or represent my interests or concern as a woman at all.

25 comments:

  1. It's. About. Damn. Time.

    Sign me the fuck up, Cap'n Henchwoman.


    :-)

    Anthony
    The SmackDog Chronicles Blog

    ReplyDelete
  2. great job - but maybe reconsider the green font.

    ReplyDelete
  3. yah, the green and blue are bothering me....on it

    ReplyDelete
  4. The black on red is still a bit of a challenge, readingwise. On the other hand, its just so eeevillll.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think one thing that's shared quite strongly between the feminist and religious anti-porn movements is a strong sense of moral panic, often over many of the same issues. This was most abundantly illustrated in the late 80s/early 90s "Satanic Panic", when many radical feminists got behind it, and no less a publication than Ms. published a cover story, "Belive It: Child Ritual Abuse Exists". (I'm off to the library in the next few days to scan a copy to put online – this forgotten bit of history needs to be aired.)

    So I think there is a lot of underlying similarities and points of convergence between the reactionary religious right and reactionary feminism. They inhabit the same moral universe in many ways. Its just that the good guys and bad guys and overall plot end up reversed in their respective cases – the religious right sees it as woman and gays threatening the status quo using sex, while radfems see it as men and straights upholding the status quo using sex. And very often, there seems to be a lot of convergence, even when it comes to "enemies". Neither the fundies or the femmies seem to like gay men or unattached straight men very much – they always seem to be treated as a potential danger just by existing. Young, single women are largely looked on as victims or potential victims, or in some cases enablers. "Perverts", however this gets defined, are enemies by definition.

    The fact that there are so many similarities and so much dovetailing from one ideology to another ought to give anybody who's serious about feminism some pause, even if they don't happen to like porn very much. It should, but it often doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The black on red is still a bit of a challenge, readingwise. On the other hand, its just so eeevillll.

    Yep!

    I've started resigning myself to hard-to-read blogger blogs, at least; i can always go to the comments and click "show original post."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, man... that Robert Jenson entry made me really fucking angry.

    This is well written post, Ren.

    ReplyDelete
  8. hexy- thanks...you can find more fisking of Robert Jensen over at my main blog, just look for the tag male feminists...

    ReplyDelete
  9. btw, to that list of three you might add "socialist/labor concerns:" exploitation, lack of regulation, commodification, etc. etc.

    oh, and anti-racism, possibly as a subset of feminist concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  10. btw, you know, i'd love to have someone talk about the gay male porn industry, as well as other "sub" genres.

    ReplyDelete
  11. OKay, how did I miss this blog??

    ReplyDelete
  12. And....

    1) can I post sometimes? pretty please? (feel like an asshole for asking, for some reason)

    2) can the red background die? 'cause it's killing my eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Europe (Germany and the Czech Republic are popular) and Japan, but Europe & Japan are cracking down…where to go next then? The demand will still be there…India, Thailand, Cambodia, South Africa?"

    Personally, I don't see Hungary, the Czech Repulic, or Japan cracking down on the porn industries in those countries. All three of those countries are pretty tolerant about sex in a way that Anglo-American culture isn't, plus, the sex industry there is now huge, actually approaching the size of the American sex industry. Then again, there is a lot of pressure by the US on Hungary, the Czech Republic, and other East European countries to crack down on the sex industry, which the US refuses to separate from the trafficking issue.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes, about time indeed!

    For a while now I've maintained a Google alert for "Robert Jensen" + "readings" so I can take some sort of action to expose his hypocrisy next time he's in my neighborhood.

    As a kinky, sub-leaning male, I'm most affected by the fact that his discourse denies my existence. By insisting he knows what people can consent to, he silences and "invisibilizes" us kinksters as well as sex workers.

    Though he may not be as aggressive about it, unfortunately Noam Chomsky falls into this category too, given his response to learning about Hustler's content after giving them an interview. When I emailed him about this, he responded that in his view it was unquestionably degrading to women. Inasmuch as the images accompanying the interview had a spanking theme, which happens to be my biggest fetish, I take particular umbrage, and doubtless will focus on that point when he comes around.

    I'll also post announcements of such appearances on my blog as I learn of them, as well as on kink-related lists I'm subscribed to.

    On the resemblences between antiporn "radical" (really cultural) feminism and the religious right, it's struck me that you could probably take many APF tracts and simply substitute "Satan" for "Patriarchy" to get an RR tract in the tradition of the Puritans.

    Eric Hamell
    Gondwanaland -- http://stripey7.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  15. Following up on what I previously wrote re: Noam Chomsky, I've exchanged some email with him.
    Could someone here direct me to a good resource on the history of the feminist porn wars, with particular emphasis on the censorious role the Dworkinites have played? Copied below is some of the exchange.

    Eric

    Dr. Chomsky,

    I apologize for the delay in responding. I haven't had home internet access for a while, so it's been difficult to keep up with email.

    I appreciate your acknowledgment that your statement was one of personal opinion only. The problem is -- even if you think that's "understood" -- it actually isn't understood by a lot of people. Specifically, those in the camp of Catherine MacKinnon, the late Andrea Dworkin, etc. actually mean something quite empirical (albeit not empirically supported) by it, and they've used your repudiation of the interview as evidence that you agree with their claims. In effect, they're misrepresenting your opinion, by claiming you believe certain (empirically testable) things that you're not actually asserting. Again, I'm concerned about the destructive role their dogma has played on the Left, not only in wrecking specific opportunities as I described previously, but also in obstructing open, critical thought in a major area of discourse. (And if you look into some of the intimidation and censorship tactics they've employed, you'll see what I mean.)

    I don't expect you to take my word on this. I'll try to find a good summary on the history of the matter and then send it to you.

    Eric Hamell

    Noam Chomsky wrote:
    It is understood that statements of the kind you cite are expressions of personal opinion. Otherwise, they would be supported by documentation, etc. There is no reason that I can see to issue as statement expressing the obvious.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Eric Hamell
    To: Noam Chomsky
    Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 3:13 PM
    Subject: Re: Hustler (haven't read your last messages yet)


    Dear Dr. Chomsky,

    I apologize if my initial tone was disconcertingly blunt. Here's how I see the matter:

    You made the statement that the images in Hustler are degrading to women. Perhaps you simply intended this as a personal value judgment. If you had said, "Hustler's depictions of women offend me," that's what it would have unambiguously been. Unfortunately, that's not how you expressed yourself. Instead of plainly stating a personal stance toward Hustler, you made a statement about Hustler's (putative) stance toward women, and that's certainly how Nikki Craft & Co. have taken it. Their position isn't merely that the images in Hustler personally offend them, but that they cause objective harm to women as a group, up to and including causing gender-based murder.

    Contrary to what Craft, John Stoltenberg, and others may tell you, the bulk of the research evidence doesn't support this view at all. Larry Baron at UCLA, for instance, regressed the Gender Equality Index (a composite measure of women's political, economic, and legal status) for each of the US states, against the availability of "soft-core porn," into which category Hustler falls. A strong positive correlation was found, with significance at p <.001. Whatever the reasons for this correlation, it plainly contradicts the view that such representations are a major pillar of male supremacy (if they're a pillar at all), as people like Craft claim.

    They may try to convince you with the results of so-called positivist social psychology lab studies. I used to give these some credence, till I saw this statement by Dr.Ted Palys, which convincingly demonstrates their complete irrelevance to real-life situations.

    By phrasing what perhaps was meant as a statement about how the images in Hustler make you feel, as one about how they affect women's status in society, you turned a personal value judgment that would have concerned no one else into an intervention in ongoing debates about sexual and gender politics. As an example of the real-life consequences this can have, not long ago the antiwar group Not In Our Name was offered major financial support by Hustler, but turned it down for fear of ostracism by anti-porn doctrinaires. This was a serious blow to efforts to build an anti-imperialist movement in this country.

    It's chiefly because of such considerations that I would urge you to publicly clarify what you did and did not mean by your earlier statements about Hustler. The other reason, as I indicated earlier, is that by seeming to say the images in question are objectively degrading, you deny the reality of my own, quite different feelings about what's depicted, in which I would happily substitute myself for the women models, even for no pay -- especially in the spanking pictures.

    I'm sending this message before reading your last messages to me, in order to avoid the escalatory cycle characteristic of a flame war, which I fear may already have started.

    Yours sincerely,
    Eric Hamell

    P.S. In case you've been wondering, I'm not a fan of Hustler myself, finding it too crude for my taste. But I understand the fallacy of thinking that because something offends you, therefore it must be bad for society.


    Gondwanaland -- http://stripey7.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  16. Following up on what I previously wrote re: Chomsky, I've exchanged some email with him. Could someone here direct me to a good resource on the history of the feminist porn wars, with particular emphasis on the censorious role the Dworkinites have played? Copied below is some of the exchange.

    Eric

    Dr. Chomsky,

    I apologize for the delay in responding. I haven't had home internet access for a while, so it's been difficult to keep up with email.

    I appreciate your acknowledgment that your statement was one of personal opinion only. The problem is -- even if you think that's "understood" -- it actually isn't understood by a lot of people. Specifically, those in the camp of Catherine MacKinnon, the late Andrea Dworkin, etc. actually mean something quite empirical (albeit not empirically supported) by it, and they've used your repudiation of the interview as evidence that you agree with their claims. In effect, they're misrepresenting your opinion, by claiming you believe certain (empirically testable) things that you're not actually asserting. Again, I'm concerned about the destructive role their dogma has played on the Left, not only in wrecking specific opportunities as I described previously, but also in obstructing open, critical thought in a major area of discourse. (And if you look into some of the intimidation and censorship tactics they've employed, you'll see what I mean.)

    I don't expect you to take my word on this. I'll try to find a good summary on the history of the matter and then send it to you.

    Eric Hamell

    Noam Chomsky wrote:
    It is understood that statements of the kind you cite are expressions of personal opinion. Otherwise, they would be supported by documentation, etc. There is no reason that I can see to issue as statement expressing the obvious.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Eric Hamell
    To: Noam Chomsky
    Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 3:13 PM
    Subject: Re: Hustler (haven't read your last messages yet)


    Dear Dr. Chomsky,

    I apologize if my initial tone was disconcertingly blunt. Here's how I see the matter:

    You made the statement that the images in Hustler are degrading to women. Perhaps you simply intended this as a personal value judgment. If you had said, "Hustler's depictions of women offend me," that's what it would have unambiguously been. Unfortunately, that's not how you expressed yourself. Instead of plainly stating a personal stance toward Hustler, you made a statement about Hustler's (putative) stance toward women, and that's certainly how Nikki Craft & Co. have taken it. Their position isn't merely that the images in Hustler personally offend them, but that they cause objective harm to women as a group, up to and including causing gender-based murder.

    Contrary to what Craft, John Stoltenberg, and others may tell you, the bulk of the research evidence doesn't support this view at all. Larry Baron at UCLA, for instance, regressed the Gender Equality Index (a composite measure of women's political, economic, and legal status) for each of the US states, against the availability of "soft-core porn," into which category Hustler falls. A strong positive correlation was found, with significance at p <.001. Whatever the reasons for this correlation, it plainly contradicts the view that such representations are a major pillar of male supremacy (if they're a pillar at all), as people like Craft claim.

    They may try to convince you with the results of so-called positivist social psychology lab studies. I used to give these some credence, till I saw this statement by Dr.Ted Palys, which convincingly demonstrates their complete irrelevance to real-life situations.

    By phrasing what perhaps was meant as a statement about how the images in Hustler make you feel, as one about how they affect women's status in society, you turned a personal value judgment that would have concerned no one else into an intervention in ongoing debates about sexual and gender politics. As an example of the real-life consequences this can have, not long ago the antiwar group Not In Our Name was offered major financial support by Hustler, but turned it down for fear of ostracism by anti-porn doctrinaires. This was a serious blow to efforts to build an anti-imperialist movement in this country.

    It's chiefly because of such considerations that I would urge you to publicly clarify what you did and did not mean by your earlier statements about Hustler. The other reason, as I indicated earlier, is that by seeming to say the images in question are objectively degrading, you deny the reality of my own, quite different feelings about what's depicted, in which I would happily substitute myself for the women models, even for no pay -- especially in the spanking pictures.

    I'm sending this message before reading your last messages to me, in order to avoid the escalatory cycle characteristic of a flame war, which I fear may already have started.

    Yours sincerely,
    Eric Hamell

    P.S. In case you've been wondering, I'm not a fan of Hustler myself, finding it too crude for my taste. But I understand the fallacy of thinking that because something offends you, therefore it must be bad for society.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Following up on what I wrote re: Chomsky, I've exchanged some email with him. Could someone here direct me to a good resource on the history of the feminist porn wars, with particular emphasis on the censorious role the Dworkinites have played? Copied below is my latest exchange with Noam Chomsky.

    Eric

    Dr. Chomsky,

    I apologize for the delay in responding. I haven't had home internet access for a while, so it's been difficult to keep up with email.

    I appreciate your acknowledgment that your statement was one of personal opinion only. The problem is -- even if you think that's "understood" -- it actually isn't understood by a lot of people. Specifically, those in the camp of Catherine MacKinnon, the late Andrea Dworkin, etc. actually mean something quite empirical (albeit not empirically supported) by it, and they've used your repudiation of the interview as evidence that you agree with their claims. In effect, they're misrepresenting your opinion, by claiming you believe certain (empirically testable) things that you're not actually asserting. Again, I'm concerned about the destructive role their dogma has played on the Left, not only in wrecking specific opportunities as I described previously, but also in obstructing open, critical thought in a major area of discourse. (And if you look into some of the intimidation and censorship tactics they've employed, you'll see what I mean.)

    I don't expect you to take my word on this. I'll try to find a good summary on the history of the matter and then send it to you.

    Eric Hamell

    Noam Chomsky wrote:
    It is understood that statements of the kind you cite are expressions of personal opinion. Otherwise, they would be supported by documentation, etc. There is no reason that I can see to issue as statement expressing the obvious.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Eric Hamell
    To: Noam Chomsky
    Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 3:13 PM
    Subject: Re: Hustler (haven't read your last messages yet)


    Dear Dr. Chomsky,

    I apologize if my initial tone was disconcertingly blunt. Here's how I see the matter:

    You made the statement that the images in Hustler are degrading to women. Perhaps you simply intended this as a personal value judgment. If you had said, "Hustler's depictions of women offend me," that's what it would have unambiguously been. Unfortunately, that's not how you expressed yourself. Instead of plainly stating a personal stance toward Hustler, you made a statement about Hustler's (putative) stance toward women, and that's certainly how Nikki Craft & Co. have taken it. Their position isn't merely that the images in Hustler personally offend them, but that they cause objective harm to women as a group, up to and including causing gender-based murder.

    Contrary to what Craft, John Stoltenberg, and others may tell you, the bulk of the research evidence doesn't support this view at all. Larry Baron at UCLA, for instance, regressed the Gender Equality Index (a composite measure of women's political, economic, and legal status) for each of the US states, against the availability of "soft-core porn," into which category Hustler falls. A strong positive correlation was found, with significance at p <.001. Whatever the reasons for this correlation, it plainly contradicts the view that such representations are a major pillar of male supremacy (if they're a pillar at all), as people like Craft claim.

    They may try to convince you with the results of so-called positivist social psychology lab studies. I used to give these some credence, till I saw this statement by Dr.Ted Palys, which convincingly demonstrates their complete irrelevance to real-life situations.

    By phrasing what perhaps was meant as a statement about how the images in Hustler make you feel, as one about how they affect women's status in society, you turned a personal value judgment that would have concerned no one else into an intervention in ongoing debates about sexual and gender politics. As an example of the real-life consequences this can have, not long ago the antiwar group Not In Our Name was offered major financial support by Hustler, but turned it down for fear of ostracism by anti-porn doctrinaires. This was a serious blow to efforts to build an anti-imperialist movement in this country.

    It's chiefly because of such considerations that I would urge you to publicly clarify what you did and did not mean by your earlier statements about Hustler. The other reason, as I indicated earlier, is that by seeming to say the images in question are objectively degrading, you deny the reality of my own, quite different feelings about what's depicted, in which I would happily substitute myself for the women models, even for no pay -- especially in the spanking pictures.

    I'm sending this message before reading your last messages to me, in order to avoid the escalatory cycle characteristic of a flame war, which I fear may already have started.

    Yours sincerely,
    Eric Hamell

    P.S. In case you've been wondering, I'm not a fan of Hustler myself, finding it too crude for my taste. But I understand the fallacy of thinking that because something offends you, therefore it must be bad for society.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Apologies if my last post appears multiple times. The page that appeared after I posted it gave me the impression that it hadn't gone through when it actually had, so I kept re-posting it.

    Eric

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm giving Chomsky one last chance to either empirically justify his attack on Hustler, or withdraw it. At this point I'm not optimistic, however. If he hasn't done so within a week, I'll publicize it on my blog as well as here and on the PHACTboard, since it's surely of interest to critical thinkers if a linguist is unwilling to define his own terms.

    Eric

    P.S. BTW, I urge anyone who wants to be an activist for sexual freedom to support the Woodhull Freedom Foundation at www dot woodhullfoundation dot org, and subscribe to their news and discussion lists. This is perhaps a more logical way than via a blog to coordinate protests or other actions to advance our cause.

    Eric Hamell (stripey7 at yahoo dot com) wrote:

    Subject: Re: A sampling of "radical" hate
    To: Noam Chomsky (chomsky at MIT dot EDU)


    All right then. For the record, what's your definition?

    Eric

    Noam Chomsky wrote:
    You may feel we need to discuss it, but I don't. You are entitled to your priorities, I'm entitled to mine. I think the term is clear enough. If you don't, you have every right to write an essay about it.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Eric Hamell
    To: Noam Chomsky
    Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:54 PM
    Subject: Re: A sampling of "radical" hate


    I think we need to discuss what you mean by "degradation." When you speak of people's being subjected to ridicule or hatred, we know which people you're referring to. But which individuals are "degraded" by pornography? And in what sense?

    If degrade is intended to have any empirical meaning, my first assumption would be that it's more or less a literal one; to de-grade would mean to lower in level, such as social status. But the Baron study mentioned earlier, among others, strongly argues against such a claim about pornography -- at least of the "soft-core" variety, which includes Hustler -- being true to any significant degree.

    But if you don't mean the statement in that sense, then in what sense do you mean it? As far as I can see, the only fact underlying it is that Hustler's depictions of women discomfit you, Chomsky. A statement accurately reflecting that reality would therefore make you, not the set of all women, the direct object, i.e., "Hustler's depictions of women offend me," rather than "Hustler degrades women."

    Generally we accept the victims of ridicule and hate as the best experts on what they're experiencing. Yet the porn-haters don't do so where pornography is concerned. They insist that they know better than women who pose or perform whether they're being degraded. It's precisely this arrogant, patronizing attitude that gives rise to the kind of bigotry Renegade Evolution, herself a sex worker, describes on the page I sent you previously.

    I'm at the library now (don't have a computer at home) and just picked up an anthology of Dworkinite writings that I read a couple years ago. After I've had time to look through it again, I'll send you some choice quotes that express this arrogance in their own words.

    Eric

    Noam Chomsky wrote:
    I'm always sorry to see people subjected to hatred, ridicule, and degradation -- which is why I find pornography so repugnant. And attacks on women who choose S/M are just as repugnant. Never heard of Nikki Craft, so can't comment.

    NC
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Eric Hamell (by way of Noam Chomsky
    To: Noam Chomsky
    Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 4:47 PM
    Subject: Re: A sampling of "radical" hate


    They don't bear on your personal feeling about the images. What they bear on is the way your statements are being represented by Dworkinites like Nikki Craft, as endorsement for their empirically baseless beliefs about pornography and sex work generally. And these beliefs give license for the kind of hatred exhibited toward Renegade Evolution and other sex workers.

    Speaking of hate, I also own a copy of a report issued by a lesbian S/M group in Philadelphia called Female Trouble, based on a national survey of S/M women about experiences of harassment and violence they'd experienced from within the women's community based on their S/M orientation. I could send you a copy.

    Eric

    Noam Chomsky wrote:

    Thanks. Now I recall the discussion. But I don't see why the experiences described in the link you sent me bear on my statement that I find what appears in that journal degrading to women, as I do.

    NC

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Eric Hamell
    To: Noam Chomsky
    Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 5:53 PM
    Subject: Re: A sampling of "radical" hate



    Noam Chomsky wrote:

    I'm afraid I don't recall the context. I respond to maybe 100 letters a day and unless backup is included I often do not know what the letter is referring to.

    NC

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Eric Hamell
    To: Noam Chomsky
    Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 3:35 PM
    Subject: A sampling of "radical" hate

    Dear Dr. Chomsky,

    I haven't yet located a chronology of Dworkinite censorship, but this blog entry documents the sort of vicious bigotry often spewed by adherents of this current:

    renegadeevolution dot blogspot dot com slash 2006 slash 07 slash language-of-radical-hate dot html

    Eric Hamell



    Gondwanaland -- stripey7 dot blogspot dot com

    Here's the discussion I was referring to:
    Dr. Chomsky,

    I apologize for the delay in responding. I haven't had home internet access for a while, so it's been difficult to keep up with email.

    I appreciate your acknowledgment that your statement was one of personal opinion only. The problem is -- even if you think that's "understood" -- it actually isn't understood by a lot of people. Specifically, those in the camp of Catherine MacKinnon, the late Andrea Dworkin, etc. actually mean something quite empirical (albeit not empirically supported) by it, and they've used your repudiation of the interview as evidence that you agree with their claims. In effect, they're misrepresenting your opinion, by claiming you believe certain (empirically testable) things that you're not actually asserting. Again, I'm concerned about the destructive role their dogma has played on the Left, not only in wrecking specific opportunities as I described previously, but also in obstructing open, critical thought in a major area of discourse. (And if you look into some of the intimidation and censorship tactics they've employed, you'll see what I mean.)

    I don't expect you to take my word on this. I'll try to find a good summary on the history of the matter and then send it to you.


    Eric Hamell

    Noam Chomsky wrote:
    It is understood that statements of the kind you cite are expressions of personal opinion. Otherwise, they would be supported by documentation, etc. There is no reason that I can see to issue as statement expressing the obvious.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Eric Hamell
    To: Noam Chomsky
    Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 3:13 PM
    Subject: Re: Hustler (haven't read your last messages yet)


    Dear Dr. Chomsky,

    I apologize if my initial tone was disconcertingly blunt. Here's how I see the matter:

    You made the statement that the images in Hustler are degrading to women. Perhaps you simply intended this as a personal value judgment. If you had said, "Hustler's depictions of women offend me," that's what it would have unambiguously been. Unfortunately, that's not how you expressed yourself. Instead of plainly stating a personal stance toward Hustler, you made a statement about Hustler's (putative) stance toward women, and that's certainly how Nikki Craft & Co. have taken it. Their position isn't merely that the images in Hustler personally offend them, but that they cause objective harm to women as a group, up to and including causing gender-based murder.

    Contrary to what Craft, John Stoltenberg, and others may tell you, the bulk of the research evidence doesn't support this view at all. Larry Baron at UCLA, for instance, regressed the Gender Equality Index (a composite measure of women's political, economic, and legal status) for each of the US states, against the availability of "soft-core porn," into which category Hustler falls. A strong positive correlation was found, with significance at p <.001. Whatever the reasons for this correlation, it plainly contradicts the view that such representations are a major pillar of male supremacy (if they're a pillar at all), as people like Craft claim.

    They may try to convince you with the results of so-called positivist social psychology lab studies. I used to give these some credence, till I saw this statement by Dr.Ted Palys, which convincingly demonstrates their complete irrelevance to real-life situations.

    By phrasing what perhaps was meant as a statement about how the images in Hustler make you feel, as one about how they affect women's status in society, you turned a personal value judgment that would have concerned no one else into an intervention in ongoing debates about sexual and gender politics. As an example of the real-life consequences this can have, not long ago the antiwar group Not In Our Name was offered major financial support by Hustler, but turned it down for fear of ostracism by anti-porn doctrinaires. This was a serious blow to efforts to build an anti-imperialist movement in this country.

    It's chiefly because of such considerations that I would urge you to publicly clarify what you did and did not mean by your earlier statements about Hustler. The other reason, as I indicated earlier, is that by seeming to say the images in question are objectively degrading, you deny the reality of my own, quite different feelings about what's depicted, in which I would happily substitute myself for the women models, even for no pay -- especially in the spanking pictures.


    I'm sending this message before reading your last messages to me, in order to avoid the escalatory cycle characteristic of a flame war, which I fear may already have started.

    Yours sincerely,
    Eric Hamell

    ReplyDelete
  20. oh, and anti-racism, possibly as a subset of feminist concerns.

    ...........
    Ajith

    Wow, check out this site called www.fluc.com
    . Free SMS and free mobile ads!! Its fantastic

    ReplyDelete
  21. RE, RE: The white-highlighted Anti-Pornography Blog link to which you seem to heighten directed attention towards with this graphical-distinction, filed under the THEM category, I've seen this blog often, up on Youtube & just around a lot.

    What can you share with me about the person who runs the blog & furthermore, is there a particular reason as to why you chose to highlight it?

    Oh & great job on the lay-out & building-block presentation of your entries. It presents a coherence that is well-suited for the uninformed and uninitiated, like me & others, who might be searching for a two-sided premise from which to form ideas & opinions by.

    Regards,
    AC

    ReplyDelete
  22. RX Pharmacy Online. Order Generic Medication In own Pharmacy. Buy Pills Central.
    [url=http://buypillscentral.com/buy-generic-tamiflu-online.html]Get Cheap Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, Tamiflu[/url]. prescription generic pills. Cheapest pills pharmacy

    ReplyDelete
  23. At our shop you can regard sundry medication and of programme naturally such lay buy Viagra Online one – For a song Generic Cialis pharmacy.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Above, we purvey deduct Viagra pharmacopoeia, which is rather functional in make use of than other favoured generic Viagra now Erectile dysfunction Cialis chemist's shop online drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Amen!
    From a strong, independent feminist who not only happens to love consuming and creating porn, but also has a thing for BDSM-related fetishes and role play...
    And no, I was never sexually molested and I don't feel exploited.

    Natasha, a.k.a undercoverwhore.

    ReplyDelete