Teachable moment, heh

Transcript of a story told to me over IM... (Posted all in a row like this, it looks kind of like poetry, with all the line breaks. And that makes it even funnier.)

so my roomie was showing me stuff around the apartment
and he was like, "this is where my videos are
feel free to watch any whenever you want"
and then he gets this slightly sheepish look on his face
and he's like, "um, there might be some porn in there."
and i say, "i don't care."
and he rushes on, "it's all softcore stuff, like playboy. i mean, there's nothing hardcore."
to which i reply, "well, that's a shame."
and he looks at me like i have two heads or something
and i'm like, "i really don't care."
and he starts stuttering apologies/justification
and i'm like, "really, I DON'T CARE."
and he stops and he's like, "so, what. women watch porn?"
and i'm about to fall down b/c i'm trying so hard not to laugh
b/c he's SO sincere
and i'm like, "look."
"one of my friends has been taking pictures to be naked on the internet..."
"and another sent me an email this morning asking what i thought about searching for a fuckbuddy on craigslist"
i REALLY DON'T CARE that you have porn.
"unless it's tony comstock. then i care."
...which he didn't understand, but that's probably just as well. :)
anyway
that made MY day.
first time he's lived with a girl. :)

Heh.

Collective action

Someone brought up the problem of collective action elsewhere. The idea that "well, if everyone stopped supporting the capitalistic system/eating meat/buying exploitative porn (or any porn, if you're the type to think it all is) then these problems would disappear." It reminded me of my own struggles with porn back when I was a hmmm shall I call it more porn-critical? I was never exactly anti-porn feminist.

I stopped using porn for a while, which I've mentioned, for reasons very like those. I've mentioned going back to using porn in here before, but I thought this take on it might prove interesting and illuminating, so:

"Well, I like this, and I'm not
using it for sexist reasons BUT if we ALL stopped, there'd be NO more rape on
film. And someone has to get the ball rolling. As much as I'll miss enjoying
looking at it, if I'm the one who does, I'm brave!" *pretends vast majority of
hard drive is empty*

*waits eagerly for The Menz (tm) to be inspired by her example*

*crickets*

"Huh. This ain't workin'. Looks like I don't matter to the machine."

*Devil appears on shoulder* "Don't you miss it?"

*Angel appears on shoulder* "No! Do not open that folder!"

"But... she's right. I'm liberating nobody doing this and I'm feeling resentful
about what I can and can't look at, and surely that's not feminist political
action."

*Angel gasps* "But if NO ONE lives like they would in the better world, it'll
never come to pass! And remember, once the Industry falls, people will be free
to make pictures again and you can look at them! You should be doing your part
to speed The Day's coming!"

"Hmm. Um..."

"She's off her gourd. No sexist guy has, will, or did change his wanking
patterns because you changed yours!"

"Nnnnngh...."

"'Be the change you want to see in the world!'"

"Hmm, she has a point there. Someone's gotta be the example."

"But you're NOT the example. Hear the crickets? No one cares! They've never even heard of you, or of anti-porn feminists -- or if they have they think MacKinnon needs a dicking, or snicker about the dickings she got from Masson."

*mouse hovering*

"'Never doubt that a small group of concerned citizens can change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.'"

*Dev's tail twitches* "Angel honey, have you ever had an original thought in your LIFE?"

*Trin wavers*

*Devil rolls her eyes* "Trin, Angel has about as much idea what those sayings mean as you or I do. Who are the 'concerned citizens'? What kind of political action did they actually do? How'd they plan it? And where's the proof that everyone who made serious social change started as a small group anyway? And who's your "group" of concerned citizens? All I see is you yourself, agonizing over whether to purge your porn collection. I don't see you in an "expornie" group, struggling together to not look. Whatever sense that saying makes, it's just a bumper sticker now."

*clamor*

"But Trin, you can't support that!"

"Think about this T: do you feel bad that (exboyfriends, male friends, male lovers) use porn?"

"Oh, no! Not at all!"

*angel glowers*

"Well... in a better world maybe they oughtn't, but... no, I'm not sure I think they're doing something wrong."

"Wouldn't you think that if individuals not using porn any more helps, it would surely help more for them to stop? After all, they're men, and the anti-porn feminists you hang with consider women's use of porn an irrelevant anomaly."

"True, but... it doesn't feel right to tell my friends what they ought to do, if they already know there's sexism in porn. Which I know they do, because we've talked about it."

"If they can use it because their individual use isn't worrisome to you, and they're men, what does you using it matter?"

"Uhhh... hmmm."

*further clamorous yammerings*

*click*

An Apology to Abby Lee

Earlier I had posted an excerpt from Abby Lee's Girl With a One Track Mind blog entry regarding some comments she had made regarding her tastes for seeing men in porn.

Unfortunately, in my haste, I forgot to read the part Abby wrote about getting explicit permission and a copyright notice from her before reposting excerpts from her blog.

Therefore, I have gone ahead and deleted the post; and will simply refer you to Abby's original entry, which is here.

She also has another entry which documents her recent struggle with Blogger, who flagged her blog as "spam" and for a while suspended her access to it.

Newsflash... women like it, too

It astounds me that this is still considered news among some self-identified progressives, but - gasp! - women like porn, too!

Yes, women are sexual beings who get turned on watching people fuck. This is news, apparently.

A new Toronto Sun article says:

According to a 2006 survey by Nielsen NetRatings, women are among the fastest growing users of cyber porn with the number of women downloading X-rated material skyrocketing to 1.4 million.

The article spends a lot of time with the usual "He looks at porn so he must not love me" trope, but does include some quotes from Chanelle Gallant, organizer of the annual Feminist Porn Awards.

[Via Ms. Naughty Porn for Women Blog]

How not to talk to a porn star

Over on the 2257 thread on Feministe, a discussion of porn star Melissa-Ashley came up. This prompted me to check out her MySpace blog. I thought this post was quite well-written and expresses a common frustration with the attitude that some people take toward porn models.

What I'm about to say has been goin' on for a while now, but lately it's been really bad and I can't just hold my tongue about it any longer.

Why the fuck do guys insist on sending me inappropriate email? I get literally about 1,000 emails a day, at at least 700 of them are just plain dirty, some are even kinda offensive. Why do ya'll think it's okay to say that shit to me? Yeah, I get naked for a living. Yeah, I'm a slutty girl. But that doesn't give you the right to run your nasty little mouth and say whatever you want to me! Above my career, I'm a lady and I expect to be treated as such. So what, I like to get naked and I like to have sex. But that DOES NOT mean you can treat me like a whore! No, I don't wanna see a photo of your dick. No, I don't wanna see a photo of one of my pics covered in your cum. No, I don't wanna read a long, detailed email about how you wanna rape me. No, I'm not gonna send you my phone number so I can talk dirty to you while you stroke off. No, I'm not gonna send you a personal, naked pic of me. And what really pisses me off the most about all this, is that it says so right there on my main profile page! If I wanna see your dick, I'll say so. If I wanna send you a personal photo, I'll ask for your email address. If I wanna have sex with you, I'll ask! So if that's all you want from me, leave me the fuck alone!

I'm not really a whore, I only play one on TV.

Dana DeArmond has a YouTube video that expresses the sentiment with a bit more levity.

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??

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.

Please Help Stop This Law...

I beg of you, seriously.

Like porn or not, these additions won't stop child porn, but they will make the private information of people working in porn accesable to anyone who wants it...which can lead to anything and everything from stalking to identity theft.

I've sent in my letter of protest, you can do the same by writing toAdmin.ceos@usdoj.gov

Include in the subject line: Docket No.Crm104

You must do so by Sept. 10th....

I don't ask for much out of people...favors, money, support, whatever...this, this I am asking you to do...

What I said?

As a US citizen with a computer, I am writing you just to let you know that I do not like the revisions being proposed for 2257. Yes, it is important to know that the performs in pornography are over the age of 18, and that proof of age is documented and on file. 2257 already does this. The proposed additions to this law demand that a porn performer give up more personal information than most other people working in the US have to give up (as many eomployers require only legal name, proof of age, and SSN), and then makes that information easily accessed by anyone, with good intent or not, who wishes to have it. There is no national data base for other professions containing maiden names, every stage name ever used, and full legal name. This makes performers in porn far more likely to be subject to everything from identity theft to stalking and harassment.

The people you are after, the child pornographers, will never comply with any form of 2257, so why go after and punish those pornographers who already comply with your law? This law will not even truly effect the larger porn companies, but it will be devistating to smaller businesses, it will intimidate performers and put them at risk, it invades their privacy, and these are all people, from Vivid to the budding "woman friendly net pornographer" who already willingly comply with and support 2257. It will not deter illegal (child) pornographers in the least, and it is terribly unfair to the people who legally perform in porn and honestly puts them at severe risk by effectively outting any and all of their personal information to anyone who wants it.

I understand wanting to keep children out of pornography. I do not understand trying to drive pornographers out of business and threatening the privacy and people who perform in porn legally, which is what this law, moral panic aside, will do. Time, money and effort is better spent going after real child pornographers who have never and never will comply with any form of 2257 than those who already follow the laws currently in place.

When Sexual Fascism Attacks: Sec. 2257 and the "Porn Registry"

I had briefly commented on this in the previous thread...but this is scary enough to deserve its own discussion.

This is what Abu Gonzales's Anti-Porn Posse has in store for anyone who wants to be a porn star:

[linked from the New York Post, via the AdultFYI dot com website:

NY Post: Department of Justice Wants Official List of Every Porn Star in America

Ron Jeremy, Jenna Jameson - get ready to stand and be counted.

The Department of Justice wants to come up with an official list of every
porn star in America - and slap stiff penalties on producers who don't
cooperate.

Porn Valley- The new rules, proposed under the Adam Walsh Child Safety and
Protection Act, would require blue-movie makers to keep photos, stage names,
professional names, maiden names, aliases, nicknames and ages on file for the
inspection of the department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section.

"The identity of every performer is critical to determining and ensuring
that no performer is a minor," according to the new proposal.

The adult film industry plans to challenge the new rule as a violation of
the First Amendment, said Paul Cambria, a lawyer for Hustler and other adult
film companies.He sees it as a way to harass legitimate stag-film
producers.

"If they can't get you for obscenity, they'll get you for violating
record-keeping," he said. Such a violation would carry a five-year
penalty.

The proposed rule would require porn producers to give the title of the
video or magazine, or the Web address where the actor appears.

The Department of Justice has shown some sensitivity for the performers'
privacy, however. All information not essential to proving their age and
identity, like phone numbers and addresses, can be withheld.

Distributors of foreign pornography aren't off the hook - they must still
produce a copy of the foreign actor's identification card. The department
estimates that there are 500,000 Web sites, 200 DVD producers and 5,000
businesses nationwide that would be subject to the new rule.

The department did not respond to requests for comment, but in its proposal
suggested that the benefits outweighed any negative impact on the porn
industry.

"The benefit of the rule is that children will be better protected from
exploitation in the production of visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct
by ensuring that only those who are at least 18 years of age perform in such
depictions. The costs to the industry include slightly higher record-keeping
costs," the agency argued.

"Slightly higher record-keeping costs"???

Really??? I mean, it's not as if this "registry" won't be easily available to every right-wing fundie/antipornradicalfeminist crackpot or any hacker with time on his hands to harrass and "out" legal porn performers, right??

Or perhaps it's the fact that we have to rely on the very same organization headed by a man who thinks that torture is a very good way to smack Muslims into submission....ahhhh, I mean fight terrorists?? Or that wiretapping the Internet and land-based conversations of their political critics and dissidents....errrrrr, suspected terrorists...without the need for a warrant or any other proof of a crime is simply good crime fighting???

Oh...and did I forget that such information about the ages of porn performers are already required in the first place??

And since when did they need the private info on all porn performers in the first place...since even Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles could see that the majority of them are well over the legal age??? Or, are they planning to make this retroactive so that they can tap the records of past work to grasp for their lack of prosecutions??

"Protecting children from porn", my ASS.

This is more about the BushCONS feeding the Far Right and APRF one last slab of red-meat to save the sinking ship....at the expense of the rest of us.

2257 shouldn't be reformed...it should be NUKED. Like, yesterday.