A Lesson In Anti-Porn Liberal Hypocrisy From AlterNet

It is pretty funny to see how liberals who are the most exercised about the innate evils of "mainstream porn" (or, as they also put it, "male-oriented porn") attempt to square their personal squicks with their political rhetoric.

Lately in some portions of the liberal-left press, much has been written or posted online about finding the perfect "alternative" to "mainstream porn", as a means of avoiding or sidestepping the heated issue of censorship, while attempting to replace such allegedly harmful, disgusting, and misogynistic material with content regarded as more "progressive", more "humane", and more "sexy".

As usual, the repository AlterNet is among the primary boosters of this strategy, allowing for the likes of Robert Jensen and Gail Dines to go off on the evils of porn, while simultaneously allowing others to promote "alternative" forms of erotica.

Unfortunately, to that end they sometimes will tend to cut corners and undermine the original founders to their political agenda.

Such a case I discovered today, when going through my Twitter account and discovering a reccommendation to an article that was posted last week to AlterNet titled "Is Hardcore Porn Played Out? A Site Showing Real People's Orgasms Give A Sexy Alternative".

The article, credited to a writer named Cherry Trifle from SeXis Magazine, consists of an interview with the owners and founders of a site called Beautiful Agony, which features basically porn shot from the neck up, promoting "real people having real orgasms", and specifically emphasizing shots of the performers/participants's faces when they come. The site basically invites participants to submit for pay their own videos, which are then published at their paysite.

In the interview, BA's founder, Richard Lawrence, explains why he developed his site and how he feels it to be different from "mainstream porn":

Cherry Trifle: You say that these videos are documentary, rather than performance…

Richard Lawrence: I think one of the biggest problems with the porn industry is that it doesn’t do a good job with its responsibility as a sex educator; which it is, regrettably—and not just for adolescents. Plenty of grownups have more sexual experience, in fact way more, through porn than with partners. As hardcore porn becomes more mainstream, people are developing these ridiculous notions of what women like, or what men like, and what people look like, or what is acceptable sexual behaviour.

I recently met a woman in her late 20s who told me she didn’t like anal sex, but had been doing it for years because she thought it was expected of all women, just as she’d seen in all the porn DVDs. And isn’t it incredible that not all women like to have five guys come in their face at once? In gonzo porn, it’s shown that all sex acts have their price, and so does every woman, as the host picks up a “random girl” from the street and peels off $100 bills in the back of a van. In fact, through running Agony, I have come to despise [traditional] porn rather than just be bored with it; porn could do so much to enhance sexual relationships, yet overwhelmingly, [porn] works against them through the depiction of sexual practices without context or informed consent.

There is a whole other side to Beautiful Agony that many people overlook, the section called “Confessions.” In these interviews or self-filmed revelations, the “Agonees” tell us—usually very frankly—all about their sex lives, and their stories are often remarkable.

One of my favorites is the well-spoken 20-something who decided to try out her new sex toy on the commuter train home, only to find that the lock on the bathroom door didn't quite work, much to the astonishment of an older lady passenger… After listening to a few of those stories you start to take a bit more notice of, well, things.

Notice how Lawrence simply restates most of the antipornfeminists' major critiques of "mainstream porn": that it disregards emotion and "love" for the quick facial; that it depicts sex outside of "context" (presumably, of love or emotion, as if lust or sexual pleasure isn't a legitimate emotion in and of itself);  that it degrades the performers by not requesting their "informed consent" to perform those acts; and that it reduces sex to a commodity to be exchanged for quick cash.

The only difference between Lawrence and Gail Dines, though, is that rather than censor porn outright as Dines and other antipornradfems would support, Lawrence would rather people discover and find his site as a supposedly healthy, "progressive" alternative that would improve human sexual relationships...though with the implied hope that if enough people do cross over, "mainstream porn" would wither away and die on its own.

Now, there's nothing wrong with encouraging alternative visions of erotica or supporting alternative means of sexual media, and I begrudge Mr. Lawrence nothing on his vision of erotica. What bothers me, though, is that like the antiporn radfems, he takes a very distorted view of what "mainstream porn" actually is and consists of, taking the widely maligned "gonzo" style as representative of the ONLY popular form of the genre of explicit sexual media.

Apparently, Mr. Lawrence wasn't around when Candida Royalle came out with her "feminist porn" label of hetero hardcore (via her Femme Productions series) which featured very real performers having very real orgasms and the same deemphasis on facials in favor of PIV shots (although, she had plenty of below the waist shots). And what about the recent rise of "alt.porn", which also bucks the trend of "gonzo" by offering girls that defy the supposed "male-oriented" stereotypes of big fake boobs and fake orgasms?

My real issue, though, is in the distortion that was used by AlterNet in posting the article at their site to begin with.  The actual SeXis site is far, far, more inclusive regarding sexual ideology....in fact, none other than Nina Hartley has a regular Tuesday podcast there.....and last time I checked, she was still taking facials and doing at least some anal. Indeed, the original title for the interview was slightly different from the spin that AlterNet took: Capturing The Face Of Orgasm: In & Out With Robert Lawrence, Founder of Beautiful Agony.

Whether it was the AlterNet publisher's decision to use the more...shall we say, direct byline for reproducing that interview, or whether Ms. Trifle gave them the approval to alter the title; it certainly sounds as if AlterNet distorted the article to support their agenda of going after "mainstream porn" while sidestepping the calls for "censorship:.

And the AlterNet agenda is not so veiled by other articles referenced in the piece, with titles such as:

"There's More To Sex Than Just A Cum Shot: What Men Need To Unlearn From Hardcore Porn"

"Why Men Fake Orgasms"

"You Like That, Baby, You Like That? Has Porn Made Men Bad At Sex?"

"Why I Quit Working In Porn"

Not exactly the "men are beasts and rapists" rhetoric of Maggie Hays and Kathleen Barry, but not that respectful of their free choices and ability to respect women, either.

Perhaps the folks at AlterNet would prefer to actually talk to and listen to a few men who are into "mainstream porn" before they decide to pass their judgments.

Fl Gov. Official Fired due to marriage to a porn star...

I hate to say this , but yeah, filed under typical.

I'm not very surprised by this, but I am somewhat surprised considering next to CA, FL produces probably the most pornography in the US. I was just there, aside from rather conservative Orlando (home of DisneyWorld!), porn and such seems to be pretty much tolerated in FL and seen as, well, a business...as do various other forms of adult entertainment. What even makes this more disgusting and unfortunate is it seems like this fellow was good at his job....

Passing of a Pornographic Priestess

Bettie Page (1923–2008)

Bettie Page Memorial site
LA Times obit
Susie Bright comments

And going back to one of the original questions of this blog – "Why pro-porn?"

Because sometimes, just sometimes, it creates icons like this, that's why.

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.

The New APRF [Maoist] Meme: Buy Porn, Kill a Muslim

I'm sure that you have heard about how the usual right-wing antiporn groups are now targeting the US Military for apparantly defying Congressional laws against porn being sold at military bases.

It got me to thinking, though....how would the antipornradicalfeminists on the "other" side attempt to spin the issue to their advantage??

Well, I need not wonder any longer.....get a load of this pamphlet which equates consuming porn to killing Muslimwomen...courtesy of APRF whackoid Phyllis Chesler the Maoist International Movement:

http://www.imperialismkills.org/fliers/islamofasc2.pdf

I suppose that the many Muslim (and other non-religious folks in Iraq and other Middle East countries) who were victims of "Amerikan" imperalism don't really count for these MIM whackjobs....nor the fact that most of those who finance and support the killing of "Muslims" are as violently and militantly antiporn as they apparantly are.

Oh....and "wimmin" jill off to porn too...will they be held accountable for their role in genocide?? Oh, I forgot...most of those women OPPOSE the war. Too bad....it's the jerking off that is the real issue, I guess.

Just one more standing monument to APRF extremist collusion and ultra-Maoist lunacy, me thinks.

[Tip of the hat to Doug Henwood over at the Left Business Observer mailing list (lbo-talk) from where I got the link to Chesler's MIM's lunacy.]

UPDATE (11/8/o7) I owe a sincere apology to Phyllis Chesler for originally attributing the pamphlet to her; following the links provided at the bottom of the pamphlet let me to the Maoist International Movement site, which featured an attack on Chesler for being not "radical" enough and too "Western" for their particular sectarian tastes. I have made the proper revisions in this post to correct the record.

The definitive takedown of NoPornNorthampton

Those of you who have been following the blogosphere porn wars are surely familiar with the rise of NoPornNorthampton as a major clearinghouse for antiporn writing. The context of the real-world political battle that NPNH emerges from might be less clear to readers, though rival sites MoPornNorthampton and TalkBackNorthampton have been pretty good about exposing "The horror that is NoPornNorthampton".

Now a Hampshire College student, Murial Barkley-Aylmer, has written a senior thesis, an ethnography of the porn wars in Northampton, from a clearly pro-queer and sex-positive perspective. Its an excellent piece of work, covering the porn and censorship battles in Northampton, MA from the early 1960s up to the present and presenting a thorough history of the players in the present battle, including the folks behind NPNH and MPNH. (Though, oddly enough, TalkBackNorthampton isn't mentioned anywhere, which is the one oversight I'd quibble with in this thesis.)

It pretty much pegs exactly what Adam Cohen and Jendi Reiter are all about, and describes how they "shopped around" for several avenues of anti-porn argument before siding up with the radical feminist one, a perspective that, not surprisingly, they were completely unfamiliar with until they got into this battle.

One interesting piece of Northampton history she manages to dig up is a forgotten episode from 1989 that might very well be titled "When Radfems Attack". This describes how anti-porn radical feminists managed to shut down Womonfyre, a lesbian feminist bookstore through a combined boycott, "direct action" campaign (eg, vandalism and targeted shoplifting), and threats of more direct violence (eg, firebombing). Ironically, this was a business that had previously managed to survive earlier attacks by religious right types. The crime that this bookstore was being punished for? Carrying feminist porn and erotica – On Our Backs, Annie Sprinkle, that kind of thing.

(I think this and a number of other violent incidents from back in the "sex wars" give lie to the idea that a really extreme and crazy form of radical feminism is something that solely exists as internet chatter. Anti-porn radical feminism was a very violent and scary movement back in the 1980s when it had the critical mass to be so. This is the reason so many of us, coming from various ideological perspectives, spend our energies critiquing what's otherwise such a fringe movement.)

Here's a radio interview with Barkley-Aylmer that serves as a really good overview of the thesis:

Bill Dwight Show, WHMP, August 14, 2007 (MP3).
(Interview starts at 12:00 minutes.)

Here's the thesis itself. To give credit where credit is due, NPNH is actually hosting the PDF of the thesis. Very big of them considering the work is very critical of them and pretty on-target:

NoPorn Northampton: An Interdisciplinary Ethnography Following One City’s Struggle with Pornography, by Murial Barkley-Aylmer (PDF).

NPNH gives their response here:

Hampshire College Thesis Explores Northampton Porn Debate; Our Comments

(NPNH's rebuttal is the usual mix of NIMBYism and extreme sexual conservatism dressed up as "progressive" and not really worth responding to. One point that is worth responding to, the charge that NPNH "bombards with information" and NPNH's counter that they build a strong case by presenting evidence. The problem with NPNH is that the information they present is an often-contradictory mish-mash of far-right, radical feminist, and pop psychology writing presented mostly without analysis or insight. Its the shotgun approach to argument – throw out enough charges and hope that some of them stick. This kind of "presentation of evidence" does not, in fact, amount a strong case of any kind.)

MPNH has a point-by-point comeback here:

NPN Responds to Hampshire Thesis: A Point-by-Point Rebuttal

And, an excellent comeback by Bill Dwight about the "adjustable philosophies" of Adam Cohen:

Bill Dwight Show, WHMP, August 21, 2007 (MP3).
(Runs from 19:00–30:00 minutes.)

Finally, Barkley-Aymler's conclusion is worth quoting, because its such a great "why I'm anti-anti-porn" statement:

"To oppose all pornography, delineated from erotica by a self-imposed checklist, is to impose one’s own personal boundaries, sexual preferences and sex-political views on other sexual beings, without respect for individualized needs and positively-experienced pleasures. Regardless of who or what anti-pornography activism seeks to target, this indiscriminate condemnation always negatively affects those individuals who live their sexual lives farthest from the sexual norm. Nevertheless, to applaud all pornography, without concern for sexual violence, industry working conditions, and sexually transmitted infection is to esteem the right to free speech over the value of human life."

More APR/BushCON/Religious Right Collusion: Donna [Rice] Hughes, and TVPRA

[UPDATE (8-22-07): Jill offers an even more in-depth breakdown of the Donna Hughes/TVPRA/Radfem/ReligiousRight alliance as a response to an antipornradfem male critic over here at Bound and Gagged; it's worth a visit.]

Ahhhh...lookee here...some more evidence of the collusion between radical antipornradicalfeminists and the anti-feminist Bush Administration when it comes to sexual fascism (cloaked under the name of fighting "sex-trafficking").

This courtesy of Jill Brenneman's MySpace blog:

From http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/hughes200601260824.asp

"Lopez: How important has the president been in this fight? (Against
trafficking via TVPRA)

Hughes: President Bush has been the crucial factor. He has created a political climate in which all of us, from local activists to high-ranking political appointees, could do this work. Mainstream feminists like to say he's anti-woman, but 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. And he seems to have done it because it's the right thing to do, not because of pressure or favoritism. The new law and policy will literally initiate change for millions of women and girls around the world. Years from now, when the anti-Bush hysteria has died away, I believe he will be recognized as a true advocate for women's freedom and human rights.

The mainstream media has ignored this story. Most of the coverage has come
from the conservative press as a result of faith-based groups' involvement in coalition efforts to support the new law and policy. I believe it is a result of the liberal media dislike of the Bush administration and the lack of mainstream feminist groups' acknowledgement of Bush's efforts to fight sex trafficking. Most mainstream journalists don't search out the facts, and instead accept the stereotypes and anti-Bush propaganda. When I speak favorably of what the Bush administration has done to support the anti-trafficking movement, people are often shocked because it isn't consistent with their view of President Bush or the Bush administration. Hopefully, history will set the record straight.

[Emphasis added by me.]

So...I guess that according to the former Donna Rice, it is now perfectly OK to defend an administration bent on overturning fundamental women's rights such as the right to reproductive freedom and autonomy, who wants to eavesdrop and wiretap everyone without a warrant, and who believes that permanent war is good for business but universal health care and public infrastructure is evil "socialism"??? And that feminists should just pipe down and just support him because he's really for children and women when he goes after "sex-trafficking"???


I wonder how Nikki Craft and the rest of the "antiporn left" posse will react to that.

Why I'm anti-anti-porn, Part 2

This being the next in my occasional installments of "Why I'm anti-anti-porn". The last one about issues involved in the production of porn, where I think there are real concerns, and where I think the critiques of porn production fall flat. I've realized that there was one aspect of the antiporn feminist critique that kind of "bridges" the critique of porn production with porn as an expression issue, and one that I didn't address in my last essay.

This idea was a large part of feminist anti-porn rhetoric, summed it up in this quote by Andrea Dworkin from “Letters from a War Zone”:

“The pimps and the normal men have a constitution that says the filmed rapes are "protected speech" or "free speech." Well, it doesn't actually say that--cameras, after all, hadn't been invented yet; but they interpret their constitution to protect their fun. They have laws and judges that call the women hanging from the trees "free speech.”

Essentially, this argument is an attempt to take some of the piss out of the free speech/free expression arguments for porn by pointing out that what's shown in pornography are real acts performed on real women, hence, either free expression arguments don't apply, or, perhaps more broadly, the concept of free expression itself is a red herring, since expressions and acts can't meaningfully be differentiated. (The latter strong version being essentially Catherine MacKinnon's argument, in a nutshell.) In its most extreme form, there's the urban legend that rapists make pornography of women being raped, that this is sold as commercial porn, and that this action is protected because porn is given free speech protections.

What this speaks to is a profound confusion as to what the First Amendment protects and what it doesn't.

First off, some clarifications. I realize by saying "First Amendment", I'm being US-centric here – I am ultimately talking about the broader concept of free speech protections that would apply to varying degrees in liberal democracies anywhere. However, the US, generally speaking, has very strong free speech protections relative to other countries and a very highly developed body of law around just what falls under First Amendment protections and why. And yes, I'm also aware that under current First Amendment law, there's an exception for "obscenity". It’s an idea that I think is archaic and will eventually meet its demise, but right now, it is what it is. I'm also aware that what's "obscene" varies from locality to locality (another anachronism in the Internet era), but that in most areas, the overwhelming majority of commercially available pornography doesn't rise to the legal standard of "obscenity". Given that, one can safely say that most commercially available porn today is broadly protected by the First Amendment in most parts of the US.

To say that the First Amendment protects the final product of pornography as expression, however, does not mean that anything that therefore anything that takes place in the production of pornography is given legal carte blanche. The full consent of the performers must be given and the performers must be of legal age to give consent. If porn is made using any performer who is coerced, then that's an act of rape. If a performer is underage, it’s statutory rape. The status of porn as expression doesn't change that.

And the legal status of the final product is affected as well. Obviously, one cannot go out and sell child pornography, for example. Neither can one simply go out and legally sell a video of an actual rape. The rights to buy and sell the image of any performer or model is covered in a contract known as a model release, an agreement between the performer and producer to be able to release the model's images in exchange for payment. Like any contract, if it’s agreed to under duress, that contract is null and void and it’s a crime to distribute those images.

There is one area where First Amendment law does protect something that might otherwise be illegal. That concerns the actual act of performing in pornography, which has been treated as prostitution by some overzealous prosecutors. The Los Angeles County DA actually tried to shut down the LA porn industry this way in the mid-80s, charging several performers as prostitutes and a producer, Harold Freeman, as a pandererer. An important case in free speech law emerged from this event, California v. Freeman. It says, basically, that if you pay somebody to have sex with you, that's prostitution and therefore illegal. If you pay somebody to have sex in front of you (whether it’s live sex or in pornography), that's expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment. It’s a rather fine legal point, and personally, I support simply decriminalizing prostitution and other kinds of sex work (both for the buyers and sellers) overall. (Technically, this precedent is only law in California, but no other prosecutor has attempted to challenge this precedent. In much of Europe, Japan, and Australia, where prostitution is legal or quasi-legal, this distinction is moot. Whether Swedish laws banning the buying of sex change the legal status of porn is an interesting question, though very little porn is produced in Sweden itself.)

Admittedly, there are areas that are borderline and where the law hasn't always provided the protections that it should. Such is the case with small number of pornographers who produce porn after obtaining the barest thread of consent from the models. One such scam is a "bait and switch" where models are hired for ostensible nude or glamour shots, and then told when they arrive that it’s a hardcore porn shoot and pressured into going through with it. I'll name and shame one website that's accused of doing this – Bang Bus who's rather shameful practices were exposed in a Miami Weekly article in 2004. And, of course, there's the infamous Joe Francis, of Girls Gone Wild fame, who's tactics of isolating and pressuring very drunk women into both softcore and hardcore performances are well-known. I'm unclear why there hasn't been legal recourse against these idiots – perhaps the women victimized by these people don't seek out such recourse, or perhaps the law in this area is underdeveloped. It’s clearly an area where reform needs to take place, both in the law and in the industry itself. As is so often the case when it comes to problems in the porn industry, these problems are not a speech issue, but a labor issue. Attacking free speech protections for pornography does not directly address the problem and causes all kinds of collateral damage.

Next in this series, I'll address the issue of the content of porn and its supposed effects.

you know...

I never cease to be amazed at the amount of porn and pornospeak on anti porn blogs/sites. I swear it just floors me. Aside from my whole "you have no idea what those performers think about you using their images" thing, I still just don't get it.

Yes, fine, it's been stated that it is done to show everyone the vile degrading nature of porn. But a lot of these blogs are simply plastered with the stuff. Hardcore images. Images of nude women with those oh so unrealistic unnatual airbrushed bodies. Bondage images. The language is often straight out of a Max Hardcore film. And two things roll through my head every time I see it: One- there is more free jerk off material on a lot of anti-porn blogs than you can shake a dick at, Two- it's so over the top & overdone that it actually looses the shock and awe factor. These sites become just another porn site, where a ton of people probably just look at the pictures and ignore the articles all together...seriously, I can see folks into really hardcore porn snickering about who reads antiporn sites for the articles!?

It also causes me to question the whole "trigger effect". I mean, if my blog logo(s) are triggering, if some of the photos I have up at my place, which are absolutely those of a consenting female, are triggering, then how in the hell can this not be (nsfw)? On some sites, it's just so over the top. Look, it's a horrible car crash, let's back up and stare some more! Film it, so we can see how horrible it is later, again and again and again....

head-desk.

Objection! (This comes from Antiprincess)

Well, looks like the great Cease Fire of 2007 has lapsed. Great! We're all well rested, got our second winds, ready to fight the good fight once again. so - CHARGE!

I think I read on Witchy's comments recently someone mentioned the fact that the "yaypornies" aren't listening. they never listen. that's the whole problem. they don't listen.well, here - let's listen. let's listen and respond.

Here's a comment from a commenter on a recent thread at IBTP:
I hate that they pursue orgasm by degrading and harming fellow human beings.

A good phrase to translate “pro-porn”:“pro - pursuit of orgasm by degrading and harming fellow human beings “wow, y'all. really? is that really the sum total of what it means to be pro-porn? That's what it reduces to? well, yeah, that's awful. I'm not at all comfortable with degrading and harming fellow human beings.

BUT - if no fellow human beings were degraded or harmed in the pursuit of my orgasm, then what I'm using to pursue it is NOT porn? so I'm in the clear?

OR if fellow human beings were degraded or harmed, but I'm not pursuing orgasm, I'm still okay?I guess it depends largely on one's definition of "degrade" and "harm". and maybe even "orgasm". and no, I'm not merely playing semantics games. definitions are important. I know some folks who become aroused when looking at pictures of objects. not people. no fellow human beings involved at all, yet intense arousal happens, lust is inspired, orgasms occur - you know, normally object fetishists don't get no respect, but in this case maybe they've got it figured out - sexual thrills without the human cost. who's the freak NOW?

and I can see the eyes rolling, hear the impatient sighs - "you KNOW that's not what we MEAN! We mean PORN. ASSFUCKING. BLOODY BLOWJOBS. etc. ad naus." I tell you this - sitting for my FAMILY PICTURE with my abusive exhusband was exponentially more degrading and harmful to me than any bloody blowjob assfuck session. which is not to say that the bloody blowjob assfuck session is everybody's cup of tea. I get that. But I have to admit that I've had some very satisfying, very intense sexual experiences that were a bit beyond the pale, and did not leave me feeling "harmed" or "degraded." Sitting next to the man who wanted to KILL ME, and smiling like it was nothing, pretending we were Mr. and Mrs. America - yeah, that was a thousand times more humiliating. So, yeah, we're listening. and responding. but lots of us feel like y'all don't care.

Why the "Them" Section?

So, one might ask, why does a pro-porn blog have links to anti-porn sites and resources?

The answer is simple. I want people to be able to see both sides of any argument, read various sources of information, and make up their own minds.

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.

A fellow porny speaks...

read it here!

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.

Yeah, that's right, I'm pro-porn

For the longest time (am I the only one singing along to Billy Joel in my head now?), the term "pro-porn" really rankled me. And I mean up until about two days ago. As a matter of fact, on a certain level it still rankles me, because, like Trinity, I see it as a nasty, reactionary label slapped onto those of us who don't toe the anti-porn hardline, by certain smug internet denizens who do.

But when I saw Ren had started this blog, I decided, "Fuck it. It's time to take the label that was used to hurt and dismiss, and make it our own."

Because, really, I am pro-porn - but, again, as Trinity has shown, one of the problems with that term is that it can mean so many different things, and if the people having a conversation are all operating from different definitions, there can be some pretty big misunderstandings. So, when I say I'm pro-porn, here's exactly what I mean...

I think the free, open, uninhibited, joyful expression of sexuality, in whatever form makes people happy and gets them off, is a good thing. What you like might not be what I like and none of it may be what that person over there likes; but that's beside the point. We all should feel the freedom from shame (or more severe, tangible punishment) to express whatever it is that gets us off. We should not feel that we have to "rein in" our sexuality because it makes someone uncomfortable, or because it's seen as dirty, or sinful, or silly, or unimportant, or offensive, or whatever else. As women, we get all of this and more from the society around us, every day. And frankly I am sick of it. I am a highly sexual woman, and I am NOT going to apologize for it, or "tone it down," or anything else. I am going to be ME.

So where does porn fit into all that? Well, I truly believe that porn can be an expression of these things for women. Note the word can. I shouldn't even have to say it, but obviously this does not mean all porn is awesome. Most porn, in my opinion, isn't awesome; but that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. To go back to my music analogy, if I were to say I'm "pro-music," I seriously doubt many people would immediately jump to "So, you support all the drug and alcohol abuse in the music industry?? So, you want to run independent artists out of business??"

And, too, there's the very basic, fundamental concept that many people have already mentioned here: consenting adults should be able to do whatever the fuck they want. None of us get to be the morality police for other adults.

I'm pro-porn as part and parcel of being sex-positive. And I'm sex-positive because, well, I just can't imagine being any other way. It just feels right. This society is sex-negative, no two ways about it. And what's bizarre is that sex is either dirty, nasty, base, shallow, frivolous, scorn-worthy; or it's sacred, holy, extraordinary, on a pedestal above the rest of the world.

Neither of those are right. And it saddens me that those are our options (and astounds me at how often the two polar opposites are conflated). So how could I not be sex positive?

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 am I anti-anti porn???

Well, because I am an evil, greedy, immoral, capitalist scumbag…simple enough, right?

Actually, while not all that complicated, it is a bit deeper than that.

I do not like people telling other people what they can and cannot do sexually. I do not like people dictating morality. I do not like emotional terrorism, often masked as a worldly, humanitarian, “godly” or gender-based concern. I do not like it in a house; I would not like it with a mouse. I do not think anyone has a right to tell another human being what they can do with their own body, or what they can find arousing. I do not at all like the idea of a codified agenda of acceptable sexual behavior or erotica. I do not like the treatment those outside the “acceptable norm” receive from others, I do not like the othering of those not within that norm, I do not like the stereotypes, the assumptions, and the lack of agency often forced on those who fail to “be normal”. I think to a great many people sexuality is a very big deal, and I don’t want anyone imposing guidelines on that big deal for grown adults. I like reading Orwell, I do not want to live it.

And that, simply put, is why I am anti-anti porn.

Why am I pro-porn?

Why am I pro-porn?

Inspired by IACB’s post on the same matter…

Well, yes, I am. Pro-porn that is. For a period of time it was somewhat linked with the feminist idea of sex-positive, and I do consider myself to be sex positive- in so much I think sex is a natural, enjoyable act that a great many people like, one that should be enjoyed by those of a mind to do so, and is often way too shrouded in shame, mystery, misinformation, and fear. The idea, in short, that sex is dirty, and people who like it are dirty, and people who do it outside the bonds of marriage and in some strange ways are dirty…well, is crap. Hence my pull to sex-positive feminism…

However, I’m not much of a feminist these days, and I liked porn long before I even considered the deep nature of sex-positivism/feminism, and like IACB, I am often confused with the assumption that sex positive feminists are “pro-porn”. After all, a great many sex positive feminists that I’ve met are not pro-porn, so to speak. Often they are neutral on the porn issue, or have some forms of porn or erotica they enjoy, or dislike the majority of modern mainstream porn, yet do not oppose the idea of pornography, or support woman-friendly, woman made porn…but pro-porn? As in actively supporting pornography? No, not so much. Not in the way they are often accused of.

Me, on the other hand, I am without question Pro Pornography. I watch porn, I make porn, I support porn, hell, I love porn! And I’ll let you in on a little secret here, if you piled up the porn collections of all the people contributing to this blog, then watched all that porn with a critical anti-porn or feminist eye, weighing the content with regards to degrading acts, degrading words, raunchy behavior, objectification, violence, disrespect, crude behavior, unprotected sex, extreme sexual acts, and all that bad porn stuff…I can promise you that the porn watched by myself, would rate as “far worse” than that watched by IACB and Anthony (both male). See, I don’t just like porn, I like gonzo porn. Rough porn. That stuff that everyone is so up in arms about.

Why and how? Well, see, with the personal as political and empathy and all that good stuff? That type of porn is, without a doubt, an expression and reflection of my own personal sexuality. I won’t watch anything I won’t do, and sorry, but lesbian porn, or romantic porn, or woman-friendly, sensual erotica? Does nothing for me. Never has, never will. I am all for people who enjoy the more considerate, erotic, softcore, respectful porn, stuff that might actually have some artistic or sensual merit to it watching and liking it…but that sort of thing is not for me. And for those who say no woman, "real" walking down the road or "fantasy" in porn, could ever like that insane gonzo stuff, well, I raise my hand and say sorry, you are wrong.

As IACB said porn is not a replacement for sex in my book either. It’s a fun complement to it, or a way for me to enjoy my sexuality in a different way, or a way to pass the time when having actual sex is not possible. I can enjoy it on its own, on my own, or with a partner if I want, I find it very interesting on other levels as well, as an expression of what sorts of desires and fantasies lurk around in the human mind, in my mind, on a primal, visceral, non-politically correct level. I find porn as psychologically fascinating as sexually and physically fascinating. I get tired of being polite and human and considerate all the time. I find it tedious, and both the porn I watch, and the sex I have, allow me to express my annoyance with that, to get away from it, to allow and revel in that not so polite and human and considerate side for a while. And apparently if the popularity of gonzo porn is any indication, I am not the only one.

I also believe in expression, freedom of expression, and not merely as a right given to us via an amendment, but as a necessary, vital part of being human. Expression is an important thing to every living soul on the planet: we express ourselves through words, through art, through music, through the way we dress, move, speak, and conduct ourselves in almost every way. We compliment artists and musicians and actors, poets and writers and impassioned speakers on the way they express themselves. We also express ourselves through our sexuality, and that expression is no less valid. And just as I do not believe in censoring the words someone writes, the music someone composes, or the dance someone performs, whether I like or agree with it or not, I do not believe in censoring expressions of sexuality, for they are just as valid as any other expression- like them personally or not. I don’t like country western music, but country western singers, musicians, and song writers have a right to express themselves, not just a government granted right, but a human right, perhaps even a human need.

So as infinitely inhuman and dehumanized as some might find pornography, especially the kind I like, I find it, as ugly and brutal and un-pretty as it may be, to be very, very human. After all, no human is all sunshine and light…and just as some artists create ugly, angry, and even disturbing art, yet art which speaks to people, well, some ugly, angry and even disturbing pornography speaks to me. It’s an expression…a very, very human one.

So yeah, I am pro-porn because I am sex positive. I am pro-porn because I am pro-free speech, pro-freedom of expression, pro-artistic freedom, pro-adults making their own choices about sex and sexuality and pro-sex. I am also pro-human, even the darker, baser, cruder, animalistic, objectified, visceral, primal not so politically correct or considerate parts. Those parts are just as important to me as any other part. So I am pro-porn…because it is, pretty or not, human…and speaks to humans like me…

Why I am anti-anti porn will come later, trust me.

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.
  

Enter the SmackDog.....

Many of you here may know me from my SmackDog Chronicles blog, where I have posted profusely on the very same subjects of porn and sex work from pretty much the same position as Renegade's (albeit, more from the angle of a regular consumer and a progressive, Left-of-center defense of sexual speech and expression than from Ren's personal one as an active sex worker and part-time pornographer).

Needless to say, I am greatly honored that Ren has invited me to guest blog on her turf, since aside from some minor differences in approach, we both share common beliefs on the nature of defending consensual sexual expression and sexual media from the slanders and outright lies put forth by those who call themselves antipornographyradicalfeminists (henceforth shortened to the anagram APRF's), as well as attacks from the more traditional Religious Right.

Like Ren, I have had to cross swords numerous times with some of the APRF's luminaries and chief Swift Boaters; and like Ren, I remain quite awed and whelmed by their ability to attack the messenger rather than face the real issues of their ideology and their actions in real life. And yet, their actions have grave consequenses for not only those in the sex industry and sexual media who are fighting for their rights to perform their chosen profession with the maximum of safety, informed consent, and mutual respect; but also the basic and fundamental rights for all decent people.

I make no apologies for my defense of explicit sexual media or of consensual sex work amongst adults; nor am I of any illusions about the complaints of occasional misogyny, racism, classism, ageism, and other criticisms of explicit sex media or sex work that do have legitimate weight and deserve a fair and honest hearing. (For that matter, neither is Ren or any other "pro-sex" or "sex-positive" spokesperson worth his/her salt.) Where I absolutely draw my line in the sand is at attempts to directly or indirectly use the power of the state or other such authoritarian tactics to shame, humiliate, punish, or otherwise denigrate those who use, consume or produce sexual media without harm or malice to others. Whether they be man, woman or transgendered; gay, straight, bi, or poly; fully abled or with disability; vanilla or kinky; whether they go for implants, naturally endowed, or less endowed; whether they rather their personal sex practices alone in a dark room or at a sex club with others....as long as they treat others with the utmost respect and do no harm to others against their stated will, there should be no issue with anyone regarding their chosen profession.

I'll simply let Ren's introductory post on the circumstances that led to the founding of this blog speak for itself, since it says as much as needed to be said. Later on, I'll add a few stories of my own clashes with the lunacy known as NoPornNorthhampton, as well as several rumbles that I have had with other APRF activists. For a nice summary of that particular organization, a visit to the countersite MoPornNorthampton should be a must for any sexual liberationist or libertarian to be.

All right....enough from me for now. Since this is Ren's baby, so to speak, I'll let her take the lead back. More from me, anon.

Errrrrr....out. (It's a (Jim) Rome thang....only real Clones understand....heheh :-) )

Anthony