I find other criticisms of porn much more trenchant. The porn industry chews up young women and spits them out; the conditions of the industry coerce women to do things that they don't want to do and that take both a physical and an emotional toll. That's a persuasive criticism IMO. Mainstream porn reinforces the idea that women are their bodies and that those bodies are commodities, to be acquired by men and used for sexual purposes: mainstream porn revolves around woman as object. That's a persuasive criticism. Compared to that, "their bodies are unrealistic" is not very persuasive. The deluge of bodies on television, at the movies, and in magazines does far more, IMO, to normalize unrealistic bodies for women than porn, which big as it is still occupies only a niche in comparison to the rest.

Oh Vanessa, thank you so much for not just posting this but for your commentary on it! I *also* felt somehow betrayed by Naomi Wolf, because her work meant so much to be when I was beginning to self-identify as a feminist and that article just seems really, really shallow and wrong. She says she's not "advocating a return to the days of hiding female sexuality" yet her discussion of her Orthodox friend's relationship with her husband sounds rapturous, almost reverent. And it DEFINITELY reminded me of the "Modesty Survey" that talked about how women shouldn't, like, show off their mid-drifts. She seems transported with the thought that no one but this woman's husband sees her hair, opining "She must feel so hot." What? Is she thus implying that porn is negative because it makes women feel less "hot" and, as such, we'd ALL be better off if we just covered those things up?? I...I want men to see my hair. I guess that makes me loose?

I think it is very telling that the end of the interview is with a MAN who says that sex isn't a mystery to him anymore. Again, it brings the focus back to only her husband gets to see her hair: what are men thinking and feeling and expecting and wanting from women's sexuality and sexual needs?? No thanks, I'm not playing that game.

Well, I have always been an anti-porn, pro-sex feminist, and I can kind of see both sides of the story. I think porn, not just mainstream porn, but all porn does kind of cut-down on the quality of enjoyment society takes in sex. For everyone. And I think Wolf probably was talking about leaving more to the imagination when she was referring to the Jewish woman. But that's not to say more traditional, conservative views of sex are better. To me, it's kind of all the same shit with different faces. In one culture, women cover themselves as to not be seen in a sexual manner. In another culture, women get breast implants and starve themselves to show as much as themselves as possible. However, the result is the same: a goal to please the status quo of a patriarchal society. Burkha or bustier -- it's all the same to me.

I am really relieved to read that women under 50 are beginning to see that Naomi is to be seriously held to scrutiny. Her first book was so important that it bought her a pass and that is not good. She has really not held those first strong insights. I do not consider her a political or cultural feminist.

I love how "traditional cultures" only means one thing. I guess I was hallucinating all those cultures in various parts of the tropics in which women and men walk around with minimal amounts of clothing?

This is just a dispute over whether women should be public property or private property.*

So who do we root for?

(*Not my idea, but can't remember who originally said it.)

OK, I'm over Naomi now.

I don't think that's what it's about. It's also about putting the onus on women to somehow magically restore whatever "mystery" and "charge" sex has lost. It's about women being made the caretakers for a culture's sexuality, and our freedoms being interpreted only in light of that sexuality. There are plenty of reasons I like to have my hair down: the way it looks is pleasing to me, its curliness signals my ethnic heritage, it's comfortable, I can use it to signal cultural allegiances (by dying it)), etc. But all of those meanings are being flattened out into whether more than one man has visual access to my hair. We should not allow Wolf to position the options as only facets of the same phenomenon--exposing my hair to many men, exposing my hair to only one man--and thus to erase their other meanings. Wolf is reading women's choices as if they have meaning only within the context of sexual objecthood, but that doesn't mean she's right.

There's a world of difference between the mainstreaming of porn and it being acceptable for women to walk around without covering themselves up.

Sexual mysteries, my ass. Some people might enjoy that, but personally, I am for letting it all out. When I had my own apartment, I walked around nude or near nude most of the time. When my boyfriend was over, he was free to put on as much or as little as he wanted. The sex was wonderful. Now, had it been a new or recently aquired partner, I would probably not do that, but not so that sex is a mystery.

Sex can be sacred or it can be on tap or it can be both, with the same partner(s).

I might agree with her that porn has changed how women care for their pubic hair, but seriously, if I hear another woman complain that no pubic hair makes her feel like a child, I will scream. Childhood verses adulthood is not solely determined by pubic hair.

And I really hate all the hand-wringing about girls kissing for the male view. You know what? Doing that helped me realize that I am bisexual. I always knew, to a certain extent, but it helped me see that kissing a girl could feel as right as kissing a boy.

"If you associate orgasm with your wife" says Wolf, you will have a better sex life like a Pavlovian dog, but does this mean that masturbation is wrong? Sex outside of marriage? That sex always has to end in orgasm?

Back in the days of sex as a mystery, people didn't know how to deal with the naked bodies of the opposite gender, nor how to please their partner, nor all the things possible in a bed. Oh oy, let's all go back to before men knew about the female orgasm! (ok, people as whole have known about them forever, but individuals haven't)

Um, okay -- but this is not the current New York magazine cover story. It's a really old article -- if you look at the bottom of the second page it says it's from October 20, 2003. The actual current New York cover story is about some wankeriffic dude who's the host of a cable finance show, as you'll see here:
http://nymag.com/nymag/toc/20070604/

OK. One more thing.

If watching porn is making men bored in bed, and making it seem like there's no mystery to sex...

...maybe men should stop watching porn. And if they don't want to do that, then they don't get to bitch about being bored in bed and suchlike. But I'm sure as hell not going to cover up my hair because it doesn't jibe with their fantasy lives.

Argh!

I got irritated with Naomi Wolf when I read (Mis)conceptions, in which she appeared to discover the Women's Health Movement (like, thirty years late). She wrote the book as if the over-medicalization of childbirth was something no one had ever questioned before.

I have little (no?) patience for the "return to modesty!" argument that otherwise thoughtful women journalists & scholars resort to, somewhat inexplicably, after making pretty astute feminist assessments of American culture. (For example, Kristin Luker's "When Sex Goes to School," which ends up opining for the days when women were "protected" by 1950s standards of behavior).

Wouldn’t it be more practical (and fun) to simply promote the realistic images of women (and men) in sex culture than simply repress it altogether?

Amen, Vanessa!

I have a problem with "pornography" being seen as entirely, unredeemably, negative. Erotic narrative and imagery can be either good or bad (and we could argue endlessly about what "good" and "bad" might consist of). While unquestionably it's power has been abused by the mainstream media as a way of selling a specific idea of sexuality, that doesn't mean ALL porn/erotica is cardboard, unrealistic, or has nothing to share with us about human experience.

It's also about putting the onus on women to somehow magically restore whatever "mystery" and "charge" sex has lost.

I'm definitely coming from the perspective that more knowledge and conversation is better, even if that means a little less "mystery" in our culture in general. Lack of knowledge is pretty much never empowering, in my opinion.

I think porn, not just mainstream porn, but all porn does kind of cut-down on the quality of enjoyment society takes in sex. For everyone.

Why is that? I certainly understand the criticisms of mainstream porn, and frankly I have no interest in it as the overt mysogyny makes me uncomfortable. But is it so hard to imagine some kind of alternative pornography that would be help people's sex lives, or at the very least, get them through the droughts? The motto I live by is when my fellow progressives share an opinion with the fundie wacko right (eg, unilaterally anti-porn), that's a warning something's wrong.

Argh, how ANNOYING.

Vanessa, you hit the nail on the head. This is all about how we can please MEN, and how to make sex more tantalizing for MEN, and how to make women more desirable objects for MEN. Well, if that's what all the hubbub is about, why on earth should I give a rat's ass? There's no benefit to ME to helping straight men, as a whole, find sex more tanatlizing... so... why do I care? Just because I'll get the feeling that I'm hotttt stuff? Hell, all I need for that is a decent push-up bra, a manicure, and a bottle of champagne.

Seriously, why don't more women ask this question?

Here's what irritates me just as much: this piece is emotionally immature. It depends on the idea that women can somehow manipulate men into feeling or acting a certain way, simply by changing how we dress. Um. If it were that simple, don't you think we'd have a woman president by now? Wouldn't we have used our charms to get equal pay (I mean ACTUALLY equal, not that bullshit allowance crap that depends on finding a rich, weak man to marry you)?

When will we get over the idea that women have any control over men??? My mom taught me when I was a teenager that the only people we can change or control are ourselves. And you know what? As soon as I internalized this and learned to accept the fact that I can't change other people, I found myself way less stressed out and more able to simply live life. Naomi apparently wants to keep women stuck in that childish mindset that we're somehow able to CHANGE how men act by something as simple as the clothing we wear. Oh come on. Really?? REALLY???

I mean, don't get me wrong, I WISH we women had that kind of control. Fuck, mind control? I'd take it if I had to wear sheepskin the rest of my life and keep my hair its natural color and tie it in a bun every day. Small problem with this scenario: it's a fantasy.

Maybe Naomi should write the producers of Heroes...

Also, I gotta say, the kind of guy who is going to look at a naked woman whom he's been dating and who is hot for him and say to himself "Meh. She doesn't look like my porn" is just too immature to be allowed to have sex. It reminds me of that silliness in High Fidelity when John Cusack's character is so dismayed to find out that women don't actually wear silken matching push-up bra and panty sets every day. My God! Women are human beings! How will my erection cope with such a realization?

Wouldn’t it be more practical (and fun) to simply promote the realistic images of women (and men) in sex culture than simply repress it altogether?

That's about the best quote I've heard in quite a while.

"Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"

If he thinks I'm a cow, I don't want him. If he can't love me for who I am, can't see my naked body and think it's beautiful, then what would I want with him?

Jen Loves Ponies,

Well, you pretty much hit it on the nail, but personally I have to disagree with you about the girls kissing girls for boys thing.

It just drives me crazy to see that kind of behavior, it's very demeaning to women who actually DO want to kiss other women, and not just for the boys. (Ofc, there are women who want to kiss women with other boys watching because it's their kink, and that's 100% fine).

I just wanted to throw it in, that sexual activity as an exhibition (as in seeking approval, not a particular kink) is something that we should never encourage. I'm bisexual, too, and I take my relationships with women very seriously, and I could have become rich already from the -nth time I've heard, "ooh, can you kiss a girl while we watch?".

ARGH!

I'm confused...Dworkin died over two years ago...

HBO had an episode of Real Sex recently that documented the amateur films submitted to the Boston amateur porn festival. It was more film oriented than porn. What was interesting is that most of the people in the movies looked nothing like mainstream porn stars. They all seemed to embrace who they were. More of that in the world would be nice.

I don't think shaming women into hiding their bodies is the answer. Can we have some middle ground please?

Though I have to agree that the majority of pornography today is geared towards a male audience, it's ridiculous to assume that women don't get the same pleasure from it.

I take strong issue with the following from a post above:

"The porn industry chews up young women and spits them out; the conditions of the industry coerce women to do things that they don't want to do and that take both a physical and an emotional toll."

It is a thinly veiled conservative bias that allows for the assumption that adult women do not have the intellect or the strength to embrace their sexuality and have a positive involvement with sex work. I have worked closely for the past year with men and women in the sex industry, including those involved BDSM/kink pornography and have yet to encounter a single person that feels shame or coercion involved with their career choice. I’m not saying that the industry is perfect – but considering the number of successful adult industry stars that have been able to brand their names and become multi-million dollar forces (think Jenna Jameson and Belladonna), it definitely presents an opportunity for success for the female stars.

Sex positive pornography, that doesn’t shame or demean, exists for both men and women and it’s ridiculous for someone like Naomi Wolf to ignore the possibility that women can enjoy it.

Jayney, as vulture already pointed out, this article is NOT actually from this week's magazine. It was published in 2003. I'm curious as to why that comment got lost in the shuffle, but I think that while we can certainly discuss the ideas contained the article, we do have to recognize its date.

Wow. Thanks for pointing that out vulture; I came across it through google news last night, which says that it was published on May 26, 2007. Very weird, sorry about that y'all...but regardless, it's still an interesting piece by Wolf to dissect : )

Jeff, when a liberal agrees with a conservative, the outcome is called moderation. And I'm not agreeing with Wolf, I'm just saying I see both sides of the story, where the come from. And I'm suggesting that pornography breeds sexual laziness as a habit. I know people who can't get off without porn, a lot of people. Porn, like communism, can be a very good thing, but, often, it just isn't.

Ikkin, heh. That's the first time I've ever heard anybody compare porn to communism, and it has totally made my day.

There's something important at the heart of this which Vanessa is ignoring. I've two comments:

"Well, I am 40, and mine is the last female generation to experience that sense of sexual confidence and security in what we had to offer."

Why is this insulting? I think her point is that there has been a cultural change. Roughly: over the age of 25 most men's formative sexual experiences would have been with a live woman, under the age of 25 most men's formative sexual experiences will be wacking off to pretty unrealistic and disturbed internet porn.

We can argue the specifics, but in general this is perfectly true. If this doesn't affect your sexual confidence and security compared to women of the earlier generation, then you clearly haven't thought about it enough, because it should.

"Not to mention that, once again, it’s about “what we have to offer.� What about what sex has to offer us? Why is, once again, our sexual satisfaction based on men’s approval of our sexuality?"

Whan men want and their expectations don't matter only if you want to play the lesbian seperatist card. There's nothing wrong with lesbian seperatism, but it's not someplace most heterosexual women are willing to go. If you want to give heterosexuality a try, then - like it or not - you are going to have to deal with what men think a satisfying sex life is. If men have completely screwed up expectations, then this is going to affect women's sexual satisfaction, and you can't just wish this away.

I disagree with the interpretation of her Wolf's comments. She's not saying that male satisfaction is both a necessary AND sufficient condition for good sex; she's saying that it is a necessary condition, and, at that, one that is unfulfilled in the porn culture.

If either partner is not enjoying the experience, how it is good sex? Please, let's not get to the point as feminists where the definition of good sex is something enjoyed by women, whether or not men are, too. That's just exchanging one bad system for another.

After the article was originally published, a bunch of letters to the editors in response were published as well, among them ones by me, Susie Bright, and Rachel Venning (co-founder of Toys in Babeland), among others, just to offer some additional viewpoints to the ones already in the comments here.

Mouneh, I'm no conservative, and no sexual conservative either. I'm a feminist and a sadomasochist. My problem with porn is not the sex, it's the commodification of the sex.

Interesting that you should mention Belladonna. She broke down and cried about the things she had been pressured to do during her career. But when the emotion of her reaction threatened her career, she said that she had been manipulated. Or, take Melissa Ashley. She took some time off from the industry after some male performer forced his cock into her ass over her protest, on film. IIRC, she blogged about it as a very traumatic experience, though she pulled up short of calling it rape.

(and I'm leaving out Linda Borman, Shannon Wilsey, and Traci Lords)

Your experiences with people in the industry are your experiences, and you can interpret them any way you want. But I am not willing to assume that 1) they feel they can be candid with you; or 2) that you have a representative sample.

Finally, about BDSM porn -- why is so much of it marketed using creepy misogyny? I mean, really over-the-top misogyny? I'm not afraid of hard S/M. I do hard S/M. I just don't hate women and don't want to have to wade through crap about women as property to see a video of a male top doing heavy S/M with a female bottom. But that seems to be most of what's around. In fact, not to put to fine a point on it, as a sadomasochist, I'm a little tired of BDSM porn making me look bad.

“it's ridiculous to assume that women don't get the same pleasure from it.�
Didn’t you just say yourself that it’s geared towards men? It is only ridiculous to assume that women do get the same pleasure from it. What percentage of women enjoy watching other women depicted as stupid, mercenary, and worthless “whores� and “bitches�?

“Sex positive pornography, that doesn’t shame or demean, exists for both men and women�
Yes, it does exist ( I can think of Comstock films) but it’s not even 1% of the pornographic content available either on the web or on the shelves of adult video stores and by no means can it be considered mainstream.

"She claims that all porn this day and age does is demolish straight women’s sex lives because they can’t live up to porn’s image of the 'perfect body' and satisfy their more-or-less bored partners."

That's all porn does? Even explicit yaoi manga with no female characters in it?

Meanwhile, a while ago I read another excerpt of her stuff (maybe from the same article?) in which she was going on and on about how her hair-hiding friend had a better sex life than couples who have sex right away.

As if those are mututally exclusive.

Aren't a whole bunch of women out there proud to both hide their hair in public and have sex with strangers (following both super-modest-dress and arranged-marriage-wedding-night customs)?

"I have a problem with 'pornography' being seen as entirely, unredeemably, negative."

Same here, especially since some of my ancestors would have considered my driver's license photo pornography.

"Erotic narrative and imagery can be either good or bad (and we could argue endlessly about what 'good' and 'bad' might consist of)."

Not to mention argue endlessly about what "porn" and "erotic" might consist of. My favorite definition goes like this:

Erotica is what turns me on.
Porn is what turns you on.
Smut is what turns them on.

:)

"I'm definitely coming from the perspective that more knowledge and conversation is better, even if that means a little less 'mystery' in our culture in general."

Right on, no matter if it's a little less "mystery" about anatomy or astronomy. ;)

"'Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?'"

"Why buy the bull when you can get the horns for free?"

:)

"We can argue the specifics, but in general this is perfectly true. If this doesn't affect your sexual confidence and security compared to women of the earlier generation, then you clearly haven't thought about it enough, because it should."

Actually, my sexual confidence and security has been affected a lot more by knowing how I look compared to my classmates and coworkers than by knowing how I look compared to porn stars and other celebrities.

I bet even meeting our society's beauty standards as much as *you* do in your everyday clothes, never mind as much as porn stars do naked, is impossible for some women and teen girls in our society. Should you hide yourself for the sake of their confidence?

My sexual confidence, security, and desire hasn't been affected by the images of women's bodies in porn, as I never touch the stuff. It's been affected by growing up in a sexist, misogynist culture, though. It's been affected by my friends having been raped and sexually abused. It's been affected by seeing middle-aged men cheat on/abandon their wives for other women. It's been affected by "women's magazines" whose entire raison d'etre is explaining how to give a better blow job. It's been affected by "Girls Gone Wild" ads, as the realization that my sexuality and desirability make me a target of creepy manipulation and derision by many heterosexual men.

But Naomi Wolf is really arguing that the most pressing sexual problem for women is that men get bored because we don't have boob jobs? And that the way to combat this pernicious scourge is to cover our hair? Is she serious?

Wildstarryskies-
I agree with you that the expectation that all women are bisexual exhibitionists is annoying. What I meant was that it isn't all 100% evil- it was a similiar thing that helped me realize I was indeed bisexual. That doesn't mean I still do it, but it did help me come to terms with myself as a bisexual. I think it can be a safe way for women to experiment and realize things they may be repressing.

So... annoying, yes, but not quite the demonic activity I think most people cast it as.

If this doesn't affect your sexual confidence and security compared to women of the earlier generation, then you clearly haven't thought about it enough, because it should.

Wow, lee. Do you even realize how wrongheaded and demeaning this comment is? Not to mention you apparently hold the view that the average male doesn't lose his virginity until age 25... I can promise you this isn't the case.

If you think that the point of our comments here is that men's sexual satisfaction DOESN'T matter, you're not paying attention. Period. Your comment is borderline trollish. As commenters here are (sadly) CONSTANTLY reiterating, this is not Feminism 101. We shouldn't HAVE to explain the entire history underlying porn and sexuality and the commodification of women's sexuality into a thing to be had and possessed and enjoyed by men, and the historical COMPLETE ignorance of and lack of concern for women's sexuality.

This is a FEMINIST website. That means we're concerned with issues from WOMEN'S perspective. When we see that perspective lacking, particularly in a place where it's traditionally been ignored or worse, as in the context of sex and sexual satisfaction, we point this out and we discuss it. If you're not a feminist, fine, but you can't come to a feminist website and fault us for being feminists. I mean, that's just ridiculous.

And your argument that we "should" have our CONFIDENCE affected because of MEN'S views of us is misogynist. Period. My sexual confidence has NOTHING to do with whether the average male on the street would jerk off thinking about me. Why on EARTH should MY CONFIDENCE depend on something as stupid and fucked up as that??????? Does your confidence depend on whether or not I'd want to fuck you? Because if it does, then you need to grow the fuck up and stop basing your self-worth on what random strangers think.

God in Heaven, this is so stupid. In the real world (which I suspect Ms. Wolf would need the Hubble Orbital telescope to see) porn does not actually demolish any women's sex lives. This is because of Fact Number One about porn: porn is not made for men who actually know women willing to have sex with them. Porn is created for and marketed to all the millions upon millions of guys who don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of ever getting in bed with any woman.

Sure there are exceptions. On occasion water runs uphill, too. In the main, however, you can rely upon Fact Number One like you can rely on the law of gravity.

I wonder if anybody reading this ever read James Tiptree's great short story "The Women Men Don't See." Those guys who consume all those billions of dollars worth of porn are the flip side, the Men Women Don't See. Out of sight, out of mind; what the vast majority of male porn consumers do and what they think and what they feel means absolute zero to all the women who aren't themselves in the business.

I've found Naomi Wolf is kind of like shopping at Target:

Very Much A Mixed Bag. You find some great stuff there, but one often wonders if it's worth wallowing through the attendant detritus.

I love Susie Bright's comment from the letters:

This generation has been raised on abstinence, body shame, and AIDS-cautionary moralism, in which sex is linked to death, poverty, and dissolution.

This has been driving me nuts for years. You can't raise kids to fear sex and then expect them to immediately have a well-adjusted attitude towards it at adulthood. This doesn't excuse any behavior, that still needs to change, but it's not like the source of neurotic sex attitudes are a big mystery.

Hi, everyone! First time poster, and I'm still REALLY young (like, not old enough to get married anywhere but Kansas young.) So I'm a little unsure of the politics of porn. (Ha!) But Vanessa, genius at the end. The teeny vagina, fake tits thing is harmful; but to women's sex lives, not men's. Because if no man think vaginas have hair, then he won't date any real women. I don't think porn would be such an interference in straight sex lives if it actually documented real sex. Maybe people could start a homemade porn business? And as a bisexual, I am so sick of every lesbian/bisexual woman being portrayed as a hot cheerleader. Let us kiss girls in peace!

Porn is created for and marketed to all the millions upon millions of guys who don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of ever getting in bed with any woman.

Do you just not know any men? Or are you just simple?

Of course, there are men who don't have an easy time getting with women, and look at porn. (Damn them for having sexual needs and enjoying porn! Those bastards!)

But there are also, GASP!, attractive men who have no problem getting women who look at porn, COUPLES who look at porn and, double gasp, WOMEN who look at porn! (I guess that they're all ugly bitches who don't have a chance in hell of getting a man though) It's crazy! I know!

It's not just guy's in there mom's basement looking at porn, it's all kinds of people!

"Of course, there are men who don't have an easy time getting with women, and look at porn. (Damn them for having sexual needs and enjoying porn! Those bastards!)"

Actually, no, damn them for wanting to orgasm to images of women being degraded and abused. Damn them for putting their imaginary "need" to orgasm over women's human rights. Damn them for sexually "enjoying" the treatment of women as objects, slaves, and property.

And damn YOU for thinking men's "sexual needs" (invented and patented by - guess who - the patriarchy) somehow superceed women's rights not to be raped and tortured on camera.

Looks like we have another Porn Positivist on our hands who hasn't fully examined the ideas of consent, patriarchy, sex labor, sexual violnece, etc.

Hey pearl, do you just not know any sex workers? Or are you just that simple?

"And damn YOU for thinking men's 'sexual needs' (invented and patented by - guess who - the patriarchy) somehow superceed women's rights not to be raped and tortured on camera."

Doesn't that only apply when the porn was made by raping and torturing a woman on camera, instead of something else like writing and drawing sexually explicit fiction with gay male characters?

Law Fairy,

I'm sorry, but you can't dictate who should or shouldn't read this blog or post comments. I understand you don't want to keep explaining basic feminist principles to new readers, but how do you expect to change anybody's viewpoint on our society if you are unwilling to engage or educate them. I say this not in support of trolls but in the hopes that this site doesn't turn into yet another echo chamber on the web.

"Does your confidence depend on whether or not I'd want to fuck you?" you ask lee. Well, someone as well schooled in feminism as yourself should know that the way the patriarchy keeps men in line is with that very line of reasoning, that your self worth is based on a woman's willingness to sleep with them.

And I'm sorry, but your logic seems confusing to me. You suggest in the end of your comment that one shouldn't base your self worth on what random strangers think, but seem to be defending the idea that women's self esteem is negatively affected by images of porn. So is your adivse of "buck up and get over it" doesn't apply to women?

This is because of Fact Number One about porn: porn is not made for men who actually know women willing to have sex with them.

Oh, please. porn is made for MEN, but certainly not only men who aren't getting laid. Every man i know watches porn, and even I watch porn. (i'm a woman.) and sometimes i watch porn WHILE having sex, which right there invalidates your "Fact One" for all the men i've done this with.

I don't think porn would be such an interference in straight sex lives if it actually documented real sex. Maybe people could start a homemade porn business?

Hey Heroine of the Story, welcome! I'm a little older than you, but still find the politics of porn tres confusing :).

As for porn by real people, check out Eric Schlosser's book Reefer Madness! In his chapter on the sex industry, he talks about some companies that actually solicit and market amateur sex videos by real couples. Not sure I'd ever want to make one, but it's kind of a nifty democratizing (and realistic) take on porn.

I think that both sexes stand to gain a great deal by lowering the smut levels on all fronts. Hell, I honestly think that "provocative" ads do more damage than porn. Porn is too sex what professional wrestling is to street fights. Gross, over-drammatic, unrealistic takes on the orginal subject material. I'd like to think that most people can see that.

Ads, on the other hand, provide a shallow definition of "sexy" for the sake of a buck. I can see more women trying to be the girl from the American Apperal poster, than Vanessa Del Rio. I can also see more potential damage from that.

Ikkin said: "In one culture, women cover themselves as to not be seen in a sexual manner."

But if Vanessa's interpretation is correct, Wolf's example of her Jewish acquaintance who burkas herself is that it makes her *more* hot, not less.

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't" isn't exactly the best position for making, or advocating, actual progress.

figleaf

Did anyone else notice the factual error in the first sentence: "At a benefit the other night, I saw Andrea Dworkin..." How is this possible? Dworkin passed away two years ago.

Huge thanks for making this point, Vanessa.

It always pisses me off when people outside the porn industry make these sweeping generalizations about it. The fact is, "porn" is a pretty general term. There's misogynistic porn (perhaps too much of it), yes, but there's also various fetish porn, alt porn, feminist porn (which people like myself are working very hard to build up), vegetarian porn...

Wolf should have done her research. The fact is, there are many wonderful progressive things going on in the industry, even if you have to look beyond the popular Vivid and VCA garbage to find them. Between Candida Royalle, Furry Girl, Eon McKai, Octavio Winkytiki, Belladonna, and possibly Tristan Taormino, there are some incredible things happening in the porn biz.

It's dumb to try to turn a $57 billion industry into black and white terms. Naturally there will be different trends and movements happening in such a large business. One of them happens to be a growing feminist movement. Another happens to be an interest in couple flicks (porn made to strengthen relationships by being arousing to both partners). Many porn viewers are starting to look for natural breasts and subtler, more realistic sexual scenarios. Although it still has a long way to go, porn is starting to get a little more real, and this trend is obvious to many of us in the industry. You can definately say this about certain porn, but you can't say that porn in general gives women a faulty image of a "perfect body" to contrast with their own, unless you're ignorant about the industry and how it's evolved since the old days of porn where women were sexy in Hugh Hefner terms.

Wouldn't it be better to promote the newer, more progressive movements going on in the industry (movements that empower both women and men watching them) than to get rid of all porn (thereby sexually suppressing both sexes, as Vanessa pointed out)? As a hardcore feminist and a sex worker, I think yes. I think that feminist porn is a good way to hold onto the women's sexual revolution while keeping our values straight.

I can't go so far as to call myself a porn expert, but I work in a store that rents and sells pornography, so I browse quite a bit of it. (Even before I started working there, though, I read up on some of the social issues surrounding explicit material and placed myself firmly in the pro-porn feminist camp.)

Right off the bat, I'd like to address alicepaul's accusations of porn being "women raped and tortured on camera". Listen, porn studios are becoming increasingly contract-crazy. Many of them even insist on writing up consent forms for every different kind of sex act. Also, there is a glut of wannabe female porn stars out there; why would a studio risk legal action by filming someone who didn't want to be there?

Also, as Mina points out, porn need not contain women, or even any real people whatsoever.

(Slightly OT: the professional insistence on contracts is one reason why I have no problem with hardcore BDSM porn, but think that the Girls Gone Wild series should be pulled. The former are sticklers for consent because they know that the public is suspicious of them; the latter are getting drunken teenagers to sign contracts they're barely in a state to read, and because they're viewed as "tame, not-quite-porn", the makers get away with all kinds of shit.)

To ikkin, who said "Jeff, when a liberal agrees with a conservative, the outcome is called moderation." Um, not necessarily. Sometimes it means that the more powerful side (generally conservative) is going to gain the other side's trust and then fuck them over. This is certainly what's happened every time feminism has joined hands with any sort of social-purity crusade. (This book details some of that.)

Oh, and W. Kiernan? Seeing as I process porn rentals and purchases every week, I can tell you that pearl has the right of it.

Heroine of the Story asked, "I don't think porn would be such an interference in straight sex lives if it actually documented real sex. Maybe people could start a homemade porn business? And as a bisexual, I am so sick of every lesbian/bisexual woman being portrayed as a hot cheerleader." Funny you should say that, Heroine -- amateur porn had a major boom in popularity around the '90's, and is still going strong. Also, there are some by-and-for-lesbians porn studios out there.

Now, on to the actual post: Wolf is out to lunch if she thinks porn is all "fake breasts, tiny vaginas and perpetually tan bodies". If there's one thing I learned from seeing "Itty Bitty Titties" next to "Mega Jugs", "Over 50" next to "Barely 18", and so on ad infinitum, it's that no matter what the body type, there's a market for it. Someone out there will find you crazy hot. (It may not be the person you want, but such is life.)

This is not, obviously, to say that porn is some kind of egalitarian utopia -- far from it. There is still, unfortunately, quite a bit of misogyny (and other prejudices) embedded in the porn industry. But the solution isn't to drive it underground by making unfounded rape/torture allegations, it's to support the women who are working in porn, especially those in producer and director positions, and to let the industry know that women (and feminist men) are a market, too.

One final snark: the guys who whine about wanting "sexual mystery" are most likely those who feel emasculated when a woman points out where her clitoris is.

Actually, stripper, a few people have pointed out that the article was in fact written in 2003. Vanessa somehow found a version of it erroneously dated from 2007.

First a few notes on the comments:

Barbara P.: I really like that private property/public property thing too, I'll have to google who said it!

Law Fairy: You are right when you tell those who are not educated on feminism. If someone is confused there are tons of resources on what feminism says about certain things(or the arguments). We shouldn't take a whole comment section to explain.

I don't think there can be necessarily unsexist/racist/etc porn until we stop the sexism/racism/etc. In a way the porn reflects/upholds/create certain ideas, just like mainstream media does. I do watch porn although I prefer lesbian porn becuase it feels less degrading, although I know that more the 50% of the time a man is directing them or anyone who is directing them is trying to sell this mainstream.

BTW, I'm really just posting about mainstream porn, I don't know much about the feminist or woman friendly porn. Oh yeah, frontline has an interesting episode about porn and the industry, you can see the website on the pbs website. Its interesting to check out.

Yes, yes, yes. Thank you so much.

Here's what I want to know. I am both an avid porn consumer (if surfing for free spanking pics on the Web qualifies me as a "consumer"), and an avid porn critic. I think there's a lot of potential power in porn... and I'm also not going to be dumb enough to argue that porn as it exists now doesn't have some seriously fucked-up shit about it.

So here's what I want to ask, what I always want to ask people like Wolf and Ariel Levy and the like: Why does a feminist critique of the porn industry always have to conclude with "Try to stop porn"?

Why can't the conclusion be, "Demand better porn"?

If women/ feminists don't like the porn that's out there, why aren't we speaking out as consumers and demanding to see stuff that we do want? Why does "We don't like what we see" have to be followed with "so knock it off," instead of "so please start making stuff we DO want to see?"

Oh, and one more thing: Why is porn somehow more responsible for unrealistic body/ sexual expectations than TV, movies, magazines, advertising, etc.? You know -- stuff that's both more widespread and more tightly woven into our culture?

"Listen, porn studios are becoming increasingly contract-crazy. Many of them even insist on writing up consent forms for every different kind of sex act. Also, there is a glut of wannabe female porn stars out there; why would a studio risk legal action by filming someone who didn't want to be there?"

You are taking the idea of consent too literally. Signing a form does not neccessarly indicate consent. Many sex workers freely sign forms but consider themselves raped and coerced because they wouldn't be doing sex work if they were not in poverty and there were other options for survival.

Feminists know that rape isn't just fucking the guy because he has a gun to your head. Rape can be when you HAVE to fuck him, or his friends, or his dog, etc, because if you don't, you (and possibly your children) will starve to death and end up on the streets.

Thinking that signing a form = consent is a highly unsophistocated way of understanding women's position in a patriarchy (especially working-class women, woc, disabled women, trans women, etc)

My allegations of torture are not unfounded. Read some Dworkin and get back to me. Or better yet, listen to the sex workers who have had negative experiences in the mainstream porn industry, instead of just the very few who have been tremendously lucky. It saddens me that these women's voices are being erased and ignored by "pro-porn feminists"

"You are taking the idea of consent too literally. Signing a form does not neccessarly indicate consent."

Here's the kicker: how long did it take for a woman's name to be considered binding on a contract? You want to take that away and replace it with... what?

"Read some Dworkin and get back to me. Or better yet, listen to the sex workers who have had negative experiences in the mainstream porn industry..."

You're presuming I haven't. Though frankly, there is only so much of Dworkin's "If you don't see how Playboy is anally raping you as we speak, it is simply proof that you have fallen in love with your own oppression!" attitude I can stomach at one time.

As for women in porn, I've read enough accounts to understand that their stories are often more complicated than initially presented. (Linda Lovelace, for instance, was forced into pornography by her abusive husband, but stated that the porn crew, who didn't know about this, treated her in a way that helped her build confidence. It was this, combined with the fame that Deep Throat brought her, that enabled Lovelace to break free of said husband.)

Now, since you're basically accusing me and the business I work for of being accessories to rape and torture, I am putting the onus on you to present evidence that "very few" women in porn* have had good experiences with it, and that the overwhelming majority "consider themselves raped and coerced". Where, exactly, are you getting your numbers?

*Please note that I'm not including other sex workers such as street prostitutes here; I know perfectly well that for them it really is a survival issue, and that they currently have no legal protections whatsoever.

"This is because of Fact Number One about porn: porn is not made for men who actually know women willing to have sex with them. Porn is created for and marketed to all the millions upon millions of guys who don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of ever getting in bed with any woman."

Which is also why it's so misogynistic, demeaning and humilating to women, I think. The losers want to see women punished for having sex that isn't with them.

But I don't agree that they are the only people watching it. In this country at least, most people have been brainwashed to think of porn as "naughty fun" not the blatant misogynstic rape-fest it actually is. However, the message is clear to anyone watching porn - women are worthless fucksocks that want to be degraded and raped.

In my experience the number of boys in relationships with women who are turning to porn and abusing their partners as a result is on the rise - but I tend to think that's because the internet porn generation is growing up and attempting adulthood (relationships) but the lack of sex ed and basic interpersonal skills means a long standing reliance on porn. Women do suffer for a male's porn habit. And not just performers.

*Please note that I'm not including other sex workers such as street prostitutes here; I know perfectly well that for them it really is a survival issue, and that they currently have no legal protections whatsoever.

What, exactly, makes you think that these, "street prostitutes" and women prostituted on camera, are two entirely distinct groups of women? "Street prostitutes" are, not infrequently, filmed performing their trade. If a "street prostitute" signs a contract allowing her "services" to be filmed or photographed, does the contract negate the fact that, as you've said, "for them ["street prostitutes"] it really is a survival issue"?

Hey, in case anyone needs an extra anger fix today, I found this gem while reading through the response letters that were posted in this thread:

"The seductive nature of porn on the Internet is undoubtedly true for all the reasons set forth by Ms. Wolf and Mr. Amsden. As they noted, it is readily available, the women are beautiful, and the actresses will attempt all sorts of sexual acts. However, I believe that this is not the full reason why men may prefer I-porn to real women. Rather, it has to do with the culture between the sexes that exists today in America. Men on college campuses and in the workplace have seen their futures destroyed by a single allegation of sexual impropriety. “Take Back the Night� marches reinforce the image that all men cannot be trusted. The constant accusations of “date rape� and “harassment� that flood the media have created an atmosphere of fear and menace that force many men to withdraw into the safe world of porn, where such issues are not a concern."

It's awesome discovering a whole NEW form of misogynist logic to add to my pile of "what is wrong with people?" rants. Seriously?

Um, equity, I DIDN'T purport to tell lee where and what to post. I just said it's ridiculous to come to a feminist blog and fault the feminists there for being feminists. Because it is ridiculous. Using the word "can't" is a sloppy English colloquialism I hope you're familiar with... in short, this is a blog, not a legal brief. My saying "can't" doesn't amount to me telling him "you are not allowed to post here." And even if it did, I don't run the site so my forbidden him to post would be meaningless.

As for my saying that porn affects women's self-esteem, where on earth did I say that? For that matter, where did Vanessa say that? Where have the other feminist commenters said that? If you're going to call my arguments illogical at least get them straight first.

And to the extent that lee does base his self-worth on whether or not I, some random stranger on the internet, would have sex with him, that's a developmental roadblock. Whether it stems from the patriarchy or from simple poor upbringing, it's immaturity. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem blaming the patriarchy for all kinds of social ills. But I disagree with your assessment that men are taught, as men, that they have to be fuckable to be valuable. To the contrary, that's what WOMEN are taught.

Oh, the insidious Patriarchy. So, men's "sexual needs" are a creation of the patriarchy? What are women's then? Oh, have ours been opressed by the patriarchy so long they no long exist?

And none of you seem to be willing to address women and porn. If all the men who look at porn are sexless losers, aren't the women who look at it ugly bitches who couldn't get a man to touch them.

For feminists, you sure don't think highly of women. My god, you don't even think a grown woman should be able to enter a contract? You don't think that signing a form indicates consent? (Shit, I think I'll run that by my credit card company). Why don't you think women can read? Do you really think that we are so stupid that we can't read a contract before we sign it, and know what we're getting into

Thank you, porn apologist pearl for proving the best way to slam feminists is to not read a word they write and set up a bunch of strawman agruments to shame them.

""Street prostitutes" are, not infrequently, filmed performing their trade. If a "street prostitute" signs a contract allowing her "services" to be filmed or photographed, does the contract negate the fact that, as you've said, "for them ["street prostitutes"] it really is a survival issue"?"

Would a street-level prostitute actually sign a contract to have herself filmed performing sex acts with clients? Aren't they already afraid of police stings? And would those doing the filming really bother drawing up forms and having them signed? Plus, unlike mainstream porn stars, a prostitute's "work name" is not linked with her real name anywhere on legal record -- how would there be any proof that the contract is binding?

I'm not trying to tell you that what you've described doesn't happen, but I can see a lot of reasons why the product wouldn't be legally saleable. If you know any details about this, please fill me in.

While we're on the subject, I'd like to state that I do think prostitution should be decriminalized. I believe that the major reason why it's currently so dangerous is because sex workers, existing outside the law, can't ask for the law's protection.

I guess I am having a hard time with these comments lately, particularly after the so called high heel fiasco. It seems that some posters here can't except that some women may have considered the issues carefully and come to a different conclusion. Instead of respectfully disagreeing, these posters are condenscending and rude. If you point this out to them they post something along the lines of "Waah, you don't like my post, stuff it" Instead of thinking about why someone may have taken offense. It's pretty irritating and immature. Anyway, I don't think any of the so called "pro-sex" feminists here are saying there is porn industry is without t's faults. Obviously, the industry operates in side the sphere of the patriarchy, so of course there are abuses and of course the majority of porn is made for men. But to dismiss the experiences of some of the women who enjoy porn robs them of their agency. How do you know what is best for these women? Maybe you should engage in a dialoge with these women before attacking them? BTW, I think porn in this culture is the result of society's warped views on purity and sexuality. I do think porn is gross, but I think it a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.

Hi, this is my first time posting, but I've been reading this blog for a while, and I have to say, it's wonderful :)

But what I have to say about the article is this: Even beyond all the very reasonable arguments that a woman's sexual confindence should not be based on the generalized male opinion of her looks as compared to any porn star's... In my experience, Wolf's argument here--that men will not want real women because they've watched too much porn--is just simply not true.

When my then-boyfriend, now-best-friend and I got together a little more than two years ago, we were both virgins, but we had also both regularly watched rather copious amounts of porn or erotica since long before we ever met. During our first time together, it was far, far, far from being the "old hat" sort of thing that Wolf seems to believe is the problem here. And believe me, he was _not_ any more bored or disappointed with a real, live, naked woman than any other man you could ever hope to meet who has never set eyes on a Playboy. (And I do NOT look like your average porn star.) In fact, it was pretty damn amazing. I never even had to show him where my clitoris is. ;) He already knew the area well.

Of course, he is an amazing guy, and maybe I was just lucky, but honestly, I feel his porn-watching history did more good than harm as far as my personal enjoyment.

In my opinion, it just comes down to the fact that a lot of guys are just apathetic dickheads (and a lot of girls while I'm at it, but so what), and it's not hard to blame porn for it, but it's not very accurate either.

Having once worked with David Shipley, who was kind of a jerk, I can't help wondering if their marriage broke up because he couldn't get enough of Hotteenz.com.

"I don't think any of the so called "pro-sex" feminists here are saying there is porn industry is without t's faults. Obviously, the industry operates in side the sphere of the patriarchy, so of course there are abuses and of course the majority of porn is made for men."

Thank you, Tabitha91. I do think that there is a lot of exploitation in the porn industry -- similar to the kind of exploitation that goes on in any media conglomerate, from music to reality TV. That sucks, and it should be addressed. But I don't think the solution is to try to shut down these media conglomerates -- it's to pressure them to be more fair to everyone involved.

Likewise, I do think that there is social pressure in many porn studios to go along with whatever the director asks -- in much the same way that there is pressure not to argue with the boss in any job. However, since the porn industry is demanding much more intimate work, I am in support of the kind of contracts in which every act is hashed out and agreed to beforehand. I know such contracts can be unwieldy, but I think that they're the best solution we have for settling the "coercion" question.

Basically, I'm not trying to deny that there isn't still something rotten in the state of porndom -- what I get pissed off at is the implication that if someone rents Island Fever 3 to watch with their spouse, then they're somehow accessories to violent crime.

"In my experience the number of boys in relationships with women who are turning to porn and abusing their partners as a result is on the rise - but I tend to think that's because the internet porn generation is growing up and attempting adulthood (relationships) but the lack of sex ed and basic interpersonal skills means a long standing reliance on porn. Women do suffer for a male's porn habit. And not just performers."

Um, A causing B and A causing C doesn't always mean B causes C.

The scenario you posted seems more like a woman suffering for a male's lack of sex ed and basic interpersonal skills directly...whether they're in the 21st century and he watches porn all the time or they were in the 4th century and he had neither sex ed nor social skills nor access to porn.

I resent that whenever an anti-porn feminist critiques porn, the pro-porn chorus seems to think we automatically want to ban and censor it.

don't worry, nobody's gonna take your precious, sacred, absofuckinglutely crucial and special and empowerful porn away. (and if they do, it won't be the big bad sex-hating prude radfems...we saw how well that worked out when Dworkin and Mackinnon tried...we just don't have that kind of power)

Radfems don't want to destroy porn. we want to destroy the patriarchy. get it yet?

once women are not oppressed by men, I will approve of all the fun sexy porn in the world for everyone to masturbate to until their genitals fall off...men, women, couples, triples, whatever!

because women's consent would actually mean something post-patriarchy. right now, it doesn't. Redfems don't take away women's agency and capacity to consent; men and their institutions do an exceptional job for us.

once again, a signed contract does NOT prevent coercion. When all women can make upwards of $1000 per day without taking off our clothes and servicing men, then we can accuratey say that the ones who DO choose those things are making free, informed, noncoercive choices. When women have other labor options that pay just as much as porn per hour/day, we will know that porn actresses are doing it out of true desire rather than the need to survive (eat, get medical treatment, housing, etc)

it is understandable, though, that the women who consume and peddle porn try so hard to convince themselves that it is harmless. Nobody, especially no feminist, wants to think of herself as contributing to women's exploitation.

"because women's consent would actually mean something post-patriarchy. right now, it doesn't."

The problem with this argument, alicepaul, is that you're saying, "Never mind how many years women fought to get their contracts legally recognized -- a woman's signature on a contract doesn't mean anything because women are are completely incapable of making their own decisions in a patriarchy."

Could you please, please explain:

1. How is that kind of logic not going to come back and bite feminism in the ass?

2. Since we don't yet have an egalitarian utopia, what kind of measures can we implement now that will help women in entertainment media (including, but not limited to, pornographic film) set the conditions under which they will agree to work, and have some kind of recourse should those conditions be broken?

1. I don't see how acknowledging the fact that women have limited agency in a patriarchy discredits or harms feminism in any way.

2. I'm more interested in seeing that women have viable options for earning a living besides working in the sex industry. So a good task for feminists is to eliminate the wage gap, and to ensure that women have access to affordable healthcare/housing, and fulfilling jobs with flexible hours that pay a living wage. I bet you my life that if women (including undocumented immigrants, non English speakers, the disabled, etc) were garanteed these things, we would see a huge decrease in those "choosing" to be sex workers.

Waddya think?

To answer #1: Because if that line of argument became popular enough to actually be used in a court of law, to nullify contracts that someone decided were not in a woman's best interest, then sure as Gaia makes little green apples, it would be co-opted by other groups and used against women. Sort of like the way that some pro-choice language is currently being used by anti-choicers, except that this is even easier to co-opt; too many people saying, "Well, you have to understand that her decision isn't valid because she's being strongly influenced by our society" would play right into the hands of people who would like to limit women's agency even further.

For that matter, I find it highly insulting when I'm told, "You're not really making that decision, it's just the patriarchy making that decision through you, but maybe if I harangue you long enough you'll come around to The One True Way of Feminism."

On to answer #2: obviously, all the social reforms you propose should be implemented anyway. But there are still a few things you don't seem to be considering.

- Even if all those reforms were signed into law tomorrow, it would still take a while for all of the resulting social benefits to come fully into effect. What about the women who are in the porn industry right now?

- I think you're underestimating the influence of "celebrity culture". An astonishing number of people think that getting themselves on camera is a sure path to riches and adoration -- and hey, you don't have to act or sing to get a part in a skin flick. On the other hand, there also seem to be a lot of folks who don't care so much about money but find it fun and thrilling to be seen by a mass audience, even if their "15 mi