How To Smack Down A Troll (Antiporn Pseudofeminist Division)

Here's yet another example of how antiporn feminist lunacy gets around the Interwebz.

Avedon Carol is well known for both her unabashed progressive/liberal/Left viewpoints and her opposition to censorship, especially censorship of sexual media. As the head of the London based group Feminists Against Censorship, Avedon has been on the forefront of battles against both religious- and feminist-based attempts to censor sexual media for quite a long time...even during the days of Dworkin-MacKinnon and the Meese Commission. Therefore, like other infidel feminists, she gets the occasional cold brush treatment from the usual crowd of antiporn "feminists".

A recent example is taking place at her blog, The Sideshow, where in passing Avedon did a brief endorsement of a recent anthology titled The History of Pornography (edited by Patricia Davis, Simon Noble, and Rebecca J. White), which she described as an "non-idelogical" and "dry" piece. Nevertheless, she gave the anthology a begrudging approval:

But I couldn't find anything particularly wrong with it from a quick scan. Possibly a good primer for someone not familiar with the basics.

Such a view was not shared by a reader named "Mathilda", who decided to use the comment page to attempt to correct Avedon on her "error" in judgment.

Regarding: "The History of Pornography, I would not consider this to be a good primer for someone not familiar with the basics as the authors paint a rather rosy, inaccurate, and one-sided picture.

In the discussion of the movie: "Deep Throat", no mention is made of the fact that the actress Linda Lovelace performed this act under duress.  

She testified before the 1986 Attorney General's Commission on Pornography in New York City, stating “When you see the movie Deep Throat, you are watching me being raped. It is a crime that movie is still showing; there was a gun to my head the entire time.”

Also, there is no reference to "Pornography for Women" and the many excellent female pornographers such as: Petra Joy, Erika lust, etc,  who cater exclusively to the authentic sexual fantasies of women (For example, many scenes that include cunnilingus, threesomes - one woman, two men etc.)

The important distinction between Features and Gonzo is not discussed.

Finally, child pornography, or the more apt term, sexual abuse of children, is completely ignored.

According to the Internet Watch Foundation, the recent trend has been for more brutal images and severe torture of children whose ages are getting lower and lower.

A more appropriate title for this paper would have been: "The History of Pornography for Heterosexual Men".  [posted by "matilda" on 3/13/10 @ 10:34 PM London time]

You get the picture...do you??

Avedon attempted a quick response:

The place of Deep Throat in the history of pornography has nothing to do with how Traynor treated Linda - although her story would fit neatly into a detailed history of marital abuse in the 20th century.  Don't confuse the conditions under which a worker is employed with the product itself - it's like pretending that because many people who work in the food industry are treated badly, food itself is evil.

Internet Watch Foundation is an organization formed by ISPs to try to finesse the government's power to shut them down (I was there - in fact, I was the person who made the mistake of explaining to them that they had no legal recourse other than to fight to change the law or cave in).  It depends on keeping fears about internet content stoked for its authority (and the income of its paid employees).  It does not have a record of being a reliable source for information about pornography, on or off the internet.

Commercial child pornography has played very little role in pornography itself, since it has never been a significant draw in the industry.  Also not mentioned in the article is the outrageous (and fully-documented) list of outright lies used to promote the idea of the vast influence of child pornography and to bring in horrific laws that have destroyed many lives over a threat that does not exist - and in fact, the laws themselves have endangered and harmed more children than they could conceivably protect.

As noted by the authors, there simply wasn't room for exploring the kind of detail you think was important, anymore than there was time for exploring the kind of detail I think is important - such as the role attempts to suppress porn play in creating sexual violence. [posted by Avedon on 3/14/10 @ 4:49 AM]

 Good enough....but upon reading this, I decided that the record should be cleared regarding the charges involving Linda Lovelace, especially considering Sheldon Ranz's excellent work regarding her history.  Thusly, I entered the debate head first:

And, consideing the charge implied that Linda Lovelace was forced to perform those acts she performed for Deep Throat: In her latter years just prior to her death, Lovelace essentially repudiated many of the charges she made concerning coercion involving making porn. She has also insisted that any abuse she suffered at the hands of Scott Traynor was entirely his alone, and that no other porn performer ever abused or coerced her. She even went on to accuse her antiporn suitors who were encouraging her to make those claims at that time of double-crossing her. [posted by me on 3/14/10 @ 10:16 AM]

Rather than attempt to rebut the facts, Mathilda decided to resort to the last gasp of trolls: denial and divergence of attention:

It was her husband Scott Traynor who held a gun to her head during the filming of Deep Throat. [posted by Matilda on 3/14/10 @ 10:31 AM]

Which proves....what??? He held a gun to her head everywhere, and undoubtably abused her..but what does that have anything to disprove Lovelace's own words??

Then, Matilda decided to aim her guns of scorn at Avedon directly, invoking all the usual GenderBorg saws and insults that are lobbed regularly at infidel women who don't march in perfect goosestep with their ideology:

Don't confuse the conditions under which a worker is employed with the product itself - How cruel! Using your logic, we should not concern ourselves with the millions of innocent children, young girls, and women that are forced into the sex trade by means of violence as it's all about delivering a product to men. You're definitely not a humanitarian, are you Avedon.

As for the Internet Watch Foundation, although it does have a history of overstepping its boundaries, checks and balances are in place. The IWF is currently the only watchdog in the UK for suspect online content. While its website cites several areas of interest, almost the whole of the IWF site is concerned with suspected child pornography. This organization has rescued many children from abuse. Surely you're not against that. BTW, can you provide a link for the outrageous and fully-documented list of outright lies used to promote the idea of the vast influence of child pornography. Also, please specify which laws have destroyed many lives and have endangered and harmed more children that they could conceivably protect.

That said, what's your view on child pornography? How extensive is it? Should we just ignore it or must something be done about it?

As for your last paragraph, it appears that pornography for women is such an unimportant detail. It's all about men with you, isn't it? If I may borrow Lambert's quote, you're a feminist like Zola's Nana was an actress.  [posted by Matilda on 3/14/10 @ 12:22 PM]

Note the attempt by Matilda to qualify her basic fundamentalist antiporn agenda with fawning support for "pornography for women", basically a house of straw that is used to mask her agenda of pillorying actual women in porn, and anyone who would defend them.

The debate essentially degenerates from there; I will simply repost here the exchange that resulted.

[From NomadUK]
Using your logic, we should not concern ourselves with the millions of innocent children, young girls, and women that are forced into the sex trade by means of violence as it's all about delivering a product to men.

If you read Avedon's response in that manner, then you're simply being deliberately obtuse and have little of value to say. But that's been fairly clear from your past posts, so, no surprise, really.

2 days ago, 10:46:09 AM

– Flag – Like  – Delete – Edit – Moderate

[From Matilda]
To suggest that one should not confuse the conditions under which a worker is employed with the product itself is like anathema to me if one wishes to call oneself a progressive. It immediately brings forth images of all kinds of abuse such as sex slavery, child labor, and sweatshops to name but a few. Avedon could have worded it differently to get her point across more effectively and humanely.  For example, if she had said: "Although I understand and share your concern about the abuse suffered by Linda Lovelace while making the movie Deep Throat, her story is separate from "The History of Modern Pornography", then at least, she would have given the impression that she cared about women. As it stands now, Avedon Carol comes across to me as someone who is hostile to authentic female sexuality and who does not give a flying fig about achieving sexual equality and freedom for women. That's not my idea of a feminist. Show me you care about women, Avedon.

2 days ago, 12:18:35 PM

– Flag – Like  – Delete – Edit – Moderate

[From Avedon]
No.  You come across as someone who wants to make up shit to accuse me of because I don't happen to share your penchant for blaming the wrong things for problems in society.  Your little mini-screeds are littered with false assumptions - not just about me, but about the subjects you claim to care about. 

When you care enough to do as much research on these subjects as I have, you will stop being such a loose cannon and, one hopes, have something to contribute to the debate.  Until then, you are just wasting our time.

2 days ago, 12:34:50 PM

– Flag – Like  – Delete – Edit – Moderate

[From Matilda]
Again, you provide no links for any of your claims.

In case you don't know, your blog is like an open book, no false assumptions on my part. Obviously you are lacking in knowledge about pornography for women. But not to worry. I'm an expert on that topic. Let me link you to some sites that will enlighten you. Porn movies for women - this will give you an idea what authentic female sexuality is about. My favorite female erotic cinematographer is Petra Joy. She calls her movies "Artcore", rather than "Hardcore". And rightly so. The hot sex scenes in her movies are artistically presented. From reading your blog, I can tell that you appreciate art. Petra Joy's movies will therefore definitely appeal to you if you enjoy watching authentic female desires and fantasies. 

If you wish to know more about what women don't like about mainstream porn, there is a good discussion in the comments to this article.

2 days ago, 2:32:20 PM

– Flag – Like

[from Matilda]
If you really wish to understand what I mean by sexual freedom for women, and women's right to enjoy their sexuality without shame, read the following.

The Night of the Senses" is an annual event where "Erotic Oscars" are handed out to creative talent. It celebrates diversity. The venue offers many different play rooms where people can live out their sexual fantasies. When Petra Joy attended one year she decided to be a voyeur. She narrates one of her most memorable experiences.
"Another room, another world. I hear a woman's loud moans. They draw me in. Her moans are not high but she groans with pleasure almost like an animal. When I step into the room I see men, lots of men surrounding a kind of metal bed. All I see of the woman is her raised hips and pussy. She is being fingered slowly and deeply by just one guy and watched by all the others. The guy's eyes meet mine. He appreciates and enjoys being watched. This is so different from the group wank scenario of a "Bukkake" party. The guys are not here to degrade the woman. The guys watch a woman being pleasured. And they know they are lucky to witness this intimate moment - a glimpse into the world of infinite female sexual power. A woman receiving total pleasure without shame. She is not serving but being served. Pleasured by one man and adored by the others. To me it felt like a temple of worship to female lust. Deep wet and roaring. And a shiver goes down my spine". Source

2 days ago, 2:40:04 PM

– Flag – Like  – Delete – Edit – Moderate

So, if we are to believe Matilda, she isn't really censoring porn, just attacking "mainstream" porn as merely a tool of men possessing and raping women, while offering an alternative "porn for women" that will essentially liberate women and break the cycle of male violence while affirming "authentic" female pleasure. Riiiiiiight...and the ex-gay fundamentalist preachers just love gays, too.

Here's how I responded to Matilda's latest nonsense:

Ahhhh.....first of all, Matilda, I have read about countless women who have performed bukkake.  It may not be for everyone, but it's not the universal "shamefest" that you take it to be...try actually asking more than a few women who have done it. It's only sperm, not battery acid.

Secondly...you talk all this smack about "female sexual power", but would you ever support the many females who are in mainstream porn who have openly testified that they have been empowered positively by their participation in it?? Would you grant the same mantle of authority to the likes of Nina Hartley, Candida Royalle, Madison Young, Sasha Grey, Dana DeArmond, Jane Hamilton, Lisa Ann...and I can name so many others?? Or, is only "female sexual power" simply restricted to those who follow your personal ideology? With all due respect to Petra Joy, she isn't the only person who can speak for herself.

And thirdly, comparing "mainstream porn" which is still basically a legal product consumed by consenting adults, with child porn, which is, last time I checked, still illegal, says far more about your biases and cracked opinions, Matilda, than it ever does about Avedon.  Besides, Avedon doesn't defend porn uncritically; she just defends the right of free adult consensual sexual expression.

Oh...and just quoting from Lovelace's Meese Commission testimony that "Chuck Traynor had a gun at her face while making Deep Throat" is simply misleading. In both of her biographies, Deep Throat and Out Of Bondage, Lovelace makes it definitely clear that NONE of the actors and performers in that movie coerced or harmed her during the taping of that movie, and she insisted that not only was it her decision to make the movie, but that the sex scenes were welcomed by her as a distraction from the abuse that she was getting from Traynor at the time. And, as I commented in my OC, in her later years, she even repudiated that testimony, saying that she was just saying that to please her fair-weather benefactors in the antiporn movement.

I'll go along with Avedon on this one. Bring facts, not anecdotes.  [posted by me on 3/15/10 @ 1:15 AM]

What Matilda did bring in response is simply breathtaking. I'll just let you be the judge.

You [moi] said: Would you ever support the many females who are in mainstream porn who have openly testified that they have been empowered positively by their participation in it?? Hahahahaha
Oh, you guys just love to delude yourself, don't you. Show me an article that talks about men claiming that cunnilingus empowers them and we'll carry on with this discussion. I'll tell you what empowers women - sexual equality, socialize women from the day they are born that they should cherish their sexuality and enjoy it because it is good, healthy and natural. Let's do away with the madonna/whore syndrome, shall we and then talk about empowerment.

BTW, here's a good article that mentions Sasha Grey - the author who states that, she is the porno industry's public relations wet dream come true, interviewed her while he was watching one of her porn movies. He's asking her questions while she's moaning in the movie saying:
“I want to be your sex slave, I want you to hurt me, I want you to make me cry. I’ll do anything, anything at all, whatever you want, I’m such a fucking whore, I need to train, I need to be broken, I want you to fucking hurt me.” .." Patriarchy has trained women well to say what men want to hear, acting like the good little captives they are.

Mainstream porn is all about women pleasing men. I've been researching this topic for about a year and a half and I honestly don't know which is worse - the images or the text. By far the worst effect of porn is that it has turned the men who watch it into sellfish uncaring lovers. As a result, many men and women have lost the ability to live with each other in peace. In the next post I've provided some links that discusses this issue in greater detail.

As for Linda Lovelace, it was in her last two biographies that she claimed she was abused during the filming of Deep Throat.  However, believe whatever you wish. All I can say is that the acts she performed in that movie were not normal.

Finally, I've been reading Avedon's blog for quite some time now. She must be a nice person and is obviously very knowledgeable about many topics. However, as far as human sexuality is concerned, Avedon Carol only says what men want to hear. I don't fault her for it because many very intelligent women and other feminists do the same. The need to please men is bred into women's bones. It requires herculean strength to break free from this mould and to tell it like it is.

Anyway, peace be with you. 

[Yesterday, 6:17:32 PM]

Forget about the fact that my point wasn't about men and cunninglingus, but women liking bukkake. Let's go straight to the attempted smackdown of Sasha Grey, who can certainly and has often defended herself against similar slurs and insults.

The actual article Matilda referenced (the original link is broken) goes to an interview that Ms. Grey did for Adbusters.com reporter Douglas Haddow that was included in a rambling essay on how porn affected Maddow's generation. The words used by Matilda was actually a partial script of an anal scene Sasha did in a movie titled Sasha Grey Anal 1  That's right, Clones: a script of a scene. No reflection on Grey's normal sexual habits, or even her usual alt.porn roles; just one particular scene acted out. Just like the actors like Petra Joy whom act out similar scenes in their supposedly "woman-positive" porn movies.

Only antiporn ideology would suggest that Sasha Grey's performances reflect anything upon the users or even the performers, any more than people who watch "feminist porn" automatically become progressive feminists, or even antiporn feminists.

And then there is the whiff of arrogance: someone with a year of "research" experience empowers herself to speak for, and deny self-will and autonomy to, women performers who have been in the business for years and years. Not to mention, an anticensorship activist who has been on the front lines for well over 20 - 30 years. All because.....they want to please men.

Finally.....the acts that Linda Lovelace performed were "not normal"?!?!?!?  Really??  So, fellatio isn't "normally" acted out by women on men?? I guess that muff-diving, penile/vaginal sex, facials, external pop shots, and sex with anyone other than your significant other is also considered not "normal", then, Matilda?? Never mind that all those acts are performed not just in porn, but in REAL LIVE by REAL LIVE people every single day???

But....we are supposed to believe that all of the acts performed in her favored "porn for women" ARE real and reflect the desires of REAL women??  As if existing female performers in porn right now aren't capable of experiencing "real" sex in their own private lives??

Yeah....Matilda's different from a right-wing fundie imposing their narrow attitudes on others. She may claim the title of "feminism"...the way Sarah Palin does.

The Latest from the "Liberal" Media

The latest round of porn-bashing from the ostensibly liberal media comes in the form of a Washington Post editorial by Pornified author Pamela Paul. Apparently triggered by the news University of Montreal study that turned up no link between porn consumption and pathological behavior, Paul comes back to the porn wars after several year ready for a fight.

Paul wants us to know that porn is dangerous addictive stuff that is damaging society. Her evidence – the anecdotal reports of the self-described porn addicts she interviewed for Pornified (selection bias, anyone?) and, that favorite cudgel of the anti-porn movement, the studies of Dolf Zillmann and Jennings Bryant. She then drops one of her favorite shocking assertions: when Zillmann and Bryant took their findings to an ethics committee, it was found that they had clearly demonstrated that exposure to porn was so harmful, that all further direct laboratory studies using exposure to porn were forbidden from that point forward.

This latter point is taken up as the basis for a column by the rather clueless Tracy Clark-Flory, a writer for Salon's feminist column Broadsheet. Clark-Flory admits that Paul "seem(s) to have an agenda of (her) own" and talks about her "ambiguity" about porn, but nonetheless, seems to be perfectly fine with passing along the claims by Paul, and Zillmann and Bryant without comment.

Now where to begin with all this? First, a quick note on the University of Montreal study that triggered the article. I've been aware of this study for several months, and yes, I agree with the criticisms of it – only 20 subjects, same age group from one college campus, no control group; that's not a good study, which is why I don't quote it. (I do want to note, however, that blogs like Jezebel that made much to-do about the flaws of that study were very quick to laud Melissa Farley's latest study on the evils that johns do, with seemingly no concern about its methodology or research ethics – funny thing that.) The most I can say about it is that it squares with the established body of research that has so far failed to find any overarching negative effect of porn exposure on psychologically normal men.

Now, as for Pamela Paul, she makes a big to-do about her interviews with self-described porn addicts, but a purely anecdotal study of a group that is selected for having a problematic relationship with porn doesn't tell you anything about the role of porn in the lives of all men, or even most men. But if we're going to bring out anecdotal books, why not give equal weight to David Loftus' Watching Sex? Which found men reporting that porn plays a much less problematic (and sometimes even positive) role in their lives, in stark contrast to the claims made by anti-porn activists (who often don't even talk to, much less study, male porn consumers). (Audio of interview with Loftus here.) However, until the claims made in both Pornified and Watching Sex are the subject of a controlled, methodological study, any such claims must be only seen as provisional.

The meat of this critique, and something I've been meaning to write about for some time, concerns the pornography research of Dolf Zillmann and Jennings Bryant, who's studies on the behavioral effects of pornography are a mainstay of anti-porn literature. What seems to have disappeared down the memory hole, however, is that Zillmann and Bryant were deeply biased toward what can only be described as a deeply conservative view of gender relationships (the "virtue" of women, etc) and engineered this bias into the questionnaire they used to evaluate the "sexual callousness" their subjects supposedly picked up from exposure to pornography. Their assumptions about what constitutes “sexual callousness” include: the belief that having multiple partners is more natural than life-long monogamy, placing a low value on the institution of marriage, seeing nothing wrong with non-marital sexuality, belief that repressing sexual desire is unhealthy, and having less desire to have children. In other words, being sex-positive makes you “sexually callous”!

Zillmann and Bryant had been called out by a number of writers during the 1980s and early 1990s for the political biases and its negative influence on their research. Notably, see the debate between Ferrel Christensen and Jennings & Bryant in the pages of Journal of Communication (link and link). The responses by Zillmann and Bryant really give their game away as to where they are coming from in terms of sexual politics, and their contempt for Christensen's sex-positivity is palpable. Note also the response by Daniel Linz and Edward Donnerstein (link), who do not seem to have a dog in the porn wars of the time, but nonetheless clearly point out Zillmann & Bryant's political engagement with the anti-pornography side and, most damningly, the fact that they simply ignore research that contradicted their own when discussing their findings. Additionally, Alison King's 1993 essay "Mystery and Imagination: the Case of Pornography Effects Studies" (partial link here), is an excellent critique of 1980s porn effects research, with a particular focus on the work of Zillmann and Bryant.

Getting back to Pamela Paul, its not surprising that she's such a partisan for Zillmann and Bryant, considering she seems to be working from a similar set of sexual politics. While I don’t know her exact political leanings, based on what I’ve read of “Pornified” and interviews I’ve listened to, she seems to show a strong neo-conservative streak, an impression that's only strengthened by the fact that the overwhelming concern of her writing centers on the strength of marriage and family, and potential threats to that institution. Though she’s not overtly part of the religious right or making religious arguments (albeit, she does have good things to say about religious right anti-porn activism), she does work from a host of traditionalist assumptions about men and women. That women ultimately want to be in a faithful, emotionally supportive, monogamous relationship with a man, and that men basically need to be hammered into the role of faithful partner, something undermined by porn. Call it "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" feminism, if you will.

This brings me to one Pamela Paul's tallest assertions, apparently based on an interview with Jennings Bryant, in which he claims that the results of his study showed such clear and overwhelmingly negative effects that they were blocked by an ethics board from conducing further research where subjects were directly exposed to pornography. Paul implies that this has been the case ever since Zillmann & Bryant's original study. A simple search of the academic literature would dismiss this whopper of a claim (one I've seen a number of antis repeat over the last several years, BTW), and one really has to wonder about Paul's qualifications as a journalist for not even checking this story.

In fact, quite a bit of porn research was done throughout the 1980s, notably by the Linz and Donnerstein, the above-mentioned colleagues of Zillmann and Bryant, as well as Neil Malamuth. The results of all of this research was highly equivocal; Neil Malamuth (a wildly misunderstood researcher who is a strong believer in the idea that pornography has *some* behavioral effect) has conducted several meta-analyses of this research, and has led him to note negative behavioral effects only in the most violent subset of men and mainly from violent pornography (link), and this in combination with a certain set of pre-disposing psychological cofactors (what he terms "moderators") that he is currently engaged in studying. Most notably, Malamuth was not able to find any evidence that pornography promoted sexually aggressive behavior in psychologically normal men, something anti-porn crusaders like Robert Jensen and Gail Dines have been forced to admit time and again.

And this is not to mention the fact that pornography is routinely used in other areas of psychological research, notably studies of sexual attraction; for example, the controversial research on gender and sexual attraction by Meredith Chivers and Michael Bailey (link).

The story by Bryant, repeated by Pamela Paul, that research using pornography ceased following Zillmann & Bryant's early study is spun out of whole cloth, and is simply a dodgy cover for the fact that their alarming results were not, in fact, generally replicated. That a crusader like Jennings Bryant or Pamela Paul would float such a tale is par for the course. However, that somebody like a Salon columnist – Salon presumably being a journalistic source – would pass something like this along without some remedial fact-checking is truly shameful.

When Right-Wing Feminists Attack

The fight in Rhode Island over keeping indoor prostitution legal has descended into some decidedly muddier territory recently. First, a couple months ago, arch-prostitution foe Donna Hughes weighed in with an editorial in the Providence Journal basically calling the pro-sex work people who testified against the legislation a bunch of stinky tattooed freaks. Next, the ever-charming Judith Reisman weighed in a couple of weeks ago calling academics supporting prostitution decriminalization "The Academic Pedophiles and Perverts Party". (This was followed by another lovely missive a few days later.)

Not to be outdone, Hughes recently added a blog post to the Citizens Against Trafficking website, in which she launches into a McCarthyist tirade against the "sex radical" cabal (notably Ronald Weitzer and Elizabeth Wood) opposed to criminalizing legislation, even going so far as to use out-of-context statements to paint Elizabeth Wood as a "sex offender". The title says it all – "International Sex Radicals Campaign to Keep Prostitution Decriminalized in Rhode Island". Subtitled "Part 1", which I guess means one tirade won't be enough.

Renegade Evolution reposts Hughes rant and adds her own commentary here. Snowdrop Explodes gives Hughes a good fisking and says pretty much everything I'd have to say about it. Michael Goodyear gives a more formal response, taking down Hughes with a simple dose of facts and a clear appeal to ethics. Elizabeth Wood councils staying on the high road and focusing on opposing criminalizing legislation rather than mudslinging with Hughes. I second that and those of who are motivated to action by this incident would be well advised to take Woods advice and focus on joining the fight against the Rhode Island legislation rather than getting sidetracked into a pissing contest with Hughes.

At the risk of mudslinging myself, I think some background on Hughes and Reisman is called for, for those who may not be familiar with them –

Donna Hughes is a University of Rhode Island women's studies prof and "anti-trafficking" activist who pretty much erases the line between the radfem section of the anti-porn and prostitution movement and the far-right, religiously-based one. She has the dubious distinction of probably being the only person who has been published in both Rain and Thunder and National Review. Unlike other radfems, who hold to some pretense of being more or less leftists or progressives, she quite openly professes her alignment with conservatism and the Republican Party. (Albeit, the recent PUMA/New Agenda movement has raised the visibility of openly right-wing feminists.) She's was a big fan of GW Bush, and goes so far as to state, "by supporting the abolitionist work against the global sex trade, he has done more for women and girls than any one other president I can think of." Along with fellow right-wing radfem Phyllis Chesler, Hughes wrote a Washington Post editorial calling on feminists to realign with conservatives, including the Christian Right, against the sex industry and Islamism. (Which I guess amount to some kind of twin patriarchal hydra in their estimation.)

Judith Reisman is a right-wing sex researcher who's relationship with mainstream scientific sex research is analogous to the relationship of "creation science" to evolutionary biology. She has a special obsession with Alfred Kinsey, who she accuses of being, of course, a pervert and a pedophile, and father to a vast sexologist/pervert/queer/pedophile conspiracy to destroy America's moral fiber. Alternet published a good expose on her 5 years back. (This being in the days before Alternet started publishing articles that were actively praised by Reisman.) Reisman is one of the main proponents of the fringe idea that pornography stimulates the brain to produce "erototoxins" that lead to addiction and general degeneracy. Although Reisman has spent the last 25 years working the far-right side of the political street, in her early years she did outreach to feminist anti-porn groups (under her pre-married name, Judith Bat-Ada), and was well-received in spite of using many of the same "family values" and domesticity arguments she uses today. She occasionally is still positively cited by that crowd.

The interesting thing is, Hughes and Reisman go out of their way to paint their opponents as sexual extremists and beyond the pale of normal behavior, stooping to out-of-context statements to cast aspersions on their sexual practices. The saying about glass houses and throwing stones comes to mind, however, because a lot of the attitudes about sex coming from their side of the "sex wars" battle lines looks pretty extreme from where I'm standing. I've already noted where Judith Reisman is coming from. Another big name in the "prostitution abolitionist" movement is Sheila Jeffreys, who holds what can only be describes as some very anti-male and anti-sex views. I just recently came across a BBC program on Jeffreys ideological roots, which for the most part are motivations that largely drive her to this day. I've been meaning to post a pointer to it as its a very interesting and informative program, and since the topic of "extremism" has come up, the timing is perfect. (The video is divided into 6 parts – part 1 is here, the rest can be found here.)

Win and fail

Some briefs from around the Internets. In the "win" category, comes this post from FurryGirl on sexual objectification. Now this is a subject that's been the topic of not only some very extended writing/argument around the feminist blogosphere, but is the subject of entire books and journal articles. Nevertheless, FurryGirl in a brief post manages and effective smackdown of the "it objectifies women" as a be-all end-all of charges against porn:

Ah, “objectification”, one of those buzzwords - like “empowerment” - that I’ve heard so many times, it just sounds like gibberish. And really, I’m not sure if I ever knew what it was supposed to mean in the first place.

This topic is one of my major headdesk issues with anti-porn crusaders. They say, “porn objectifies women!” as though that’s some kind of end-all analysis. I address this topic from two directions.

Firstly, as a porn model and cam girl, it’s my job description to “be a sex object”, (as the anti-sexers would define it), and it’s a job with which I’m very happy. My friendlier customers treat me like a multi-dimensional person, too- but it’s not required of them, and I don’t resent the ones who don’t try and get to know me. (Hell, I know it annoys me when I, as a customer, get an overly chatty waiter or cab driver who tries to impose socializing on me when I’m not feeling up to it.) On cam, my customers pay $3 a minute for the expressed purpose of not having to wine and dine me and pretend to care what I’m saying in order to get me to take off my clothes. It’s so much more honest than dating.

[...]

Secondly, everyone at their job is “objectified” in their roles. I don’t profoundly care for the cashier at the grocery store, but no one’s ranting online about how he’s being oppressed and “objectified” because, at work, most people see him as “a cashier”. I don’t care to delve into the inner intellectual passions of the woman who made me tea at a cafe, but I’m not aware of any college courses being taught on the “objectification” of baristas. I have never fallen into deep romantic love with a nurse who’s weighed me and taken my blood pressure at the doctor’s office, but if there are protesters outside the clinic that day, their signs don’t read, “Stop the exploitation of women! Planned Parenthood objectifies nurses as mere one-dimensional healthcare workers!”

[more]

In the "fail" category is yet another anti-porn documentary Overexposed. It was made a few years ago, but has gotten some recent buzz over the Film Talk blog, which is unfortunately lapping it up. Trailer and website for the film here. It appears to be a kind of right-of-center version of The Price of Pleasure (featuring Drew Pinsky, Pamela Paul, and evangelical Steven Arturburn) that was produced at USC of all places, and focusing on the claimed addictive and degenerative effects that porn has on men. The centerpiece is Drew Pinsky spouting off some piece of junk science on the evil that porn does to men's brains. (Aparently, such images stimulate pleasure centers in the brains of men – uh oh, can't have that!) Pinsky is up there with Dr. Phil as being among my least favorite sex-negative pop psychologists. The negative messages coming from these guys don't get enough attention and response from "sex positive" community, even though each probably ultimately have more direct influence on public attitudes toward sexuality, sex workers, and sexual minorities than Robert Jensen, Gail Dines, and Melissa Farley put together.

A "Stench" of Anti-Porn Myopia: Starring Gail Dines and Featuring: "Damaged Genitals"?!?!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

What a fool believes

There's an interesting post about TPoP written by a student at UT Austin (where Robert Jensen calls home) in a class blog. Its pretty clear that this student isn't thinking critically about what Jensen or TPoP is telling him, and generally, he doesn't come across as the brightest bulb in the pack. But what's interesting here is what "facts" are picked up about porn and people in it by those who aren't engaging this subject critically. To wit:

...Professor Robert Jenson is a professor from UT who has been following and analyzing the pornography industry from a feminist perspective for over 10 years. He was in the movie and also at the screening....The Doc then went into how the pornography industry objectifies women. Most porn stars have little to no education, and are basically forced into prostitution/stripping/pornography as a viable alternative to making money to support themselves. They could make more in a day at a pornography shoot than they could make all month as a waitress or at any other entry-level job position. Pornography filmmakers take advantage of that and force these girls to act and fake pleasure in their films, while the girl is often extremely not happy to say the least. She just does it because it is a job. The filmmakers often make these girls do "fantasy" type things that are far beyond normal sexual acts. This causes some pornography consumers own sex lives to be extremely twisted and perverted, usually destroying their relationships with their wives and girlfriends. The industry makes over a billion dollars a year. All in all this was definitely an interesting documentary that I would recommend to anyone in the class.
(more)

(Emphasis mine.) I think this speaks volumes about the real message TPoP and Jensen are conveying, in spite of the disclaimers to the contrary. For all their rhetoric about being absolutely against media that defames women, these people are certainly happy to engage in some rather nasty defamation of a whole group of women when it serves their purposes. "Honest and nonjudgmental" indeed!

When David Duke Meets Radical Feminism: The "Porn Stars Shouldn't Be Having Children" Debate

I've gone off at my own venue about the absolute fuckwadery of that pronouncement...but I will explain here why this shit really hits me hard.

It's not just because I've met and befriended (online) more than a few porn performers and erotic artists who happen to be mothers (and I mean REAL mothers, not just MILF's), and both they and their kids turn out to be as happy and healthy and normal (all of the usual stuff that goes with raising kids aside) as anyone else.

It's not just because of the general principle of not sticking your nose in other people's private lives and pretending to know how to live their life for them without even making an attempt to listen to them speak for themselves.

No....what really burns me up to the point of going "nucular" is the fact that a putative FEMINIST.....nay, a RADICAL FEMINIST, would have the unmittigated gall to make a statement that would be more telling of neo-Nazis against Jews, or Klansmen against Black women.

I am not that far removed from the time when David Duke was running for governor of my home state of Louisiana, and one of his might racist planks of his campaign was to pay poor (read that to mean, poor Black) women in exchange for them taking permanent drugs like Norplant to prevent them from having children.

How is this nonsense any different now merely because it comes from the mouth of a presumed "progressive"??

But, then again, all standards fade when it comes to sex, and the threat of a naked nipple, a soaked thong, a hard-on, a scream of orgasm....can do much to turn even the most putative liberal into a fearful, skirt-clutching, "Not in front of the children/ladies!!" spouting Mrs. (or Ms. Grundy).

Considering all the talk about how sexually free we have become, the old repressions and reactions are still as strong with us....ask Tristian Taormino or Audacia Ray or Melissa Gira, whom have seen how the long arm of sexual censorship can strike even in the most supposedly "liberal" venues.

Sex may be the last vector of social reaction, since race and gender oppression are slowly fading. It's about high time we took it seriously...and defended sex for its own sake, as well as the women and men who produce sexual media. They don't deserve to be treated like human beings; they ARE human beings by right. And so are their children.

Radical feminism or radically bad faith? APRF's attempt to silence RenEv

Its likely that most of the readers of this blog are also readers of Renegade Evolution's blog and already know about this latest dustup. Nonetheless, I do want to post about it here, both as an expression of solidarity with Ren, and to point to how this fits in with the larger context of the "porn wars".

Basically, a student group at William and Mary College, in the wake of the controversy there over the Sex Worker's Art Show, set up a debate on porn and sex work between, on the anti-side, Samantha Berg (probably somebody who needs no introduction by now) and John Foubert, a "pro-feminist" professor of psychology at W&M, who basically comes across as an even more clueless version of Robert Jensen. (He wanted the Sex Worker Art Show banned from campus holding that the slight nudity in the show would directly cause men to go out and rape – I shit you not that this fool actually claimed this.) On the other is Jill Brenneman (who spoke at W&M earlier this month) and Renegade Evolution.

When Sam heard that she would be facing Ren in the debate, she had a hissy fit and demanded that the student group drop Ren as a speaker. The reason – Ren's infamous offhand comment from about a year ago that radical feminists who were hassling other sex-positive and WOC bloggers should "Fall under a truck and die choking on your own blood." Sam, in true drama queen fashion, claims this proves that big bad Ren is a clear threat to her physical safety. At present, the student who organized the debate is trying to talk some sense into Sam Berg, but there is some danger that Ren will be uninvited, as Sam was apparently invited earlier than Ren, hence Sam's threats to pull out apparently have some leverage.

To say that this is utter bullshit is to state the obvious. First, the "fall under a truck" comment is clearly just an angry statement rather than a direct threat, and one that Ren actually apologized for. (Unnecessarily, IMO, but that's Ren's prerogative.) Second, for anybody who's followed the radfem side of the blogosphere porn wars, Sam Berg's reputation as a loose cannon precedes her. She's well-known for her off-the-wall, creepy, and, surprisingly for someone who's supposed to be all about being 110% pro-woman, often rather misogynistic statements about those she's opposed to. Notably, describing sex workers like Ren as “I’m hot, bi-sexee, and willing to fuck and suck anything for money”. Or strippers as "women smiling while hanging upside down from a pole like a painted negro in a minstrel show dancing for peanuts". (OK, slowly backing away....)

The thing is, this is not a new pattern with the anti-porn feminist crowd. In the 1980s, Dworkin and MacKinnon would debate men like Alan Dershowitz, but would routinely refuse to debate sex workers and sex-positive feminists. The reasons for this were entirely propagandistic, a way of conveying the impression that they represented women, and only men opposed their politics. Later, when the issue of opposition by sex workers and other feminists became unavoidable, MacKinnon and other radical feminists would come to use the kind of tactics we being used by Sam Berg, claiming that the presence of such activists presented a physical danger to themselves and other women.

In 1993, students affiliated with Catherine MacKinnon forcibly removed Carol Jacobsen's video and photo exhibit "Porn'Im'Age'Ry: Picturing Prostitutes" (along with works by Veronica Vera and several other artists) from a conference on prostitution at University of Michigan Law School (MacKinnon's haunt) with the rather dubious claim that the exhibit was pornographic and presented a direct danger to the women at the conference. (That many of the same issues are still being played out 15 years later with the Sex Worker's Art Show is rather telling.) The films were shown at UM only after a lawsuit against the University by the ACLU.

In 2001, Janice Raymond of CATW successfully pressured NYU to have Jo Weldon, at that time an active sex worker, removed from a panel discussion on trafficking. The reason? Because Weldon was a sex worker and not on the same page as CATW, and that since CATW didn't have a sex worker or ex-sex worker from their camp on the panel, Weldon's presence "experiential advantage" biased the discussion against CATW. Note that CATW's tactics involving a last-minute demand for a change in speakers is very similar to what is happening to Ren here.

I also want to point to Witchy-Woo's recent rather off-the-wall broadside against Anthony Kennerson, over nothing in particular except that she wanted to bring up how much she hated him. (I've also been a similar target of abuse by this UK clique of radfems, with a long history of trying to bait Anthony and myself by calling us "cowards". I can't speak for Anthony, but my refusal to engage with them has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with the fact that there's really nothing to be gained by arguing with a pack of rabid, hostile ideologues.) Not that I think this has any direct connection with the W&M events, but it fits this larger pattern. Once again, in the context of a rare display of sort-of-unity between radfems and sex-positive feminists, a radfem takes it upon herself to call out a man who is rather peripheral to the whole discussion, who on this issue was more or less on the same side, just for the sake of, once again, creating a "radfems vs men" two-minute hate. I think its rather interesting to contrast a group of radfems going out of their way to pick a fight with a man versus another radfem avoiding debate with a woman who has proven she can effectively call their position into question. I think this has everything to do with the way radfems have been trying to frame this debate for the last 25 years. However, I think the time has long since passed since they can get away with trying to hide the fact that they have managed to piss off not just men and not just "johns", but an awful lot of feminists, women, and sex workers – in other words, many of the very people who they claim to be helping.

Gail Dines: Sex-Fascist. Hypocrite.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Some Antidotes For Bob Herbert's Anti-"Pornstitution" Myopia

For those of you just coming from Feministe and Jill's tribute to Bob Hebert's latest display of myopia and sex shaming, I offer these articles in response for an effective antidote:

Elizabeth Wood of Sex and the Public Square: Note to Bob Hebert: Misogyny is much more complicated!

Let me start with the false assumptions about causality. Herbert seems to be asserting that the existence of pornography and prostitution, as evidenced by legal brothels in Nevada, serve as evidence of the misogyny in American culture that then leads to the epidemic of violence against women. Wrong. Are more wives and girlfriends murdered by their partners in Germany or the Netherlands where prostitution is legal? No. I would say it is our culture of violence that leads to violence of all sorts. (Note: I am not asserting a direct connection between watching violent movies or playing violent video games and committing violent acts. I am suggesting that in a culture where violence and aggression are rewarded, as they are here, that you get more violence and aggression.)

The other problem with Herbert's argument is his assertion that sex work is somehow uniquely problematic. The fact that he uses sex work and pornography as the sine qua non of misogyny tells us that he sees those things as uniquely and irredeemably degrading and dehumanizing to women. One of the bits of evidence Herbert shows us -- again -- from his Nevada trip to support his claim that the brothels there degrade women (and I have no doubt that some are run in degrading ways) is that the women must answer to a bell. Now others have previously pointed out that school kids answer to bells, workers in factories and other locations often answer to devices like bells or buzzers. I bet even Mr. Herbert has a Blackberry or some other device that vibrates or rings in his pocket, and causes a Pavlovlian response where he hastens to comply with some instruction from his employer. Oppressive? Yes. Unique to sex work? Not a chance.

[...]

Herbert also raises the very real -- and too little examined -- problem of sexual violence in the military, but again he misses an important connection. He completed passes over the degradation rituals common to military life. Think drill instructors shouting insults at new recruits as they train. Think chants about blood and killing. Think hazing-type rituals as groups are formed and as their members shuffle in and out.

Think leasing your body to a male-dominated institution for a period of years to be used as the leaders of that institution wish. They can send you to another country. They can separate you from your family. They can command you to kill and send you on missions where your chances of being killed yourself are incredibly high. And you can't refuse without breaking the rules.

Think your only option for escape, if they don't want to let you go, is to commit the crime of desertion.

It is all the more clear now that Herbert opposes prostitution and pornography specifically because they are centered on sexual transactions. But degradation and dehumanization in work are problems that are not unique to the sex industry, and the sex industry ought not be uniquely condemned for them.

And then, there is this collection of essays from our founder and chief Henchwoman, from her own blog:

A Problem Here

Not a Monolith

Classist and Privileged, oh my!

THE DIFFERENCE

The Majority of the entries in the Activism & Outreach Tips for Allies Tag Section there on the sidebar.

And yeah, go on over to Bound, Not Gagged, and take a look.

And, if I find any more, I'll post the links here.

How NOT To Win The Heart Of A Porn Girl'

One part of the nature of being a female sex performer is in indulging the fantasy of being sexually desirable and available. It's basically one of the base requirements for being successful, even after the implants get old and the quick-hit gigs slow down.

Obviously, men and women tend to respond to such sexual stimuli with the fantasy of wanting to have sex with their favorite performer. In most cases, when both sides treat each other with respect and understand that it's just a fantasy; it can be not only very fun, but quite arousing.

Unfortunately, for a few folks who have a...shall we say, twisted view of women who do porn and sex work, the fantasy tends to be taken a bit too seriously...and venture out into dangerous and threatening ground. Then it is less a harmless fantasy and more like verbal attempted rape, and even stalking....and has done much to not only sully performers' opinion of their fans, but also feed the typical stereotypes of antipornradicalfeminists.

Case in point: One of my favorite porn starlets recently recieved a particularly nasty (and not in the good way, either) email from a "fan" (the quotes are deliberate, for reasons that should be obvious) reacting to her MySpace blog. For her protection and safety, I have redacted her name from the email, and I will not give out the blog location; but if you know the women whom I have memberships with, I figure that you will obviously figure it out on your own.

U have a wicked Oral Fixation?? Yes u do...like no other dirty ass slut...u
are the fuckin Whore of Whores!! The fuckin Tramp ass Queen of this shit!!
Dirty..and nasty..and filthy..and just what I fuckin lust after.. I am going 2
make u lust me baby.. I am going 2 make u lose your fuckin mind.. u big titty
bitch.. u have had a lot of dicks..but u have never had mine.. Oral Fixation..?
My cock..in your mouth..spells the greatest face fuck this world has never
known.. get your asshole stretched..get your tits plucked..and get your tight
ass pussy torn 2 shreds when u fuck with me.. I am Blasphemy baby..do not think
I do not know who the fuck u are.. u are a star..and I am the sun.. and u will
not get any rest..even after I am done.. I am going 2 wear that pretty pussy of
yours out.. and when we cum..we will cum 2gether..and we will change the
weather..because I never..enter any pussy..and fail 2 make the bitch cum at
least twice! u are fuckin with the baddest [target of hate redacted]..I am
nothing nice.. and never will be.. now dream about me..u fuckin slutty ass whore
of a bitch!!

Now, this nonsense might play well at a JM Productions site/message board or with some other hardcore "gonzo" outlet, and there may be some women who might even dismiss such talk as classically over the top lust....but in this case, the targeted starlet was startled and frightened enough to ask the question, "Why is it that some people think that they can talk to women that way??" She noted that she has gotten similarly hateful emails before from such "fans"; even enough that she thought about pulling all her non-paid sites and blogs in protest. Fortunately, the men who are the regulars to her blog were quick to respond and repudiate this "fan" as a brute, an asshole, and a braggart who probably couldn't back up his harsh talk with action; and reassure her that most of her male fans do respect her as a performer and as a person.

But it does make me wonder as a sex-positive porn fan and activist what it is that makes people like this "fan" go so hyperagggressive and so over the top. Is it the lingering deep clash between the body being turned on by sexual images and the mind still caught up in such negative stereotypes of "bitches" and "whores" and the still popular myth that women who do porn have no worth other than the sum of their cunts and anuses?? Is it just that some men will forever turn into sheer asshats at the sight of a naked lady who shows off her love of sex?? It's one thing -- and perfectly normal, in my view -- to want to fuck a gorgeous woman who offers her body in public....but, "to wear that pretty pussy out"?? To "get your asshole stretched...your tits plucked...your tight-ass pussy torn to shreds"??? Kinda extreme, if you ask me.

Moe than likely, this fool simply picked the wrong girl to brag about his sexual "prowess" with; and hopefully he gets his sorry ass filled with buckshot so that he remembers not to make that same mistake again. I only hope that the men out there who happen to be real and genuine fans of porn and sex work will show a bit more respect for the women who make their desires possible. Just because they happen to enjoy showing themselves off doesn't mean that they aren't still human beings worthy of empathy and respect. Even if they do have "oral fixations."