Oh goody!

Look, the anti-porn activism page has arrived! Catchy title, eh? So...(eyeballs header)...original!

My favorite part so far? The photo of the Good Feminist Womyn (I assume) ripping up photos of those bad, bad pornified sluts! Classic!

And this just in...

Anti-porn activists PROFITING from the "fair use" of non-2257 compliant materials? You know, making MONEY off the images of these exploited, degraded women?

Say it isn't so, Ren!

It is so.

Now, look at that. Please tell me no one is considering showing this in HIGH SCHOOLS.

"Dear DoJ-....."

I know, I know...

I know I shouldn't look. But it's just a horribly grim fascination. Why yes, some people just loooove TPoP! They probably even think it's fair and honest and unbaised and whatnot.

Ah, crusaders...

You know, I am sure some people would say the same thing about me, that I'm some sort of sellout black knight fighting an unholy war...oh, wait...but you know, there is a huge difference between myself and a whole lot of these folk. A huge one.

I am not telling anyone they should view or participate in pornography. I'm not telling anyone they have to like it. Nor am I afraid to look outside my own sphere and see what other people are saying, to hear and read their experiences.

I also, ahem, do not stack my data, misrepresent the findings of various studies, or use material made 2-3 decades ago.

Or flat out lie about the most popular porn of the year 2005. Ahem.

Let it never be said I ever told any person what to do, what to feel, how to think, and used underhanded -and illegal- means to make my point.

That, I think, is a major difference between us and them.

It takes a lot to disgust me...

But it can be done.


Porn stars should not be able to have children...

Rantage here, here, and here, so far...

to say this shit angers me would be an understatement.

More on "The Price of Pleasure"

I'm lazy, so, well, here...

Gail Dines, her porn training, and me...

right here.

Robert Jensen sucks. There is no question.

Bob goes to Vegas and harasses porn chicks, but wants you to remember...

"The many different women who engage in sex in front of a camera make that choice to be used in pornography under a wide range of psychological, social and economic conditions. The choices women make to reduce themselves to sexual objects for men’s masturbation are complex, and we should be cautious about generalizations and judgments."

Emphasis MINE.

Well gee Bob, what's that if not some big old generalization and judgment right there????

You fucking fuck. Nary you mind, you can now get college credit off the backs of those women via attending Wheelock Anti Porn Conferences, you can be asked to leave them alone at an Adult Industry event and try to engage them anyway. you can fund you cause by selling, oh , I mean asking for donations, for your slide show which features their images (used without their consent), no , nevermind any of this...You should not generalize or judge them for allowing themsevles to be used, objectified, and reduced.

Unless you use them like Bob does, of course.

Hey Bob, how much have you and the crew spent on porn, you fucking asshole????

(h/t to Anthony)

Not anti-porn? You must be a man.

Most women can relate to how shitty it feels to have your thoughts and feelings completely discounted, just written off as being "too emotional" or the result of PMS. It sucks. It removes all agency and is a convenient way of not letting women's voices be heard.

So the "male-identified" accusation is different, how...?

Answer: it's not. It's dismissive and it reinforces gender stereotypes.

And, too, it's not acceptable to discount men as thinking with their dicks, or being "creepy" simply for having an interest in sex (see Dacia's post on that topic), or the other gendered stereotypes that are often attached to men.

Note, I am not talking about calling men out on male privilege. Women (and other men) should absolutely do that, especially as part of a feminist, progressive discourse. And men should listen, and learn. So before anyone goes there, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about stereotypes. And stereotypes aren't good for anybody.

I guess the only thing worse that being called a man because of your stance on porn, is actually being a man and holding that same stance on porn. (Or perhaps one is not worse than the other, but rather they're two sides of the same shit-covered coin.)

Marty Klein didn't get "you're just like a man" or "you must be a man" or "you sound like a man." Instead, he got, "I am not surprised that you arrogantly only see this from a man’s point of view."

Convenient, isn't it? If someone makes an argument about porn you don't like, they're either a man, or they're male-identified. Because certainly no real woman would have that kind of (reasoned, well-thought-out) opinion about porn. That is "a man's point of view." No woman could have that point of view. Nice girls don't.

Talk about removing women's agency. We're either victims, or we're male-identified. Riiiight.

Or, as Marty Klein put it:

What you’ve done is just as bad as dismissing a woman’s opinion as “just a woman being emotional,” or “women just don’t get it,” or “she’s just premenstrual.” If we want to get beyond “women only think with their hormones,” we have to get past “men only think with their penises.”

Oh, this is just priceless...

Ah, a new one...

WHAT THIS WEBSITE IS NOT FOR:-

- Defending pornography, stripping, and/or prostitution (if you send me any of your knee-jerk lame excuses such as "Women freely choose", "Porn reduces rape", "Freedom of expression", or "you pro-censorship anti-sex prude", etc., your e-mails will be ignored -- I will feel sorry for you though, as you are ultimately using those excuses to hide the real defenses that underlies your thoughts such as "my right to jerk off to porn and/or be selfish", etc., and you are giving up on your humanity -- there's nothing more beautiful in this world than being genuinely human). Pornography and prostitution are indefensible. The level of harms done to women and children is way too high! If you want to stupidly defend pornography, there are plenty of forums and blogs for that on the Net. Come back when you're less self-centered! -

- Trying to wrap a defense of pornography, prostitution, and/or stripping in some kind of a "Fuck me" feminism; trying to show "empowerment" where there's none (such e-mails will be ignored). .....

.....-- Blaming the women in pornography, stripping and prostitution. They are not to be held responsible for the harms. The pornographers, the pimps, the johns, and the men who create the demand for pornography (especially the ones who carry on stubbornly using pornography after having read or heard about the harms) are responsible for the harms and proliferation of pornography and the sex industry.

-- Accusing us of being "anti-choice". I and many other feminists realized that women in the sex industry do not have any "real choice" in this society. Most of them have an economic necessity and a history of sexual abuse (There are plenty of studies that prove that -- check on this website). Around about 90% of them would rather leave the sex industry if they had the option. Some already have and decried its abuse (check on this website). Should we protect the right of a small 10% who'd rather stay, the rights of the few women who make a lot of money out of it instead of the rights of the overwhelming majority of prostituted women who never got the chance to make a meaningful choice and are sustaining unbearable violence and injury? I don't think so. So, do not even try to magnify the few isolated cases "of money and empowerment" here and there. It doesn't work.

-- Defending gay or lesbian pornography. Feminists respect gays, lesbians and heterosexuals. However, we believe that ALL forms of PORNOGRAPHY are harmful. This applies to gay prostitution too, for men and boys are harmed within it.

Gee, think if I, a woman in the business went over there and defended it, I'd get "blamed"? Anyone wanna take that bet????

"Protecting women"

Twenty years later, The Handmaid's Tale is just as relevant as ever, if not more so.

From an excellent online study guide:

The sub-theme of this tangled debate which seems to have particularly interested and alarmed Atwood is the tendency of some feminist anti-porn groups to ally themselves with religious anti-porn zealots who oppose the feminists on almost every other issue. The language of "protection of women" could slip from a demand for more freedom into a retreat from freedom, to a kind of neo-Victorianism. After all, it was the need to protect "good" women from sex that justified all manner of repression in the 19th century, including confining them to the home, barring them from participating in the arts, and voting. Contemporary Islamic women sometimes argue that assuming the veil and traditional all-enveloping clothing is aimed at dealing with sexual harassment and sexual objectification. The language is feminist, but the result can be deeply patriarchal, as in this novel.

There is nothing new, much less revolutionary, about infantilizing women in the name of "protecting" them. It's a tactic used by fundamentalist religions around the world, and one feminists should be able to spot a mile away.

Why I'm anti-anti-porn, Part 1

I've stated why I'm pro-porn, but I think its very important to also state why I'm anti-anti-porn as well. The anti-porn movement makes some rather large accusations against pornography and the porn industry. If these charges were true, they'd be quite damning and would trump much of what I have to say in support of porn as a medium. I was initially going to do this all as one post, but as I've been writing this, I find that the case to be made against anti-porn is lengthy, so I'm going to divide this up among several posts, and address some problems with arguments against pornography and with the anti-porn movement itself.

The case against pornography is two-pronged, and really involves two separate issues. The first is related to the supposed harm to the models in the production of pornography, especially women. The second has to do with the ostensible harm caused by porn as a product (and could be said to extend to porn media such as writing and comics that don't actually involve real people in their production). The fact that the two issues are conflated by anti-pornography activists, and that argument against pornography liberally slips back and forth between the two, makes their argument elusive and hard to pin down.

Taken one at a time, the arguments become clearer. First, the charge is that pornography, like prostitution and indeed any form of sexual labor, is inherently exploitative toward those who do it. It is charged that at the very least, extreme economic coercion is used to force women into porn, and at worst, its outright sexual slavery and filmed rape. Also, porn actresses are said to universally come from backgrounds of sexual abuse, and making porn is seen as a kind of revictimization.

First, I'll acknowledge that, yes, abuses do happen in what might broadly be called the porn industry. Where I differ from anti-porn activists is that I think they grossly exaggerate the amount of abuse in the porn industry. All the best evidence that I've read about the porn industry, from porn actresses and from people who have observed the industry first-hand, is that such sex work is done freely and that coercion is a rare and highly illegal exception. Also, the idea that porn actresses are from disproportionately poor and uneducated backgrounds and are therefore financially coerced does not seem to hold water. At least in the case of American, West European, and Japanese porn industries, the typical background for a porn model seems to be pretty much working- or middle-class, representative of the larger society. (In Eastern Europe, admittedly, there are a lot of women from Borat-esque impoverished rural backgrounds who go into porn as a quick ticket out – such women are also now the mainstay of the fashion modeling industry as well, and I can think of at least a few Russian and Ukrainian porn models that do both.) The "uneducated" stereotype is particularly eggregious, as its not all uncommon to find women with college degrees working in porn, as its not at all uncommon to find people with college degrees throughout the American and European workforce. (In fact, its not even particularly uncommon to find women with some background in Women's or Sex Studies in the porn world.)

Probably a note is due here about the favorite poster-girl for the anti-porn movement, Linda Lovelace. First, even in Ordeal, she never claimed she was coerced by pornographers to do porn. She claimed, rather, that her abusive pimp/husband, Chuck Traynor, forced her into doing porn, among other things. The worst thing she had to say about the porn industry is that they looked the other way when they knew Traynor was abusing Lovelace, a reaction to abuse that was not uncommon back in the 1970s. Second, in several interviews prior to her death in 2002, she recanted some of her more damning statements about the porn industry and also said that she regarded Gloria Steinem and Catherine MacKinnon as just another in a long string of people who were trying to make a buck off of her. I'll also note that Linda Lovelace's story is not at all typical of the porn world. (More on this in this in future posts – its a summer project of mine to try and get through all five – yes, five – of her "as told to" biographies and try and figure out where the truth lies.)

While I agree that any kind of coercion or exploitation in the sex industry is a problem that needs to be addressed, it is also clear to me that there is nothing inherently coercive or exploitative about porn modeling. The words of porn actresses and models who do this work by choice, and even enjoy much of what they do, are simply too compelling to make a blanket case that porn is always exploitative. (Names of some people who strongly defend their choice to work in porn – our own Renegade Evolution, Nina Hartley, Belladonna, Dana DeArmond, Justine Joli, Ron Jeremy, and Jamie Gillis, just to name a few off the top of my head.) Insofar as there is exploitation in the porn industry, this is a labor issue, and needs to be addressed the way all exploitation-of-labor issues are dealt with – by self-organization and agenda-setting of those who do the actual labor (through unions or whatever model they choose), aided by allies who accept the idea that sex workers can set their own agenda. What is not needed are would-be saviors who are more interested in imposing their own religious or ideological agenda, slaying dragons, and saving people from themselves.

From what I've heard from various porn star interviews, there may be some truth to the idea that a disproportionate number of porn actors (female and male) are survivors of child sexual abuse. However, this is purely anecdotal, and there are simply no numbers to back this up. The idea that this is universal among porn actresses and sex workers in general is pure stereotyping and related to the idea that women who are highly sexual simply must be damaged in some way. Again, I don't find this case compelling – even if someone has sexual abuse in their background, is their sexual agency as an adult null and void? I don't think so.

In a nutshell, of course I'm against exploitation and abuse, but I do not think that axiomatically leads to an abolitionist position on porn. And I'll add that the line of argument that holds if one is pro-porn, that one is automatically pro-exloitation and pro-abuse, full stop – well, that's a contemptably bad-faith argument, and a sure sign that the person that you're "debating" has their mind made up about you and your arguments already.

Next post, I'll cover the issue of the "effects" of porn.

The Irony is thick this morning....

NPNH visits Ambers blog and spouts off wisdom, still posting about free speech at their home page, and not allowing comments...

UK anti porn activist Charlie posts about Zoo Magazine and voyuerism, which is illegal in the UK- post includes screen shots of a voyuer cam website, which is illegal material she accessed for journalist reasons....is this not the same woman who posts unconsented to and unedited photos of people who work and shop in porn stores, as well as countless mag covers, club flyers, and pics of other random "pervs"?

PPA bloggers called out as being "irresponsible" by antiporn commenter elsewhere....That will get it's own post....

A question has been asked...

“Well, using her (that would be me, RE-) own logic and sense of morals I do want to know… did she ask the radfems and anti-porn activists whether she could link to their websites?”

So I’ll answer. No. I used to be careful about asking for permission to even comment on anti-porn spaces, quoting or linking anywhere if I was going to identify the person or persons I was talking to or about if I was going to be critical of their opinion. When I realized that sort of consideration was not a two way street and never would be, I stopped with the consideration myself.

With specific reguards to NPNH, the first time I linked to their site was as an example of how if you are going to protest porn stores and other sex related businesses /gathering in your area…well, how to do it right (and legally). It was not a critique of them in the least.

When I began to discuss this matter with Adam of NPNH, I informed him I would be making the conversation public, he did the same, and at no point did I demand he remove his link to my blog. I wanted an answer to my question as to why this tactic is used, and he gave one.

I still do not like that anti-porn advocates use the words, and specifically the images, of porn performers/sex workers without their consent or knowing- even asking- what their feelings are on the matter, but I cannot stop them from doing so, and just as they will use those things to make their arguments, well, fine, I will do the same…

With one very big difference….when linking to or quoting an anti-porner, I already know how they feel about the issue: They are anti-porn. The anti-porners do not know if the same can be said of the women they are using…and I still find it ironic that people claiming to fight the exploitation and use of women do the exact same thing they claim to oppose in order to make their arguments…and I will continue to point that out…

So, there you have it.

The Latest from NPNH

Explaining why they use pornographic images without the performers consent....complete with pornographic images, right there, on their site, where children can see it, and read all the degrading pornospeak text that goes with it!

Who needs degrading porn when you can just go to an antiporn site and wank to it for free!

And no new mails from Adam, I guess we're done "debating"...

Annie Sprinkle and Mae Tyme talk porn

Believe it or not, folks, it is possible for an anti-porn feminist and a sex-positive feminist to have a civil, respectful conversation.

I encourage everyone to read this conversation between sex-positive activist Annie Sprinkle and anti-porn radical feminist Mae Tyme. Here's an excerpt, but seriously, read the whole thing.

Annie Sprinkle: To me pornography is any photo, film or drawing that shows hard-core explicit sex. How exactly do you view pornography?

Mae Tyme: As something that is overwhelmingly by, about and for men. It is a world wide industry that generates gazillions of dollars every year from which women do not benefit.

A: In porn films female performers get paid a whole heck of a lot more than the male performers.

M: I didn’t know that. I’ve always viewed pornography as an aspect of oppression of women, not of our liberation. And I view the nuclear family pretty much that too. So I’ve tried to develop a sexuality that isn’t about men or what they want, but is entirely about women and how we relate to each other.

A: Presently I’m actually interested in trying to do the same thing. Would a typical sex magazine just totally turn you off?

M: Yes. I am trying to learn what sex is about for a free and voluntarily participating woman. My view has been that all women that do pornography are either terribly misinformed, or they’ve been enslaved. You tell me that’s not true at all. That being in porn can be liberating and profitable.

A: I agree that we all have a lot of programmed ideas about what is sexy. I get irked. Oh God, not another white teddy. There is plenty of room for porn to be more creative, experimental, feminist, and more erotic for women. But it’s harder to create that than you might think. That’s the challenge I love.

You can either love it or hate it

Hi, all. My "Why I'm pro-porn" / "Who are you and why are you here?" post will be up shortly, but for now, I wanted to re-post something I originally wrote a year ago, almost to the date.

--

On many occasions in the lovely ol' blogosphere, I've witnessed anti-porn feminists write a screed against porn and make categorical declarations about people who like porn (hey, here's one example); and then when someone who does like porn takes offense and says, wait a minute, speaking in broad generalizations like that is a misrepresentation, a bunch of angry radfems will descend on the person and ask how they can, in good conscience, support the trafficking of women as sexual slaves, the commodification of women's sexuality, the elevation of men's sexual desires above women's, and so on and so forth.*

Here's why this is ridiculous.

If you say, "I like music," no one assumes that you like every piece of music ever created. In fact, usually the follow-up question is, "What kinds of music do you like?"

There might be some kinds of music that you thoroughly, passionately love; music that you can listen to over and over again and never get sick of; music that speaks to you on a deeply personal level; music that is therapeutic for you - or just downright fun to dance to.

Some other kinds of music? Eh, you might feel like you could take it or leave it.

You might be annoyed by some of it.

You might find some of it downright weird.

You might be disturbed by some of it - e.g., violent lyrics in some rap music. On the other hand, you might see that as a healthy outlet for anger.

You might think that the commodification of "boy bands" stifles true musical creativity from getting the attention it deserves.

You might think that in the music industry as a whole, there is too much focus on monetary gain, and the barrier of entry is too difficult for small-time musicians starting out.

You might have strong ideological and/or pragmatic reasons for supporting independent artists - and still sing along with pop music on the radio.

The same goes for saying you like movies, books, sports, etc. - no one assumes you love the entire spectrum of it. Because, you know, that would be silly. People understand this. So, can someone explain to me why porn seems to be the exception?

* Ed. note: I apologize for the long-ass run-on.

Oh see, it all makes sense now...

Stated in plain text right on NoPornNorthHamptons web site:

"This site contains documentation that some people may find offensive. It is reproduced for the sole purpose of supporting NoPornNorthampton's arguments."

(bold text added by moi.)

So that explains it, yeah? They just do think it is okay, fine and dandy to take the words of women willingly in the sex industry, with no regard to their feelings on the sex industry, or thier work, or what they do, or think, or support, for their own noble cause!

Especially when that cause supposedly cares about consent and the feelings of women in porn.

Ahem, I call bullshit!

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.