Wednesday, November 7, 2012

The "Argument" That May Have Sealed The Deal For Measure B: Amanda Marcotte Representing The Paternalistic Feminist "Left"

There may be a lot of people still flummoxed about how Measure B was able to slide through Los Angeles County so easily, in spite of the obvious shortcomings of the proposal and the strong opposition from active porn performers.

As I posted last night, the overwhelming weight of AHF's money chest and their ability to buy useful boosters like Darren James and Derrick Burts were probably the chief factor...but one element that hasn't been covered is the appeal they made to be the universal "saviors" and "protectors" of the wayward porn girls against the evil, bad "capitalist" money grabbing "pornographers" who care more about their dicks and their money than girls catching sexually transmitted infections.

Also, there was the notion that the proponents for mandating condoms in porn were simply standing up for the functional liberal right of government to intervene with adequate regulation to tame a unruly and wild industry that eats women for lunch and spits them out "diseased" and rejected...just like the "sex traffickers" whom were similarly targetted by the statewide Proposition 35, which also passed last night. Those who oppose them are simply evil right-wing "libertarians" who want to privatize everything just to cover their "male privilege" of drowning women in tainted spooge. (Of course, the few women who defend noncondomized porn are simply dismissed as paid shills of the Capitalist Porn Conspiracy, or simply selfish, stupid elitist sluts who put their own pleasure above the "suffering" of real victims.

Now, if you think that this sounds exactly like the rhetoric of extreme antiporn/anti-sexwork "feminist" activists like Gail Dines, Shelley Lubben, and Shelia Jefferys, then you would be correct...but only to a point. There is a segment of slightly less virulent liberal/"progressive" feminism that doesn't go nearly as far as Dines in demonizing sexuality as inherently the will of The MAN, yet nevertheless goes pretty damn far in the paternalistic and restrictive view that it is perfectly fine and liberal to deny sex workers and porn performers their right to a choice of protecting themselves in the name of "safety" and "just regulation".

One such paternalist feminist is Amanda Marcotte, the renowned feminist liberal writer long associated with the blog Pandagon, and most recently a regular columnist for the pro-reproductive rights group RH Reality Check. Marcotte fashions herself to be a progressive "pro-sex" feminist who just loves to bash men -- particularly, the conservative kind -- for their convenient conspiracies to hold women down and repress their sexuality. And yet, she is also just as capable of occasionally going Andrea Dworkin on how men use pornography and sex work as an additional means of depraving women. And, she can be absolutely vicious in demonizing women who don't meet her exacting "sex-positive" standards, as her dissing of large and artificially enhanced breasted women shows. (Marcotte has also been zinged by plenty of feminists of color for her ceaseless appropriation -- some would call it outright theft -- of their struggles in order to maintain her "progressive" credentials...the 2002 "burqa" controversy with compatriot Jessica Valenti being another example.)

Anyways....Amanda decided to intervene herself into the Condoms In Porn debate with an essay for Pandagon (now integrated into the Raw Story site network) published in January of this year.  Titled "Wah!", it pretends to debunk all of the arguments against mandating condoms in porn, and it utilizes pretty much all of the same talking points that Measure B proponents have appropriated during their campaign. I will present the essay in its entirity, for the purpose of breaking it down point by point. If this was the argument that sealed the passage of Measure B in LA County, then I'd say that we who oppose it should comprehend it better, so that we can debunk such nonsense when the next Measure B comes forth....as it inevitably will.

So, L.A. is once again looking at the question of whether or not to require condom use in porn filmed in the city. This was a question I was initially agnostic on, figuring that it was probably a complex argument and I should give both sides a listen before deciding. In taking that approach, I have discovered that the anti-condom arguments are some of the most piss-poor, illogical arguments I’ve ever seen. I was forced by the badness of these arguments to agree that mandating condom use is clearly the path, since it’s the only side that actually bothered to make an argument that wasn’t smoke and mirrors. Let’s take a look at each argument from the anti-condom side and see why they’re just so terrible:
Riiight,  Amanda....like every other ideologue, you approach the condom debate from the "open-minded", "both sides deserve a listen" approach...then proceed to demonize one side for the expressed purpose of boosting the condom mandate as the only solution. How progressive of you, though, to be so "open minded" and "liberal"...because just like you dismiss well endowed women and those who choose to artificially enhance their bosoms as mere tools of dirty men and their sexual deviancies, it's so easy for you to dismiss porn performers who have the gall to think that they are capable of protecting themselves without your trusted assistance.

But, I get ahead of myself...let's actually go over Marcotte's points, shall we??
1) It’ll cut into porn profits. This is really the only argument that the porn industry—like any industry fighting against labor protections—cares about. Everything else is hand-waving (though I will address it, because the hand-waving has sucked in many liberals, mostly men, for reasons that should be as obvious as they are embarrassing). This is a value judgment argument. The question is whether you value the health and safety of the porn actors more than the ability to move units of the producers. I tend to side with people over profits, and have yet to hear a conservative make a compelling argument for why they value profits over people. 
This, of course, is straight out of Gail Dines' "Capitalist Male Porn Conspiracy" Red Book...because porn to Amanda is simply the XXX extension of evil chattel/corporate slavery which reduces women to sub-minimum wage automatons and sperm deposits and "cumdumpsters". The only difference is that Marcotte wouldn't completely censor and blow away porn the way Shelley Lubben would love to; she would only "reform" it through the condom mandate to "liberate" women from such corporate "slavery". Of course, anyone who differs with her is simply a dangerous neocon anarchocapitalist who puts "porn profits" (and the alleged effects of "degradation of women") before the genuine progressive principle of protecting the "people" from the dire threat of STI's and HIV. After all, we wouldn't want to take away the "nice" highbrow condomized erotica that gets Amanda off, now would we??

Also...the implied depiction of porn consumers as mostly down-low right-wing men who simply hate on "independently sexual women" (or lefty porn-addicted men who just pretend to be feminist just to get them some free superior feminist pussy) kind of ignores the essential fact that plenty of porn consumers happen to be WOMEN, that not a few producers of porn are WOMEN, and that the overwhelming majority of women in porn just so happen to pursue their craft and protect themselves adequately enough to the point that they simply don't need condoms forced down their throat. Or, they already use condoms as one option in many to protect theselves. Surely, a professed liberal like Marcotte would actually be willing to listen to and respect actual professional porn performers who know their bodies and their jobs and are more than capable of controlling their own bodies for themselves, right??

I mean, if Sandra Fluke shouldn't be castigated by Rush Limbaugh as a "slut" for fighting for her right to have her insurance pay for her birth control, then why should Amber Lynn be castigated for defending her right to decide what goes in her vagina?? Besides, Amber Lynn is closer to Amanda Marcotte politically than Sandra Fluke, anyway.

Finally, since porn in California is a legal industry, they have as much of a right to pursue profits off their creative talent as Hollywood movies, TV, and sports teams do. I don't see Amanda hating on MMA athletes for the lack of headgear or movie stuntmen for the lack of "protection" when they risk life and limb performing stunts...or calling on them to be forced to sacrifice their livelihoods for the sake of "protecting" them from career- and even life-threatening injuries. There is already a movement for doing away with the profit motive...I believe it's known as "socialism". Since you are not a socialist, Amanda, you probably aren't qualified to run any smack about the evil of profits. Oh, and don't you make royalties from your many books??

2) The customers want this. This is the male entitlement argument. (Yes, I know women watch porn, but the porn industry that we’re talking about has a male customer in mind.) I know this will get me lambasted as some sort of man-hater, but I do think that men really aren’t entitled to any form of gratification they want, regardless of who they hurt. No one is. The law already recognizes this when it comes to porn. There’s a lot of customer demand for stuff that’s illegal or at least should be: high school girls, little kids, actual rapes instead of fake ones, serious injuries or even death inflicted on women, pictures where the subject explicitly did not give consent. There probably are some customers who will be sorely disappointed to see visible evidence of safety precautions on screen, but I’m honestly skeptical that they’re going to be so angry they just decide to boycott jerking off to porn. I remain strongly unconvinced that seeing a little latex in a porn is a greater tragedy than contracting HIV on a porn set
Here again, Marcotte plays chicken with the Dines/Dworkin argument of men as perpetual sexual predator and mainstream unwrapped porn as their rape/pedophilia/necrophilia template, without having the integrity to actually cross the line and openly back antiporn ideology because HER most favored "erotica" (the beautiful, "feminist" condomized type) would be taken in the crossfire. She ignores the fact that the "customer demand" for the really bad stuff is sorta tempered by the fact that child porn, necrophilia, "snuff" porn, and actual filming of real rape are actually ILLEGAL, while consensual adult porn depicting adults performing consensual acts of unwrapped sex is still, for now, legal and protected.

As for Amanda's notion that porn consumers will get used to condomized porn ultimately....well, the evidence of what happened to porn production companies who tried going condom only after the initial HIV scare in 2004 proves otherwise. And, considering the abundance of bareback hetero porn that is now stored in millions of porn consumers' 3 terabyte hard drives, and the resulting underground trade that would immediately prosper and flourish through Bit Torrents and message boards once bareback porn production ceases, I figure that there will be no shortage of unwrapped dick available for those who still insist on it.

What will change, though, is that performers themselves will be forced to make the decision to: (1) either accept wrapping up and face the risk of either friction damage to their vaginas and anuses or allergic reactions to latex, or the real risk of condom breakage and inadvertant STI's because the testing and screening regime that had done so well to pAnrotect them will be totally eliminated and replaced with "Just shut up and take the condom, bitch, and trust us that your partner is clean";  (2) take their chances underground with fewer protections and greater chance of getting into really abusive and exploitative situations; or (3) simply leave porn and find some "rescuer" sugar daddy or mama to replace the income they have lost from not being able to shoot porn vids.

Now, I guess that Amanda figures that there will still be a market for wrapped porn as well, and there are some companies who still are condom only that do make a decent profit (Wicked, VIVID, Kink.com).But, those are still niche markets of specific subgroups of porn consumers that specifically ask for such content; simply inventing a forced market of condomized porn by criminalizing bareback will work just as well as tearing down freeways in order to force automobile drivers to switch to mass transit. Which is to say, it won't.

Amanda might also want to be reminded that the guy she references in the last link of that graph who represents the supposed threat of rampant HIV infection (namely, Derrick Burts) was not only not so responsible in his personal life (see Rentboy.com), but actually admitted that he was originally infected in a gay male porn shoot in Florida. A condom only gay male porn shoot in Florida, that is.

3) They’re just going to take porn shoots elsewhere. Really, liberals? This is the best you can do? This is actually a standard argument business always makes against labor protections. This threat has various degrees of seriousness to it, but even in serious cases, it’s an empty argument. It basically deprives the government of the right to protect people within their jurisdiction because they don’t have the right to do so in other jurisdictions. Governments should have a right to say, “This behavior is so wrong that while we can’t ban it everywhere, we can ban it here.” Often, once one jurisdiction does it, others soon folllow, especially with regards to safety regulations. Plus, I’m a little skeptical of the notion that the entire porn industry in L.A. will decamp to another location. They aren’t in L.A. just by accident, you know. The one thing the porn industry needs—more than latex-free dicks, even—is a steady supply of young people who don’t have a lot of money but put a lot of effort into their looks. The steady stream of people who come to L.A. to make it and then don’t is a gold mine for the porn industry. You’re not going to find that in Minneapolis. It helps if they can be convinced that doing porn could be the entryway into a career they want. The porn industry grasps this, which is why they take any porn actress who has a bit part in any Hollywood movie and trumpets the hell out of it, to keep the crossover dream alive. You’re just not going to have that in any other city. Look, the porn industry isn’t fighting this tooth and nail because they have a lot of options. They know that L.A. has them over a barrel on this, which is why they’re fighting so hard.

And here is where Amanda shows her ignorance about how prospective porn girls actually get contacts and connections to get in the industry. I really hate to break it to you, Ms. Marcotte, but porn is no longer centered on Hollywood rejects.  Actually, it wasn't even centered in Hollywood/San Fernando Valley during its "golden" days....New York and San Francisco were the hot spots for producing porn during the 1980's and 1990s, before the HIV crisis and the "Clean Up Downtown" crusades bit into their profits, and the development of the VHS tape drove producers down to Hollywood to take advantage of the excess of technical editing knowhow. Of course, Hollywood has its share of casting couches where young ingenues are broken in on the tried and honored principle of "It's not who you know; it's who you blow"; porn simply made them the center of attraction rather than the means to an end.

Alas, even that has now become diversified as the Internet, mobile phone, personal computer equipped with built-in webcam, and super duper fast wireless Internet has enable average folk to bust through the Porn Valley monopoly and create new avenues and venues for porn production. It's no longer San Fernando and Glendale that monopolizes porn production; it's also Phoenix, South Florida; Las Vegas, London, Budapest,Berlin, Moscow, Beijing.  Hell, even Frisco is beginning to make somewhat of a comeback as a center of porn production.

Moreover, thanks to that same technology, any guy with a working 4G phone and access to his friendly paid website/tube site can download within seconds nice videotape of himself and his girl (or his girl only) banging other hot guys and girls. (Did I say "guy"?? Wait, I mean "guy and gal"!!) And, since that can be done within the privacy of home, where US Constitutional protections like the First Amendment  do apply, the ability of government to intervene and control such matters is somewhat limited. Only a fascist or Maoist government would go through the trouble of jailing THOUSANDS of people for the "crime" of sexing without a condom...which is probably why the defenders of Measure B would prefer first using porn performers in LA as a test run for a national tour.

In addition, thanks to social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, prospective porn performers do not even need to hop planes to Hollywood (either CA or FL) in order to audition to do porn shoots. Sending their PornTube vids to prospective agents will suffice quite well...and it's cheaper than the plane ride.

Remember, Clones, private businesses can be regulated only if they are incorporated. If they are not, it gets a tad harder for any serious liberal to say that government meddling in intimate personal affairs is justified merely by a "threat" of harm. It is up to the person favoring the meddling to prove that the harm actually exists, and that it is bad enough to justify the meddling.

And besides, the real reason why the LA porn industry is fearing Measure B and fighting it tooth and nail isn't because they don't have options elsewhere (though those options do carry expenses and other risks that can cut into their bottom line). They are fighting this law for the same reason decent liberals like Amanda Marcotte fight against the "three strikes" law or pro-mass transit agencies fight against highway funding that gives preference to freeways and automobiles: to protect themselves and their livelihoods against being scapegoated against crimes that they are not necessarily responsible for. It's not only the principal of the matter, it's also the principle of protecting legal free speech.

I need not add the fact that the LA porn industry are made up of flesh and blood PEOPLE, right??

That would be the SECOND most batty justification for the condom mandate, in Amanda's mind. Here comes the winner:

4) Freedom of speech. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t really think that freedom of speech covers the right to avoid safety precautions for workers. Regular Hollywood has to follow labor laws with regards to their actors, and they have to deal with unions, to boot. The porn industry is exploiting the fact that the world doesn’t care very much about the people that work for them, and I’m glad that L.A. is stepping in and saying porn actors deserve the same kind of labor protections that we extend to other professions.
First off, no one who opposes Measure B has ever said that they oppose voluntary condom usage as one of many means for protection...so that blows up the "they just wanna ban condoms!!!" excuse right out of the water.

Secondly....if Marcotte was really serious about extending "the same kind of labor protections" to porn that are taken for granted by less stigmatized unionized workers, she would be supporting an explicit porn workers' union pushing for increased rates, better and more hospitable venues for shoots, royalties and residuals for performers who see their videos reused again and again without a cent of profit sharing, and especially health insurance to cover the off periods should a performer do get sick from an STI or anything else.

Third...it takes real ovaries for a woman who readily dismisses and disses the actual experiences and concerns of real live porn performers whom have lined up against Measure B and the condom mandate to even think of running smack about how "the porn industry is exploiting the fact that the world doesn't care about the people who work or them". It's really quite obvious that YOU really do care about them, right, Amanda??

5) It’s supposed to be a fantasy! Amanda Hess got a pretty standard version of this in her recent piece on the controversy:
“We’re selling a fantasy,” says Lisa Ann, 39, who enjoyed her own mainstream moment when she was cast as a Sarah Palin-type in Hustler’s spoof of the 2008 elections. “It would be great to teach young people to put a condom on during sex,” she says, but she’s not sure how much the porn industry should be responsible for educating teenagers.
This is a bad argument for two reasons. The most important is that it’s a strawman. The regulations aren’t being written in order to “teach” condom  use to teenagers. They’re protection for the actors on-set, to keep them from contracting STDs and especially HIV. But it’s also bullshit by its own measure. Porn producers are trying to have it both ways. Their main marketing strategy is that they aren’t fantasy, but are real. The sex is real, and they have frequent close-ups and particular emphasis on ejaculation being caught onscreen in order to make it clear that this is real and not a fantasy. Comparing this to explosions and car chases in real Hollywood movies is missing the point; everyone knows that the car chases and explosions are special effects. The whole point of porn is to say, “This is not a special effect, but actual people having actual sex.” The reason people choose porn videos over drawings or fictional sex scenes is the realness of it.

Ahhh...nu-huh. No. No, no, no. Fucking HELL TO THE NO.

First...let us dispatch this "Porn sex is intended to be REAL sex!!!" meme before it metasizes into something really gross. Porn sex is real to the extent that it depicts real people engaging in sex. But, that doesn't necessarily make it completely "real" in that it depicts sexual acts people would normally do. Rather, porn, like most art forms, is an extension of, an exaggeration of, real sex as experienced by its viewers. 

That is....the performer who engages in professional sex scenes is an exaggerated vision, a fantasy extension, of the ideal of what an ordinary person wishes he had: the viewer who doesn't have the sexual chops of the performer or the ability to perform the positions or the stamina to endure 2 or 3 30-minute to an hour long scenes a day, where the guy has to maintain an erection in the midst of hot lights, a screaming director cutting in and changing positions, and a loud film crew overseeing every stroke and poke and suck and lick. (And, he has to look authentic even if he's not up do it, pun not intended.) It's no picnic for the girl, either, because she may have to block out other issues on her mind and focus on looking like the guy or gal boinking her is giving her the time of her life, and that the resulting orgasms are absolutely THE BEST EVER. ..And let's not also forget all this has to be done within a certain time period for editing and printing and distribution, or no one gets paid.

True, there is related advertising that takes advantage of the divergence between the ideal and the reality (see the erectile dysfunction, penile enlargement, and sexual enhancement drug spam, as well as the old tried and true "ADD 5 INCHES TO YOUR DICK, ABSOLUTELY FREE!!!!!!!1111ONE111!!!  ads accompanying the tube site free porn.  But even that does more to exemplify the dissonance between the reality of the viewer's actual sex life and the perception and assumption of instaneous and everlasting horniness of the performers and the scene he or she's watching (and hopefully, if the scene's successful, masturbating to). The actual sex is secondary to the scenarios and plots of these fantasies, that are obviously so way out and far fetched to occur for real. No teacher I know of will ever look like Lisa Ann or dress "slutty" like she does for My First Sex Teacher or Big Tit MILF Boss, and I guaran-DAMN-tee you that the real Sarah Palin as Governor of Alaska probably did not pall around the Alaskan State Capital building showing off her cleavage and fucking the entire staff. That's why it's called "satire", folks.

And as for the "money shot"...that's more about actual proof of the man's orgasm and his arousal, as well as pregnancy protection, than any attempt at reality. And even that is mostly an exaggeration.....not many men watching porn will blow out like Peter North, you know.

Aaaaaaand....how ironic that Marcotte goes to that card, because if Measure B passes, and porn shoots are forced to follow the standard for "barrier protection" that the California branch of OSHA is currently preparing to impose on porn, then the only form of intercourse that would be protected would be....internal penile-vaginal sex. Talk about attempting to make porn more "real"!!

About that crack about the goal of the condom mandate having nothing to do with teaching "teenagers" how to use condoms, though??  Well, let's hear from one of the principal boosters of the condom mandate, Dr. Peter Kerndt, representing the LA County DPH (via Ernest Greene's seminal 2009 BPPA essay):
“The portrayal of unsafe sex in adult films may also influence viewer behavior. In the same way that images of smoking in films romanticize tobacco use, viewers of these adult films may idealize unprotected sex. The increasingly high-risk sexual behavior viewed by large audiences on television and the Internet could decrease condom use. Requiring condoms may influence viewers to see them as normative or even sexually appealing, and devalue unsafe sex. With the growing accessibility of adult film to mainstream America, portrayals of condom use onscreen could increase condom use among viewers, thereby promoting public health.”
But, it's only all about protecting the brainless and stupid slut performers....right, Amanda??

The sense that porn is real means that it does have an impact on the viewers. Anal sex, Brazilian waxing, and facials have all become more common in real sex because of porn. I’m not judging that—to the extent that porn encourages people to experiment and have more fun in bed, I’m all for it, though some of the practices that have taken off have questionable value as pleasurable—but it is inarguable that porn has a normative effect in a way that stuff that doesn’t present itself as real doesn’t. Whether that should be used for good is up for grabs, but again, while this is all an interesting conversation, it’s also completely moot. The regulations aren’t about directing the message, but about protecting the workers.
 I will simply defer to my friend Jordan Owen on debunking the idiocy of Marcotte miming Gail Dines' stupid claim that Brazilian waxing and anal sex are the byproducts of mainstream porn, and that no woman was getting spooged in the face before she saw Marilyn Chambers get blasted in The Devil And Mrs. Jones back in the 1970's. 

It is hilarious, though, how Marcotte always goes back to the "It's all about protecting the WORKERS!!!" card as her lifeline....because we all know that only men in porn get STI's and then spread them to female performers through such nasty, misogynistic acts like anal sex and deep throating and facials and....ewwwwwwww....creampies!!!!

And we now come to the final point of Amanda Marcotte's fiat for mandatory condoms:

6) Condoms are uncomfortable. The argument is that since the actors are having a lot of sex, condoms “chafe” in a way that they miraculously don’t for us ordinary people. I think this is grasping at straws, personally, because a lot of ordinary people do in fact have bouts of condom-use sex that are intense and long-lasting and don’t seem to have this problem, at least if they use lube. But I also have to point out that the porn industry standardly asks women to cram multiple cocks into them, to have anal sex whether they’re up for it or not (and to make sure they’re up for it with fasting and heavy duty enemas—the kind of stuff that you don’t have to do when having ordinary people anal sex), or to have sex with machines. If keeping the actresses physically comfortable was important to them, porn would look completely different and probably be far less profitable. Which is why #1 is really the only argument in play here, and one that liberals who think you’re killing a puppy if you venture even the slightest criticism of the stuff they jerk off to should stop being so defensive and really think this through. No one is telling you that you’re a bad person for looking at porn. We’re just saying that  the industry should be forced to take more precautions when it comes to the health of its workers. The utter indifference to the health of porn workers suggests that a lot of people think of them as second class citizens who can be used for sexual gratification and then disposed of. And if you do believe that, then yeah, I think you’re a bad person. 
 After slowly digesting this crock of bullshit, allow me to quote from someone whom has long been a supporter of condom usage, and who has done a porn shoot or two or...a thousand, and who knows about how condoms can really fuck with actual porn shoots. Kick it, Goddess Nina:

For the women, there are just four words: rubber rash/friction burn. Not only do I have to work harder for him to feel anything, the scene takes much longer to get through, with the changing out of condoms, needing to give the guy a break and suck him again, and the total passion-killer that is on-set condom use. It's hard enough to create a real connection, so the scene doesn't feel to the viewer like we faxed it in, on a set as it is. If all of our energy is focused on our working parts, there is none left over to actually connect and show a spark, which is what the people at home want to see...
...I know it sounds harsh, but it's not porn's job to set a good example to the viewing public. It's an entertainment medium like anything else out of Hollywood, and mainstream entertainment is not held up as needing somehow to set a good example. It's a shame that our country does such a piss-poor job of educating its young people so that they're driven to view porn to try to get a clue about sex. Except when a movie is expressly done as education-the Guides, Tristan Taormino's movies, etc., their job is to arouse and entertain, period... 
 Or, to put it differently: Porn sex may be an exaggeration of real sex, but it is still sex between two (or more) human beings who have to connect with each other for the scene to work. Putting a condom between them not only screws up the chemistry (literally as well as figuratively, but it adds more time to the taping of the scene...and when time equals money, that can be a major buzz and erection killer for viewer and performer both.

It's really lovely, too, how Marcotte, who has spent nearly 1000+ words denying performers of their personhood and voice -- all in the name of "protecting" them, no less!!! -- now finds the time to be concerned about their being "physically comfortable"...and responds to that by drowning them with lube. As if there's absolutely no issue between mixing the wrong kind of lube with the wrong kind of condom.  As if lube by itself will save a disasterous scene. Of course, the real message that Marcotte has for women performers who don't share her view of "rescuing" them with condoms is for them to just "Shut the hell up and wrap up for womanhood; you're selfish pleasure is killing other women and spreading deadly infections!!!" How in the hell is that any different than a stone cold radical antiporn feminist dissing a straight woman for sleeping with "the enemy" or a fundamentalist Christian ripping on a monogamous gay man for his "sin against God"??

Actually, it is NO different...except that at least the fundamentalist and the principled antiporn feminist is sincere in their principles. Amanda Marcotte, on the other hand, wants to be portrayed as an enlightened progressive hip sex-positive feminist; but her core attitudes towards real sex workers and actual pornographers as well as towards men whose only crime is to defend their sexual arousal towards these women, convicts her as exactly the opposite: a pretender. In short: Amanda Marcotte is Gail Dines, Jr....except without the principles.

But...I guess that to far too many liberal folk in Los Angeles County, that's good enough for them to buy the snake oil that is Measure B. Maybe authentic pro-sex/pro-porn progressives will learn to spot the BS and respond a tad quicker and more forceful next time around...and rest assured, there will be plenty of next time arounds


 
 









 

8 comments:

  1. Amanda Marcotte is just another radfem porn basher masquerading as hip and sex-positive. In fact, Gail Dines identifies as sex-positive, which is one reason I regard the descriptor as useless. It could be applied to anyone, including James Dobson, depending upon how sex is defined.

    That said, I notice the main argument Marcotte does not address in her parade of straw men is the one argument that can't be refuted with a few snide dismissals and invocations of liberal political memes.

    That would be the argument, supported by fact, that the system of safeguards still in place, despite AHF's tireless efforts to trash it, works. It works better than any HIV mitigation program anywhere in the field of public health in this country and has worked consistently for 12 years.

    This was the argument the industry should have dug in on and stayed with. Unfortunately, those who made the decisions chose to wage their campaign mainly on economic grounds, which was one of the many foolish errors that characterized the whole counter-effort. I will have more to say on that later.

    But the point Marcotte neglected to address is the most critical, and rather than make it myself for the millionth time, I'll let some other guys with no dog in the fight do it for me:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/health/unlikely-model-for-hiv-prevention-porn-industry.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

    So that's what some other doctors not affiliated with Weinstein, Kerndt and their pals have to say.

    Too bad this wasn't made the center of the argument by either side. Or by the annoying Ms. Marcotte.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ernest...I eagerly look forward to your full response.

    I do think, though, that you slightly misread my essay. It wasn't saying that Amanda Marcotte's nutty paternalistic neoliberalism WAS the reason Measure B passed (remember, I did add the qualifier "MAY" in the title of this post); I'm just noting that attitudes like Marcotte's that exist among the hip, liberal sect could be one of many influences that did ultimately swing voters to support Measure B.

    Also...if you know me well, Ernest, you know that my lifetime objective has been to promote a more sexual egalitarian position amongst the Left; part of that is to detect and debunk attitudes like Marcotte's, because you can bet your last money that AHF will attempt to take their campaign nationwide. To defeat the enemy, you have to understand and debunk their arguments. And...bullshit "liberal" arguments like Marcotte's are more than worthy of "snide dismissals".

    As to why a strong defense of the screening and testing system wasn't made front-and-center by the anti-Measure B forces: Personally, I think that the industry (especially performers) really did make a strong attempt to defend the system...but they came together too late and without enough resources to counter the propaganda machine of AHF. The diversion of The Great Testing War between APHSS/Cutting Edge Testing and Talent Testing; the smackfest between FSC/Manwin and the agents, and the syphilis scare really did a lot of damage in taking up crucial time and money that could have been spent marshalling forces for a more effective campaign. It may simply be that there is simply too much antisex attitude in LA County, and AHF was able to exploit that to their advantage.

    Finally...I'll await your full analysis on the campaign to post a full response, but like I posted in my last post election essay, I did have my misgivings about relying on a economic conservative argument as the core for opposing Measure B. Since conservatives like James Lee and Sean Tompkins, and libertarians like Michael Whiteacre have dedicated their hearts, souls, and bodies to the fight, though, and they are the ones whom have bled the most, I'm not going to cast any aspersions upon them at all. Nevertheless, I still feel that a campaign based on conservative memes simply won't work in a liberal/progressive electorate like Los Angeles County...especially one where Latin@'s and Blacks and GLBT's who bear the full brunt of STI's can be persuaded by the likes of Darren James and Derrick Burts to vote against the invention of the Evil, Bad, Rich White Male establishment porn industry that eats and spits out women. But, I'll expound on that later on....probably in my own venue.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're actually giving more benefit of the doubt than I would. I agree that a certain stripe of "liberal" who isn't opposed to porn on principle but openly despises everything they believe to be involved in the process of making it were a factor in B's passage. This doesn't just go for BS "sex-positive (as long as it's the kind of sex they approve of) types like Marcotte. It applies to mainstream liberals who have had "condoms = good, porn = exploitation of women" pounded into their heads for a couple decades and voted on this ugly monster without bothering to actually read it.

    But I wholly agree with your core critique about how the opposition campaign was run. This is a Democratic county with a basic tilt toward public-sector solutions. Nothing wrong with that per se. I'm part of that tilt. But just because something is advertised as being such a solution doesn't mean it is, and not nearly enough was done early enough to make clear what the measure really proposed. That was one failure.

    I also agree that performers did an excellent job toward the end of making the case for the existing system of safeguards, but the leadership of the industry was woefully late in enlisting them to do so. They should have been on the front lines from the start. Instead, there was way too much talk from company guys at the outset about lost jobs and tax revenues, which I concur cut little ice around here. Those were conservative arguments, and when the GOP came out in opposition to the measure, they demonstrated just who responds favorably to such arguments, in this county, a minority.

    But it should never have gotten this far. The real gaffes were made at the beginning. Three years ago Nina and I met with representatives of the FSC and several large production companies, warning that this was coming. As board chairman at AIM in 2004, I had seen the beginnings of this effort even back then. Our warnings were patronizingly ignored.

    The industry big-shots should have stepped up to prevent AHF from killing AIM at whatever cost. Why the didn't is a whole other story, and not a pretty one, involving the general lack of respect and support AIM got from most producers from its inception. But letting AHF tear us down emboldened Weinstein's crew and made the industry leaders look like a bunch of palookas.

    Then there was the matter of the petition that put this hideous thing on the ballot. There was evidence of massive fraud in the way the signatures were collected and how the measure was explained to those who were asked to sign them. This was a great opportunity for a sting operation that would have shown on tape the lies with which those petitions were sold. There should have been legal action to disqualify the petition and kill B in its cradle. Why that wasn't done I will never understand.

    Once it qualified for the ballot, the industry's response was slow, disorganized and off-target. I absolutely agree that the economic arguments came from the wrong side's playbook and didn't get traction here. It didn't help that the other side had unlimited funds to deploy for the campaign, but our side's failure to spend what it could, to emphasize performer safety and choice and mount a direct response to a clear attack on The First Amendment the measure entailed contributed greatly to a result that was far from inevitable.

    There's plenty of blame to go around, but much of it originates behind our own doors and, as usual, it will be the performers who sustain the worst consequences.

    Something very bad has happened and it didn't have to. What will come next will be years of costly litigation while performers work under much more difficult and dangerous circumstances than at anytime since legalization. In effect, prohibition is back in this county, and that rates as very bad news for all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. While we're on the topic, I'm surprised nobody has responded to this piece by Lindsay Bayerstein two years ago attacking (by name) Ernest and Nina's views on condoms in porn, again, quite loudly trumpeted by Ms. Marcotte at Pandagon:

    http://bigthink.com/focal-point/the-counterproductive-condom-conjecture-and-other-fallacies
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/19/pandagon-sex_work_isnt_immune_to_urban_legends/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Frankly, these two dopes are so important and influential the neither Nina, myself nor anyone we know had read this garbage until now. That's the good news. I doubt it influenced they influenced the debate over Measure B in any event, but for the record, they're lying hacks. They did not directly quote either of us precisely because we didn't say what they claim we said.

    First of all, if either of them is the least bit interested in facts, which I seriously doubt since they came to this discussion with their minds made up, they might take a minute to read this from The New York Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/health/unlikely-model-for-hiv-prevention-porn-industry.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Gee, I guess they must think we have a point about the quality and effectiveness of industry standard testing, which both of the above authors dismiss.

    And they must also think Nina had a point about condom drag, a view also shared by Kayden Kross, Kylie Ireland and a number of other veteran performers.

    Just for the record, we never said that condoms HAD lead to an increase in HIV transmissions in the industry. We both agree they could if another perfect storm on the order of what happened in 2004 were to happen again. Of course, predictably neither bothers to mention the fact that what happened in 2004 happened neither before nor since, and the incident they both trumpet as proof that we're wrong about everything turned out to be a false alarm. Exactly zero, as in "no" performers in het porn were exposed in the 209 scare. Not surprised neither bothered to correct that.

    And neither of us have ever said we were against condoms per se. That's just bullshit and that I have heard before. We have both made a policy of not working for companies that don't allow them and we've shot plenty of condom scenes for those that do when performers made the request. We have both maintained that the efficacy of condoms in porn is dubious, and there are some facts to support that view.

    Both these arrogant fools make a big deal of gay porn's reliance on condoms and how we should do the same. I've said before, however Un-PC this may be, that the numbers don't support that view. In gay porn, where they do not test and directors assume about at third of the talent pool is HIV+ but rely on barriers and "informal sero sorting (basically "ask and tell" so only performers who are already positive work together) hasn't worked out quite so well. During the same period when AIM was in operation there were 177 AIDS-related deaths among gay male performers. Among straight performers during that same period, there were none, as in zero. We did have those two transmissions in 2004, and that's tragic, but over a dozen years no other AIDS prevention programs, including the ones in Thailand so fulsomely praised by these instant experts, can claim a record nearly so impressive. In our tested population, which includes the entire L.A. based het porn talent pool, there has not been one single work-related clinical death, making us among the safest industries in the state.

    But if you really NEED to believe that only lying scum acting out of a desire to protect their own financial interests say these things, than both Nina and I wasted our time during those 12 hard years of working at AIM and all those doctors quoted in The NYT are wrong.

    And clearly that's what these ideological demagogues NEED to believe. It doesn't make what they believe true. It only makes them condescending liars who should STFU about sex work of which they have no accurate knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OMG....I just scrolled through Beyerstein's article. This goes well beyond mere garbage; this is a full MOUNTAIN of bullshit that even Gail Dines couldn't match on her best day.

      This one sentence ALONE should disqualify her from any means of prejudging performers:

      A performer could test negative in the morning, get infected on a date that night, and work for 30 days before his or her next test.

      Does this woman understand that a performer does NOT work until that test is entered into the database and cleared by the producers, and that many performers also require standard clean tests as recently as 2- to 3-days old?? Or, does she simply assume that porn performers are so promiscuous and out of control that they are incapable of excercising any control of themselves before they shoot scenes??

      And...is she aware that there has been NO case of HIV infection of anyone on set since 2004. NONE??? And that even the case of 2010 that she says proves that condoms MUST be imposed on porn actually proves the opposite? The unfortunate person who was found to be infected had only begun shooting porn, and it was her first test...she was found, as Ernest said, to have infected NO ONE ELSE.

      But, why let the facts get in the way of a good crusade??

      And, nice to see that Amanda Marcotte is consistent in the art of antiporn bullshit..as confirmed in this essay. She is "sex positive" the same way Dines is "socialist". As in....NOT BLOODY VERY.

      Delete
  6. I'm reposting this comment by "xxxild", a long-time sex worker rights advocate and former sex worker, whom will be joining the blog as a part-time contributor shortly. If you want to experience some of her awesomeness, check out her YouTube channel.

    I couldn't care any less what Marcotte thinks as I do Shelley Lubben. In fact, Shelley is more honest, and that's saying something. Marcotte must have to go out of her way to pretend to care about people ("people over profits). She's paternalistic and doesn't think twice about legislating for others.

    That's oppressive, having someone speak to create legislation for you in your job, legislation you don't want. I honestly don't see any difference between her attitude and the actions she supports and those of religious right, Anthony. It's the same, she's a hypocrite, and this is why I'm disgusted with feminism. Excellent post. I appreciate Nina's words here. I imagine she knows right well why they get in the way. HUG!


    ReplyDelete
  7. I did not know that Gail Dines identifies as sex positive. That explains the increasing creep of puritanism into that movement, which explains my increasing creep away from that identification. I think this may have killed it.

    Also, regarding Marcotte's claim that wearing condoms with every sex act doesn't affect the general public as much as the porn actors are claiming. I'm sorry, but what a twat. She knows damn well that porn actors have more sex and penetration than the general public. She's comparing, what, a typical, sexually enthusiastic couple who may have sex every day of the week and twice on Sunday....to porn actors who work several hours in a day, easily surpassing that of the couple.

    XXXild is joining you here? Awesome! And her response was spot on. I can't wait to read her contributions.

    ~Aspasia

    ReplyDelete