pony and porn
When we talk about porn what is our definition? And, who is defining it? According to Queendom. The actual term "pornography" was first coined when the ancient city of Pompeii (buried in A.D. 79 by the massive eruption of Mt.Vesuvius) was excavated and many sexually graphic paintings and sculptures were found. And, very quickly after that the material was hidden to protect the public = censorship.Is the definition of porn = sexually graphic like when it was first coined? Or, are we talking a range of materials / depictions? Are we talking about obscenity? And, again who is defining it? Who makes the decisions about what is obscene and why? And, thus deserving of censorship?
I agree with pony about a particular kind of porn - the hard core, str8, catering-to-men kind. I don't think that the women in these scenes are all happy or like what they are doing on or off screen and neither do I believe that it is always a "choice" (freedom to choose assumes you've got 2 equally good options).
The Girl Next Door and Sex: The Annabel Chong Story - are both about women in the sex industry. Thus, good viewing if you don't actually know someone who has worked as a stripper, prostitute, pornstar...
If you looked at the expressions of the women in str8 videos/pictures, etc. (and, yes, I have) their eyes are blank, gone, absent and that is how I feel that I can see into their experience. Pony recommends viewing this documentary but it's not really about porn specifically - it's about women in advertising (which combined with Killing us Softly is awesome).
I am offended by most male-dominated industries. So, that is where my bias lies. The porn that is made for and by STRAIGHT men or involves hurting women or children offends and horrifies me.
So, that being said I just don't think that anything is black and white, cut and dried. All sexually explicit material can't be painted with the same brush. Because doing so places a society under the oppressive hand of the censor and that offends me as well. To argue that all women participating in the sex industry are harmed or misinformed about their abuse is condescension. Just ask Annie Sprinkle or Susie Bright.
And, in the interest of obscenity laws (concern about porn meets censorship meets the state making decisions about what constitutes obscenity) there is the queer perspective - Little Sisters Bookstore.
From their site "Little Sister's also carries erotica and sex-positive fiction, and for that we will never apologize. Gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people grow up and live day-to-day with a difference from the rest of society. That difference is sex and gender. For a large part of our community, sex-positive imagery and ideas are liberating, edifying, and celebratory. Keeping that in mind, erotica is still a small portion of what is stocked and sold at Little Sister's."
Aside: one of the books in question by the Canadian obscenity review was one of my favourites: Hothead Paisan.
My point is that morality and obscenity are tricky beasts that take us on the slippery slope of state controlled material.
And, making a commitment to refusing to use porn (whatever your definition of it is) as a protest against the abuses that women experience in the porn industry is honourable and thoughtful but unless the majority of users (straight men) find the abuse of women and children intolerable I fear it's a losing battle.
I don't know how to change the world so that the powerful can't abuse/use others (including in the sex industry) but, I also recognize a place for expression of sexuality and don't want the baby thrown out with the bath water. I think that some porn / erotica / sex positive material with the right content and in the right context can be liberating, enjoyable and educational.
In a world that censors sexuality explicit material anti-porn activists-turned-erotica-proponents Nan Kinney and Debbie Sundahl wouldn't be free to produce On Our Backs, a magazine that is porn but is it harmful? Quim - for dykes of all sexual persuasions by Sophie Moorcock and Lulu Belliveau was another such sex positive magazine.
And finally, the reason I like Sallie Tisdale's book so much (and I don't happen to have a copy to quote from so I'm going completely by memory of what struck me as so important) is that it gave permission to relax and sit with my desires. That my sexual desires can't be dramatically changed by political, philosophical, therapeutic shifts, etc.. They are what they are and as long as I am not hurting anyone - they are okay.
The other thing that struck me was Tisdale's comments about how we have sex: that we can't force our sex life to be somehow outside of our world that our sexual expression is reflective of how we are outside of the bedroom with all our negotiations of power, control, respect, communication, play and on and on. I'd rather have something like that then some utopian or vanilla version of sex required by anyone wishing to shame and censor my sexual expression.
Perhaps, this posting will cause dykotomy to be deleted from some blogrolls... but, it is my belief that we are a community of (in the words of Diane DiMassa) feh-muh-nists and a community implies variety.
Isn't that grand?
posted by dykotomy @ 9:35 PM
31 Comments
Links to this post
31 Comments:
Hey, dykotomy, I won't delete you. :)
I can't stand Susie Bright, neither Annie Sprinkle, nor Tristan Taormino, and in particular, I cannot tolerate Nina Hartley! (The latter of whom are featured on the cover of the issue of On Our Backs you've got posted there). I could write (and have written, but that's another story for another day, or maybe not :/) many paragraphs on the way I believe Hartley's work, views and behaviors have harmed women (and harmed Hartley, for that matter). Having said all that, I am opposed to censorship-- fwiw, some of Andrea Dworkin's books have been ceased at the Canadian border. (And also fwiw, Dworkin did not endorse censorship either.)
I am opposed to pornography (haven't always been, though), whether it is the openly anti-woman, misogynist kind or the apparently woman-friendly kind. At the same time, I have often disagreed with my sister anti-porn feminists about what constitutes art and what constitues pornography.
If you study feminist herstory, you find there has been a fairly consistent division between feminist artists (of all media) and for lack of a better way to say it, non-artists around the issue of pornography. At various times and in various ways, Adrienne Rich, Susan Brownmiller, Margaret Atwood, Dorothy Allison, Gloria Steinem and other feminists I would describe as radical feminists in all other ways, and whom you'd expect to endorse the anti-pornography position, did not endorse it, rejected it. I think, as you seem to be, they were concerned about lesbian and feminist art (of all mediums), and speech in general.
I have no problem walking alongside committed feminists who disagree with me, including about pornography. I once disagreed with myself, for one thing! Where I tend to draw the line is where pro-pornography feminists make it their personal project to trash and lie about anti-porn feminists or to demonize us in various ways. I don't see you doing that and I appreciate that. Hey, we're all wherever we are, working things out for ourselves.
Anyway, I always have a soft spot for good, smart women like you who put yourself right out there, neck, meet chopping block! Just wanted to express my appreciation.
Heart
I like to watch gay male porn? I'm curious what anti-porn feminists would have to say about that kind of porn (even though there aren't any women in it). Do you know if there is any writing about this subject? Just curious.
Yay! thanks for your comment Heart - much appreciated and I haven't taken feminist classes so I was not aware that there was a real division. It does warm my heart to know that there is room for difference. I'll take a peek at the writings of those you mentioned. And, yes it is about the "art" factor and the queer factor and ultimately the censorship factor for me...
Ames - this is actually something I thought about including in the post 'cause I know A LOT of dykes who enjoy and get quite turned on by male gay porn and I've got no answers but let me work on it.. I'll poll my friends (which I also did about their views on porn in general and they all had a story about the first time they had seen it - fascinating!)
Okay - is the fourth monkey happening here? I just popped over to http://fetchmemyaxe.blogspot.com/ and she is posting about the porn ish as well! hmmm... we are all intricately connected...
Ha!!
And *as* it happens, I was just about to post an ode to Hothead my very own self (my favorite radical feminist).
Must be in the water...
Heart - in response to this hunk of your comment:
Where I tend to draw the line is where pro-pornography feminists make it their personal project to trash and lie about anti-porn feminists or to demonize us in various ways.
I offer this comment from nectarine's blog, written by Feminist_first:
In my experience "sex-positives" are positive about sex in the form of abuse, violence, coercion and a dangerous disregard for the humanity of others.
on one hand, I can't really question another individual's personal experience, but in reading that, I, a more-or-less sex-positive feminist, feel especially trashed and lied about and demonized.
although a) two wrongs don't make a right and b) nobody cares who "started it" after all these years of fighting, one certainly can't say there isn't a precedent for trashing/lying/demonizing and neither side is innocent of this.
in the desperate attempt by both sides to claim the moral high ground, we all look around for someone to shove into the moral sewage ditch.
Very true, anti-princess. It's sucks just as much for the anti-porn, radical feminist side to demonize the sex-positive side, so-called, as for the latter to demonize the former.
F*cking hell. Why do we, as women, any of us, feel this need to demonize one another. I hate it!
Heart
Heart - my sociology professor often mentioned the importance of the "reference group" in human dynamics. it's important to have a group you identify with and a group about whom you can say "at least I'm not a ____ like those people."
Why / when is it important anti-p?
I guess if you keep sifting and sifting you will say that at many points.
But, are we not able to focus on the similarities? Is it impossible for us to float around being a part of many groups and commonalities as social creatures?
I will have to look up the discussion in my textbook.
you'd think, dykotomy, that yeah, we'd all be able to focus on our similarities, but we don't.
but everyone seems to have a group they identify with (I am like these people) and a group they specifically make a point of NOT identifying with (I am not like those people).
great post dykotomy.
i too am divided on the issue – it’s a slippery one (don’t pardon the pun!). i consider myself a radical feminist (and often part ways with my feminist sisters on many issues). but i'm not sure on my stance re. porn. i don't know that i agree that mainstream, straight porn is all that sexist or misogynistic or exploitative of women...i mean, the underground stuff like snuff and under-age material is definitely an issue and something i am vehemently against, but the mainstream stuff i don't find all that 'hardcore' and i think both parties (men, women, straight and gay) are consenting adults (I too think gay male porn is hot). a friend told me that a lot of porn stars (men and women) enjoy and have fun at their jobs. she is a former porn director, so she's got first hand knowledge, at least from her perspective.
but then i think about other sex work, such as prostitution, and wonder if the issue is at all analogous. some would argue its the same thing, others would argue otherwise. some sex workers are pro-sex work, also saying it is empowering and a great way to make money. but i dunno...it's like you said in your post about porn, which i am more apt to apply to prostitution: "'choice' (freedom to choose assumes you've got 2 equally good options)." so it can be said that both porn stars and sex workers have "choice" to choose the work, but IS it choice? sure a prostitute will say she is empowered and wants rights and all this stuff (which I am all for, since sex work is so dangerous), but WOULD the trade exist if men didn't treat women like objects and exploit them so? When/how does/can a woman feel empowered by "giving" her body to someone for currency, no matter how much?? is this really "empowering" or are women (and men) buying into the lies that capitalist society tells us: the 'be all you can be' mantra, at whatever cost, at whoever's expense...cuz that is the essence of our global economy.
so herein lies my own confusion - sex work is something i am against, but am pro-rights since the world isn't going to radically change (just like the trans issue and sex re-assignment surgery!! LOL)..but yeah, so with porn, if I wonder how far (or close) the two are, when you take into account social, political and economic factors....
my two cents on gay male porn.
i watch it as well and enjoy it because there are no women being demeaned or abused. on the other hand there are men who, supposedly represent "masculinity", being sensitive and worshipping each others bodies. there is a certain lack of gender roles that is enjoyable. it seems less pronographic because there is appears to be equal enjoyment among the participants. often there is genuine emotion vs. the women in straight porn faking orgasms, etc.
though i really enjoy gay male porn a lot, i have a wide spectrum of porn interests. my tastes are more pansexual deeply rooted in my feminist beliefs.
Well, there you have it 3 comments loving male gay porn (which begs the statistical translation that there are a hellava more out there.)
So, is watching men f**king harmful to women?
Hey, dykotomy-- I think the answer to your question depends on how you (generic, rhetorical "you") view objectification; i.e., what about objectifying people-- men, women, whatever? Is objectification consistent with a feminist vision for a new, better, different world? I think the fact of men objectifying women is just one issue in considerations around porn. The other, or a-nother, issue is objectification itself.
Then, if your view is -- as it is mine --that pornography is one means by way of which some people (men) make "women" out of other people (women), subordinate us, and if you are committed to the end of gender in the first place, believing gender is about subordination, then you will likely reject anything by way of which some, whether male or female, are made to be "women," including gay male pornography in which some men are subordinated to other men, and in which the actors on film or in media are made subordinate to the whims of filmmakers catering to the lusts of porn-viewers.
My .02.
Heart
Hi Heart,
Objectify: "to degrade to the status of a mere object"
Hmmm, I don't think that all sexually explicit material does this.
I certainly don't do this when I'm having sex with a partner.
I was discussing this whole subject with friends this weekend and we thought that we at times WANT to be "consumed" visually by someone we are attracted to. And, we all agreed that we appreciate women visually. Appreciate: "To recognize the full worth"
I do agree that SOME porn or sexually explicit material objectifies, but I don't feel that it all does.
Do you think that what you call objectification, I call appreciation? Do you think we are talking about the same thing?
yeppers re. objectification vs. appreciation. it's all about the filters that we views things through...i think if there is respect (along with consent) alongside the objectification, then it takes on new meaning...
i personally like to be objectified and degraded by a butch, and gladly and eagerly suck big, hard butch cock. for me in the bedroom, the radical politics are turned on their ear ;)
LOL - labottom - you are SO a trouble maker!
:-D that's what my momma always says
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"...and in which the actors on film or in media are made subordinate to the whims of filmmakers catering to the lusts of porn-viewers"
Hi Heart, I’m curious on your usage of the term "subordinate"
Wouldn't this statement be true for any hierarchical organization outside the scope of the porn industry? We're all subordinates to our respective bosses, and regardless of our gender, are required to live up to the predefined work requirements.
Or is your view that all porn material in print or on film is made by oppressing the actors into some type of forced labour therefore essentially stripping the actor of their right to choose?
great question and comment mcfun.
i agree with you, that any hierarchical organization (including society and its hierarchical organization of racialized, gendered and sexualized bodies with straight white man at the top and black (and gay) woman at the bottom).
so i think that the hierarchy argument is in line with your last statement that by virtue of this set up, regardless of the industry, the actors below the top rung are all oppressed and exploited through their forced labour (but paid just enough to believe we have some sort of power or freedom).
i think that by virtue of sex as a commodity via porn, you will always have the tensions that dykotomy and others have problematized in this post.
mcfun:
i realize your question was to heart, but i couldn't resist jumping in with my .02
Hey labottomme, what do mean I've "problemized" the "tensions." I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say tensions and what your link to problemizing them is...
devious diva (I kept reading "delicious diva" LOL and
Heart have posted very important reading on comment behaviour.
Please check it out before this post's commenting gets beaten to death.
nubian makes some great points about racist commenting.
Objectification, as *I* understand it, is "thingifying" another person. In other words, holding an I-It relationship with the person, as opposed to an I-Thou (Martin Buber). This can be done in a sexual or nonsexual context.
It is my belief that is one for example tells another person (woman or otherwise) that she *must* be brainwashed by the patriarchy because she enjoys such-and-such an activity, then one is *also* "objectifying," in that one is turning the other woman into an extension of oneself as opposed to truly *hearing* her; one is invalidating her voice, her experience.
"I know better than you who you are"=objectification.
...and, too, it is in fact a power move, and a rather nasty, nonconsensual one at that.
"I don't know how to change the world so that the powerful can't abuse/use others (including in the sex industry) but, I also recognize a place for expression of sexuality and don't want the baby thrown out with the bath water. I think that some porn / erotica / sex positive material with the right content and in the right context can be liberating, enjoyable and educational."
Thank you. I'm not down with many different expressions of porn/erotica, but I have a hard time understanding people's desire to label the entire medium as a source of social evil. It's like outlawing videogames or TV. Knee-jerk.
That said, I have a few thoughts on objectification. To me, objectification can be defined as reducing a given individual's worth to a specific attribute, at the expense of the human being that is actually there. A great example is fetish pornography, where certain aspects of an actor or actress are sexualized to the exclusion of all others (e.g. pregnancy, bukkake, or lactation porn). Like many hardcore fems, I'll agree that "consent" of participation is not really the same as "free choice," owing to a variety of social factors, but I think an important distinction that we as feminists forget about is that sex BY ITSELF is not objectifying, even on video. Rather, it's how that sex is represented. And sure, a lot of hetmale porn is objectifying, and therefore unacceptable from any serious feminist viewpoint. I'm a hetmale and occasional porn-viewer, and even I can concede that. Erotica shouldn't--and doesn't--have to be about degrading women. In fact, I think GOOD erotica should celebrate the sexuality of all involved, and I think that some actually does.
But hey. I'm getting off track here, I just wanted to thank you for providing a nuanced analysis of the debate. Much appreciated.
dykotomy:
here goes round 2, since my first reply didn't make it in the cyberworld due to technical difficulties. :S
anyway, all i meant by the "tensions" in the debate was basically the post on porn itself is a 'tense' one just in terms of it being a divided one, as is obvious through different comments just on here.
And "problematizing" just in that the different issues raised work in problematizing others, such as comments like:
"The porn that is made for and by STRAIGHT men or involves hurting women or children offends and horrifies me."
(some would argue that much 'hardcore str8 porn' is made by females; and that no one is being hurt, and that 'hurt' is subjective'). On the other hand, others could argue that these female porn directors are partaking in the patriarchal capitalist agenda. I think, in a macro sense, that porn is an offshoot of capitalism, and THAT (capitalism) is the ticket of pain that causes global hurt on multiple scales, so by virtue of that, anything branching from it is hurtful in some way or another, although different ppl will define it in different ways.
But anyway, that was just an example. All I meant to say was that you are raising some interesting issues that work to raise other interesting issues.
Hey BD - I really like the I - Thou perspective - that's lovely. I also resist the idea of brainwashing. I'm on my own path thank you very much! :-) And, thanks for commenting spc. I agree that there is good and bad - which brings me to labottomme.. :-)
My comment may have been generalizing so perhaps I should have said "most" Str8 porn by and for men doesn't get my fancy 'cause it does have that element of subjectification IMHO. I was expressing my preference and when I say hurting women and children I mean rape scenes, child porn, torture - stuff like that.
The people who speak out against porn argue that porns very existence hurts us all. I can see that in many ways it does - I also see exceptions AND I have never gotten an answer about the issue of censorship when it comes to this issue from those that argue abolishing porn. I don't think that any of them want to tackle that bit 'cause it's too complicated. So - what is the solution? I ask.
I'd at least like to see women who are now in the sex industry have access to things that can REDUCE the harm - 'cause I come from a very strong harm reduction philosophy. That is where I would want to see all this energy spilling into.
i agree re. harm reduction; you'd think that THAT would be a helluva lot easier/faster/cheaper to implement than deconstructing everything and building it back up an equity-based way, yet why isn't the practical approach of harm reduction used, in terms of sex work and drug use, minus a few small pockets?
i'm far too tired to go into a rant about my conspiracy-theory musings on that question, plus class is about to start :-p
"I think GOOD erotica should celebrate the sexuality of all involved"
--totally agree.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home