A Hearty Endorsement of "Carnal Nation"

It's always good to have more allies in the Sex Wars, and today, I've discovered a new journal dedicated to promoting the pro-sex/sex-positive viewpoint.

Actually, the blog Carnal Nation has been at it for more than a month now, but it is already doing significant work in its stated mission to improve the quality of debate about human sexuality. Quoting their mission statement.

CARNALNATION provides comprehensive coverage of entertainment for grown-ups. We at CARNALNATION embrace and honor human sexuality, and we promise to be current, consistent, and uncensored. We compile event listings; we publish original and incisive content; and we provide insightful commentary on a range of related topics from health to fashion to the latest toys. We know you take your fun as seriously as we do, so we invite you, our readers, to use CARNALNATION to realize and explore your interests, desires, and curiosities.

CARNALNATION was developed out of a compelling need to counteract those oppressive forces, whether internal or external, that stifle sexual growth, awareness, and fulfillment. We believe that sex is a vital human need and that sexuality is an important component of who we are as individuals, how we relate to each other, and who we want to become. In our view, fear and disdain of all things sexual have led to a society that too often vacillates between impulsive titillation and compulsive repression. Such extremes can only have a negative impact on our physical, psychological, and social well being. Therefore, we strive to inform and entertain without being pornographic or offensive. We make this commitment at all levels of sexuality: the personal, the political, and the perverted.

If the featured columnists and articles are of any indication, then they certainly have succeeded in fulfilling that commitment.

Editor Chris Hall (also co-founder, along with the equally wonderful Elizabeth Wood, of the related pro-sex site Sex in the Public Square) has arrayed an all-star cast of liberationist columnists....and the depth and breadth of quality of commentary is fascinating to say the least. A sampling based on issues recently debated here in this journal:

1) Chris Hall's follow up on The Price of Pleasure and its issues with "fair use" doctrine, in synch with comments here by both Ernest and Trinity:

The record-keeping requirements have been around for a while, but standards of enforcement have become even more arcane and inflexible in the last few years. Especially troublesome has been the law's requirement that records of the performers' ages be kept not only by the original producer, but by anyone redistributing the images. In October, Ernest Greene wrote an extensive four-part deconstruction of the film's content and Sun's ethical and legal obligations regarding the performers and 2257 records (Part 1, 2, 3, 4). Sun and her supporters claim that the film is protected by "fair use." Even the sex-positive bloggers haven't been united on whether Sun's film is fair use or not, which make the most recent entry in the debate even more interesting. Harper Jean Tobin at Polymorphous Perversity has a very precise and thoughtful legal analysis of the issues involved. Her conclusion? The Price of Pleasure can't claim "fair use" protections because fair use and 2257 apply to two entirely different sections of law. The former has to do with protecting the intellectual property rights of the original work's creator; the latter are federal regulations to prevent criminal exploitation of minors. Whether Sun (or anyone else) should be able to use those images is an entirely different matter that speaks to the nature of the impact that 2257 has on free speech.

2) Dr. Carol Queen (through her Live Nude Woman column) discusses the etiology of the philosophy of "sex-positivity", and defends the use of the term as it relates to defining her base sexual liberationist philosophy (in lieu of criticism from others):

So let me tell you what I think sex-positivity is now, lest I’ve given you the impression you have to start turning tricks to do it right. You don’t have to be bisexual (or trisexual), kinky, non-monogamous, or even sexually active. In fact, some of the most interesting discussions about sex-positivity I’ve had this year have been with a guy who’s busy organizing asexuals into a community of support and affiliation. Yep, you can even be sex-positive if you don’t ever want to have sex, just as you can be very sex-negative indeed and still have plenty of hot sex that you enjoy to the fullest.

Here’s the deal: Sex positivity means you acknowledge that sex is, or could be under the right circumstances, a positive, healthy force in anyone’s life… even if it isn’t right now. Those circumstances may not be the same for everyone (though some may be universal, like consent), but they include things like access to information, support, condoms (if relevant), a loving (or at least friendly) partner, healing from past negative sexual experiences like rape or abuse, privacy, enhanced self-esteem, etc. This list could be very long and, again, it won’t contain the same exact elements for everyone. This leads to the rest of what sex-positivity is, namely, the acknowledgement that not everyone’s sexuality, including sexual needs and desires, is the same, such that one person’s optimum, positive sexuality may not look anything like another person’s. That is, sex-positivity includes the acceptance of sexual diversity, and acknowledges that optimum sexual wellbeing for you might look different than it does for me.

3) Dr. Betty Dodson and Carlin Ross team up for a discussion on the uses and abuses of porn, via a videocast recorded through their site through YouTube. (original video here)

Other interesting articles include Chris' discovery of a proposed Chinese program for seeking out and screening adult material; Kingfish's article on the recent revival of burlesque; and a joint response to an inquiry about talking personally about kinky sex.

All in all, Carnal Nation is a welcome addition to the "sex positive" discussion, which I wholeheartedly recommend to all sexual freedom fighters.

A Primer on Sex-Positivity (from the World Congress of Sexology)

If there is a better definitive breakdown of what "sex positivity" should mean (and not just the opposite of "sex-negative" either) than this, I've yet to see it.

Excerpted from a larger post by Charlie Glickman that was posted to the Good Vibrations blog today:

Sexuality is an integral part of the personality of every human being. Its
full development depends upon the satisfaction of basic human needs such as the
desire for contact, intimacy, emotional expression, pleasure, tenderness and
love.

Sexuality is constructed through the interaction between the individual
and social structures. Full development of sexuality is essential for
individual, interpersonal, and societal well being.

Sexual rights are universal human rights based on the inherent freedom,
dignity, and equality of all human beings. Since health is a fundamental human
right, so must sexual health be a basic human right.

In order to assure that human beings and societies develop healthy
sexuality, the following sexual rights must be recognized, promoted, respected,
and defended by all societies through all means. Sexual health is the result of
an environment that recognizes, respects and exercises these sexual
rights.


1. The right to sexual freedom. Sexual freedom encompasses the possibility
for individuals to express their full sexual potential. However, this excludes
all forms of sexual coercion, exploitation and abuse at any time and situations
in life.

2. The right to sexual autonomy, sexual integrity, and safety of the sexual
body. This right involves the ability to make autonomous decisions about one’s
sexual life within a context of one’s own personal and social ethics. It also
encompasses control and enjoyment of our own bodies free from torture,
mutilation and violence of any sort.

3. The right to sexual privacy. This involves the right for individual
decisions and behaviors about intimacy as long as they do not intrude on the
sexual rights of others.

4. The right to sexual equity. This refers to freedom from all forms of
discrimination regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, race, social
class, religion, or physical and emotional disability.

5. The right to sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure, including autoeroticism,
is a source of physical, psychological, intellectual and spiritual well
being.

6. The right to emotional sexual expression. Sexual expression is more than
erotic pleasure or sexual acts. Individuals have a right to express their
sexuality through communication, touch, emotional expression and love.

7. The right to sexually associate freely. This means the possibility to
marry or not, to divorce, and to establish other types of responsible sexual
associations.

8. The right to make free and responsible reproductive choices. This
encompasses the right to decide whether or not to have children, the number and
spacing of children, and the right to full access to the means of fertility
regulation.

9. The right to sexual information based upon scientific inquiry. This
right implies that sexual information should be generated through the process of
unencumbered and yet scientifically ethical inquiry, and disseminated in
appropriate ways at all societal levels.

10. The right to comprehensive sexuality education. This is a lifelong
process from birth throughout the life cycle and should involve all social
institutions.

11. The right to sexual health care. Sexual health care should be available
for prevention and treatment of all sexual concerns, problems and
disorders.


Sexual Rights are Fundamental and Universal Human
Rights

Adopted in Hong Kong at the 14th World Congress of Sexology, August 26, 1999

Sounds like a pretty damn good political platform, doesn't it??

Why be "pro-porn" and/or "anti-anti-porn"? A 'Dog's eye's view

Well, since everyone else has chimed in on how they reached their conclusions about defending porn, I guess that I should give you my story.

Basically, my "pro-porn" beliefs are in much part integrated in my own independent, radical, Libertarian Left perspective that humans should be given the space, the resources, and the freedom to express their own sexuality to the fullest extent possible, with no harm done to others, and with all parties involved getting the most satisfaction and pleasure out of their activities. To me, sexuality is the essence of personhood, and the expression of the positive lifeforce that not only creates life (and not just in the traditional way of sperm meets egg, either), but just as much sustains our lives in ways we just don't begin to imagine. I really do believe essentially that consensual sexual pleasure (not neccessarily limited to but including an orgasm) is a human being's connection to the overall life force; indeed, it is the goddess Aphrodite's gift to the masses. And it is one human resource that cannot be taken away by government fiat, religious doctrine, or global warming...regardless of how often some folks may attempt to make us believe differently.

In my view, the majority of porn that is out there merely depicts sexual activity amongst humans that real people already enjoy immensely; whether mere acts of beautiful women and handsome men masturbating and touching and groping and tasting and kissing; or whether it's a full blown orgy of mass fucking and sucking; or whether it's merely a couple finding each other's hot buttons. Unless you are of the view that the activities themselves are somehow "immoral" and a threat to "society" and "civilization", it would be highly hypocritical, in my view, to come down on the written or displayed depictions of consensual and mutally pleasurable sexual activity amongst adults.

Plus, those who are so quick to condemn porn so gravely miss the most important reason for its existence: to turn people on and get people off. In a world that can be quite lonesome, cruel, and unfeeling, anything that allows a lonely soul or two or fifty even some minimal measure of pleasure cannot be so bad after all....as long as no others are harmed by his/her actions.

Obviously, I have my own judgments when it comes to the particular brand of porn that fits my horny fancy; that makes me no different than most people....including my fellow and sista conspirators here on this blog. For me, I'm more of the "slut goddess worship" type; nothing gets me going better than a smart, beautiful woman showing off her lust and love of sex, and her willingness to share that gift of giving and receiving pleasure with others. (To reduce that to two words: Nina Hartley.) Otherwise, my tastes and fantasies sexually-wise are quite conventional as most average middle-aged men go.

I would say that my antiracist and antisexist political philosophy also goes to shape a lot of my sexual beliefs as well; it is no accident or coincidence that much of my sexual philosophy was founded by reading up on sex-positive philosophers/activists like Gayle Rubin, Patrick Califia, Joan Nestle and Amber Hollibaugh; sex worker activists like Margo St. James, Carol Leigh, and Carol Queen; and especially libertarian Left thinkers like Victoria Woodhull, Emma Goldman, Susie Bright, Scott Tucker, Violet Blue (the sexpert, NOT the porn starlet); amongst others.

For me, though, it is the women and men who actually do the hard and wet work (no pun intended) in making porn and doing sex work who really earn my attention and respect. Certainly, they are not all wonderful, rags-to-riches tales of glory and honor; but the very fact that they are so willing to expose themselves -- in more ways than the obvious -- for the sake of promoting the pleasure principle, makes them no less worthy of respect merely because they aim to metaphorically touch our clits and dicks rather than our hearts and minds.

Obviously, being "pro-porn" in my view doesn't mean that some porn doesn't deserve criticism or to be held accountable for its faults; mostly, porn is -- like most other forms of art and creative expression -- a window into the soul of the producers and performers, and on occasion, even the audience. And sometimes, that view can be as shocking, as disturbing, and even as disgusting and raw, as it can be pretty, beautiful, sensual, petty, hilarious, ridiculous, satirical, indifferent.....in short, all of the emotions that we humans can offer. My response to those who would regulate such diversity of emotion out of existence would be: "So what???" If we can accept art specifically designed to make us laugh or cry or scream in fear or holler in anger, then why in the hell is it so impossible to accept art and speech that makes us come???

The answer to that last question is obvious: whether they come out of the feminist "left" (and I use the parenthesis deliberately, since I consider most antipornfeminists to be mere pretenders and pilferers of legitimate Left practice and theory) or the traditional religious/fundamentalist right, I find that most of the loudest opponents of adult consensual sexual expression simply are people who desire control over others to compensate over the lack of control over themselves. Unfortunately, oppressing others to mask their own repression is a time-honored tradition that crosses and transcends political ideology; it will take a lot of reeducation, patience, love, and support to reverse millenia of sex-negative propaganda and create a more humane, more forgiving, and more liberatory approach to sexuality.

But, the rewards are more than worth the risks, as far as I'm concerned; it's pretty damn hard to argue with an orgasm.

Maybe it's not the more philosophical approach to sexual liberation and porn that others here may follow....but it works for me.

Yes, I am as much "anti anti-porn" as I am "pro-porn"....it's just an extension of my basic "sex-positive" progressive philosophy that, to paraphrase the co-authors of the classic The Ethical Slut, Dossie Easton and Catherine "Lady Green" Liszt: "Sex is nice, and pleasure is good for you."

And, I might add, much better than war, torture, and inequality, too.

Why I'm pro-porn....

Hi, Iamcuriousblue here, contributing my first post to this wonderful new forum.

Like the blog's motto says, "Why, yes, I am pro-porn". But what does that mean, anyway? Radfems often attack sex-positive feminism in general as being "pro-porn", but the two things aren't entirely the same. Related, yes, and largely overlapping, but not the same thing.

Sex-positivity is the view that sex is an inherently good thing (which is not to say that all things involving sex are good or acceptable), that sex is innocent until proven guilty, and that the sexual proclivities of others, so long as they're consensual, are viewed positively even if they don't happen to be one's own cup of oolong.

Sex positivity may or may not include enjoyment of porn, though its generally correlated with a non-judgmental attitude toward people who do. (I'll leave the question of whether its possible to be fundamentally anti-porn and truly sex positive for another time unless somebody wants to bring it up in the comments.) However, contrary to the beliefs of some, sex-positivity is not all about porn and in fact, there's a lot of sex-poz people who's energy and activism around sexuality is largely directed at areas other than porn. There are even some sex-poz folks who feel that the majority of porn produced in the current mainstream porn industry largely reflect sex-negative attitudes and, hence, porn in its current form doesn't do much to promote positive sexuality.

So for me saying I'm "pro-porn" is a step beyond merely saying I'm "sex-positive". So what does being specifically pro-porn mean to me:

• In general, I can honestly say, I like pornography. Not just, "tolerate" it as the price for free sexuality and free speech in a free society. I enjoy watching sex – not as a substitute for "the real thing", like some might imagine, but becuase I think watching sex is pleasurable in and of itself, independent of what I like doing with a partner.
  
  This is not to say I like all pornography. In fact, its not to say I like most pornography. Nor does it mean I agree with anything done by anybody in the porn industry at any time in the name of making pornography. However, when porn is produced under conditions that aren't objectionable to those involved in making it (or better, actually enjoyable to those involved), when its made according to high standards that show pride in the craft of making such porn, and when it stimulates my particular sexual fetishes and interests – then I like it very much and have no qualms about promoting it.
  
  
• I think porn is an art form and really appreciate a lot of porn on that level. (I'm very interested in visual art in general, particularly photography, film, and comics, and am quite well-versed in art history.) As I've posted about before, I really think that the division between "erotic art" or "erotica" and "pornography" is highly artificial and is a distinction I refuse to make. The best porn has the qualities of being both erotic and pornographic, and is totally stimulating to both the mind and body. (Just like good sex, really.) Presenting the human body and sexuality in a beautiful and engaging way is a craft that not everyone succeeds at, and I genuinely admire those who do.
  
  
• I think porn is interesting. Porn reflects the larger culture and is an amazing cultural barometer. A lot of things that aren't dealt with in more "respectable" media are dealt with in porn. Because I see porn as reflecting the larger culture rather than driving it, my reaction to the usual line of porn atrocities that anti-porn types love to trot out is less panicky and more analytical. What does the sudden interest in all things anal mean? What about the motif of paramilitary types dominating or even raping "lolitas" or "twinks" in East European porn – where's that coming from? I suppose for this kind of "pornographic anthropology" a grudging tip of the hat is owed to none other than Andrea Dworkin. On her first trip to Israel, apparently the first place she went to was a porn shop looking for Holocaust porn – she apparently found what she was looking for.
  
  Also, I think the people in porn are interesting – I follow podcasts like Radio Blowfish, Porn Star Interviews, and In Bed With Susie Bright regularly. A lot of people in the porn world are the total opposite of the stupid, shallow, and damaged individuals they're stereotyped as – there's a lot of very intelligent and articulate people in that milieu with some interesting things to say. (Its unfortunate that, for a lot of people, their main exposure to porn stars is via forums like the Howard Stern Show and Opie and Anthony, which don't exactly encourage intelligent discussion.)
  
  
• To me, being pro-porn is related to some other things I'm "pro". I'm also highly sex-positive, so even with the above disclaimers, for me, being very positive about the idea of portraying sex is a no-brainer. And, at its very best, I think some porn is a seductive statement of sex-positive values, and powerful agitprop for a more sex-positive society.
  
  In general, I'm very pro-pleasure and pro-things that provide pleasure, including things that many people might consider vices. (I'm very much for the decriminalization or outright legalization of most recreational drugs as well.)
  
  Also, I'm very big on the idea of free speech. In fact, I'm pretty much one of those evol "first amendment absolutists" that "progressive" authoritarians like Catherine MacKinnon and Mari Matsuda love to hate. To me, strong free speech protections, including sexual speech and "obscenity", are absolutely vital to any society that can reasonably call itself liberal or progressive. I reject the idea that there should be categories of speech, such as obscenity or "hate speech", that a progressive society would benefit from censoring. (I also reject the idea that pornography can be reasonably considered a form of hate speech.)
  
  
• Finally, I reject the anti-porn position, both out of basic philosophical disagreement and because they get their facts simply wrong. A lot of what I've written above wouldn't matter much if porn was made be people who were essentially being raped on film, or if porn somehow had the power to turn significant numbers of men into rapists. Thankfully, the worst claims made against porn by the anti-porn movement are exaggerations or are downright false. Which is a lead in to the subject of my next post, namely, why I'm anti-anti-porn.