Case in point: This lovely editorial that Dines wrote for the Hartford Currant recently regarding Yale University's planned "Sex Week" festivities, which for this year features an entire day for the commercial porn megasite Vivid.com (Vivid girls have been featured in previous "Sex Week" festivities; but this is the first time that the entire magazine has gotten a day of their own. Amongst the planned events include a "Who Looks More Like A Vivid Girl" contest, where women would compete to decide whether they...well, look most like the girls who appear at Vivid, I guess.
Now, it should be said that Vivid is actually one of the more "respectable" and "cleaner" porn outlets there is. Their models are held to some very rigid requirements (no participation in more "extreme" sex acts; no "gonzo" sex, cannot film with other companies while under contract); but they do get some real protections (though Kira Kiner would probably disagree about that). Furthermore, they, through their Vivid.alt line and financing the work of Tristan Taormino, have been one of the few major porn producers to promote alternatives to "gonzo" and other forms of the "circus sex" vids.
So, why would they draw the ire of Doc Gail??? Do you really have to ask??
(All emphasis added by me.)
The Vivid Girls are the elite of the porn industry, women who earn a decent, if short-lived livelihood, and are somewhat protected from the much larger world of more violent and body-punishing hard-core movies called "gonzo" by the industry. The (mainly white) Vivid Girls are the respectable face of the porn industry; their job is to make porn look like a wholesome route to stardom; they act as a recruitment tool for a mass production sweatshop industry that needs to keep replenishing its supply of female bodies.Gee, Gail..."the elite of the porn industry"?? I thought that Jenna Jameson was the elite until she retired....and what about companies like Wicked or Ninn Worx??
And how can a company that provides "a decent, if short-lived livelihood" become transformed in the next sentence into "a mass production sweatshop industry that needs to keep replenishing its supply of female bodies"??? As if the "female bodies" don't have brains and abilities to go on their own???
Ahhh...but we're just getting warmed up here....
One of the highlights of Sex Week is the contest "Who Looks Most Like a Vivid Girl," to be judged by two of the women on contract to Vivid. Women go to college for many reasons, but for most, it is to get an education and position themselves for a professional career.Oh, OK, Doc Gail....so porn is, you know, like the military, in that is is basically a way to escape real poverty and desperation. Of course, in the military, there is the very high risk of stress, PTSD, and, in this world of permanent war, the very real threat of getting killed...but porn is so, so, so much more dangerous, right???
I dare say that few if any women at Yale are aspiring for a career in the porn industry, as they are going to have a range of options open to them, thanks to their Ivy League degree.
Those women who do go into porn are mostly women from underprivileged backgrounds who, facing a life of minimum wage labor, see porn as a way out of anonymous economic drudgery. And why not? The only image they ever get of porn is one that highlights the lucky few who actually make real money and get to mix with a few B-list celebrities. What they don't get to see are the thousands and thousands of women who start in porn and end up, within a short time, working the brothels of
Nevadafor a pittance, or having to deal with substance abuse and sexually transmitted diseases.
And of those "thousands and thousands" of porn girls ending up tricking in Vegas or Nevada (did Melissa Fairley send you that stat, I wonder??), not even the legal brothels of Nevada are quite that big to hold that number. Of course, we all know that Steve Hirsch only trolls the best streets for pimping his girls...yea???
Oh...and what about the "millions and millions" (to extend Dines' hyperbole) of women who use the industry for a while, then simply leave and move on with their lives quietly without much aftereffect?? Of course, they don't quite make for antiporn boilerplate, now doesn't it??
For Goddess' sake, Gail: it's only a freakin' entertainment show, not the Great Debate.
But now we come the real reason why Dines is sooooo pissed at Yale: it seems that they didn't get her approval to run the event to begin with and add her "perspective":
The real story of porn, one which looks nothing like the chic media image, will be well hidden next week at Yale. The student organizers have invited mainly representatives from the porn industry and their supporters, with the only voice of opposition being XXX Church pastor Craig Gross.Ahhh....now I get it.....so the creators of "Sex Week" have to not only get Gail Dines' approval to run their event (I didn't know that Yale was owned and operated by Wheelock College), but they are obligated to include "feminist" antiporn spokespeople as a counterbalance to the overwhelmingly "pro-porn" outlook.
Missing are the voices of women who have left the industry after being brutalized and exploited, for whom a college education, let alone at an Ivy, is unaffordable and almost unimaginable.
Also missing is the anti-pornography feminist voice, which sees pornography as sexist, violent and harmful to women. After 30 years of researching the industry, the business practices of the pornographers, and the effects on women and men, we anti-porn feminists are "disappeared" from the debate.
Two years ago I spoke on a pornography panel at Yale Law School. Of the six people invited, I was the only speaker to criticize the porn industry, with the others either being pornographers, or bar one, so pro-porn, they might as well have been industry representatives. After the panel, some students came up to me to express their disgust with the way the panel had been organized, and how they felt cheated out of a thoughtful dialogue.
Now, just a couple of years later there is no attempt by the organizers of Sex Week to even pay lip service to a feminist critique; one more sign of just how acceptable and mainstream porn has become at Yale, and in our culture.
Let's do some nice analogy here, shall we???
Would the NAACP have to invite David Duke to their next convention??
Would a gay-rights organization be required to have Paul Cameron to speak to them??
Would The Feminist Antipornography Movement be required to have Nina Hartley speak at their next confab??
Oh, and about the latter.....kinda hypocritical for Gail to play the "Waaaahhhh....damn pro-porn censors; they won't allow us to disrupt...ahhhhh, I mean, discuss...our issues" card, when, as our fearless Blog Leader and Henchwoman has already pointed out, Dines and her posse aren't too keen in inviting her critics to speak at HER venues. Remember, these are the folks who physically attacked a woman who dared to criticize their zealotry at a anti-prostitution confab in Berkeley, California three months ago. These are the folks who deliberately exclude sex workers who don't exactly march in total goosestep with their ideology from even posting in their blogs.
And yet, Gail has the freakin' nerve to claim that her side is being "victimized" and "censored"?? WHOA......talk about major projection.
And please....how many "pro-porn" feminists get their own editorial column in an establishment conservative newspaper like the Hartford Courant, anyway??
Between that and the ambush of the AbbyWinters girls and Nina Hartley at this year's AEE, that's more than enough to proclaim Gail Dines to be a vicious lady....and a bonafide sex fascist who hides behind "feminism" to sell her poison.
The real frightening thing: Gail has a full college platform to spread her hatred and bigotry. Maybe it's about time our side started spreading the truth...and gave back just a taste of what she's been dishing us.
[Cross-posted over at The SmackDog Chronicles)