"There are times when Jensen feels too eager to only see the evidence that supports his worldview, as opposed to being open to the contrary."

Eh, show me an author that doesn't do that.

I'm glad you posted on this. I've been interested in it but, I'm too scared to read the book, I admit. I'm well aware of the frightening porn out there, but, frankly, I don't want any more of it seared into my brain. Even the titles scare me sometimes.

I love that someone is attempting to understand the effect this kind of thing has on people.

I've never watched a porn movie. Not even 'just to see.' But I found Henry Miller in high school and I guess in some respects I never went back.

The helplessness of Jensen's perspective-- at least as you write it, haven't read the book (though I want to now)-- bothers me. Is the only solution to having nasty, misogynistic porn out there getting rid of masculinity? Really? How many people (men in particular!) even listen to what people are saying during these movies? Is there ever a man who's not ready for sex in one of these movies? I mean, it's a porn movie for heaven's sake!

I've often felt it's the hidden/backwater nature of the porn industry itself that brings in some of the problems in mainstream porn-- think about the difference between the stereotypical sex shop and a Good Vibrations store. Maybe the answer is to bring porn more into the mainstream-- I certainly think there's more 'woman-focused' and 'couple's videos' now than there were twenty years ago.

I did study pornography in college, and I've been avoiding literature on it ever since - it was a major overdose of creepiness. I'm glad you reviewed this book, though, because there are so few men who condemn porn this way; even male feminists often have a tendency to circumnavigate or exonerate porn from their criticisms. Even if you think Jensen goes overboard - isn't it refreshing?

I often find it somehow emboldening to read feminist writers who are even more rabid than I am. Many of us are so often tempering our anger and frustration at existing oppression and violence so that our opinions will be heard, digested, and respected - when sometimes, all you want to do growl and slaver. It's times like that I read Andrea Dworkin. She writes about pornography with refreshing vehemence.

From Courtney's summary, he seems to be addressing porn as a men's issue. I'm curious what the author makes of women who consume porn. I am female and occasionally view and enjoy pornography. I assume there are other women out there who view it. How do we fit into the theory?

Courtney-
But there have also been big changes in the way that women and men interact over the last few decades.

I haven't read Jensen's book yet, just the excerpt that Jessica posted earlier. But from what I understand of his argument, I think your point is a crucial one. Porn has been getting worse by Jensen's definition at the same time that the way women and men interact has been improving. I can't see how one can argue that porn is the root cause of sexism, given that correlation.

Another reviewer makes an even more trenchant point:

Robert Jensen's passion is reserved for visualizing women's sexual pain. Never once does he turn that passion the other direction to look at the possibilities for women's sexual pleasure. There is not, in the end, so much difference between Jensen and the most misogynist, exploitative porn director; neither can imagine the sexual role of men as being anything other than to fuck, nor can they imagine women's roles as being anything other than to be fucked. And that's why, regardless of my doubts about mainstream porn, I can never, never imagine aligning myself with Jensen and his ilk. Because at the heart of his arguments, I see the same misogynist bullshit that I want to excise from pornography.

I'm curious what the author makes of women who consume porn. I am female and occasionally view and enjoy pornography.

And how is he defining "porn"? Because popularly, the term seems to mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. For example, I haven't ever seen an actual "porn" film (strictly made for the purpose of getting off) though of course I've seen some pretty explicit sex in mainstream movies. Insofar as those narratives give us certain expectations about gender roles and sex--while also being arousing--they're performing the same function as porn, in my mind.

I'm also curious--is his analysis confined to sexual depictions in film? When I'm in the mood, I tend to read erotic (pornographic?) literature, which I feel gives me more space for the imagination, and for personalizing the fantasy, so to speak. How would Jensen think about this sort of porn, and both women and men's interaction with it?

I guess I should just put the book on my "to read over Christmas break" list :).

Annajcook, the (excellent) review Mithras linked to says he only reviewed 'mainstream' video porn-- Seymour Butts and the like. Which leaves out a whole hell of a lot of material.

"I certainly think there's more 'woman-focused' and 'couple's videos' now than there were twenty years ago."

"Porn has been getting worse by Jensen's definition at the same time that the way women and men interact has been improving."

Bear with me here, 'cause this is going to sound weird: I think both points are correct.

(The following is in regards to live-action movie pornography only, and excludes gay male videos.)

I currently work in an adult store. Not only do I have to peruse the porn DVD shelves regularly, but I also get free rentals as an employee. So I've noticed some trends. One trend is towards making porn that appeals to both sexes, or to women specifically. I'd say that this now comprises 25-30% of the market. The other trend is towards making blatantly misogynist porn. And there are some movies which don't belong in either category.

It seems to me that there are two major attitudes among pornographers right now: one is, "Hey, there's a huge untapped market out there, why don't we make movies for them? Stuff that stands head and shoulders above all the rest?" And the other is, "Well, we and our fans have been labeled as woman-haters, so we might as well just come out with it."

The latter attitude is still disgustingly common, but the former one has gained significant ground, and that's heartening.

One more note: Couples' and women's porn tends to be better-produced and therefore a touch more costly. The owners of the store I'm at are, not to put too fine a point on it, undistinguishing skinflints. I suspect that they would happily stock only the cheap crap if it weren't for the fact that certain studios and directors are guaranteed sales.

ShifterCat-
Bear with me here, 'cause this is going to sound weird: I think both points are correct.

I don't think there's any contradiction there - the internet has just speeded up common business practices, market segmentation and product differentiation.

I've been studying porn from a feminist perspective since my freshman year in college, and did my honor's thesis on a feminist justification for the legal protection of pornography. Today, I work for a female-owned sex toy chain. Let's just say that this is an issue near and dear to my heart.

Taking in mind the book review and previous posts, the comment I feel most compelled to write is this: porn, for the majority of viewers, lives in a vacuum. More so than destructive behavior, it lends itself more often to spreading misinformation. (i.e., less enlightened men are usually surprised to learn that all women cannot ejaculate if they want to and that anal sex in porn is most often preceded by a thoroughly cleansing enema.)

Most of the men I have researched and encountered in my work who consume porn would never treat women as they see in porn; nor can they explain why watching a woman being sexually dominated in porn turns them on. Many researchers have tried and failed to make rational sense of sexual urges; it may be something we never fully understand.

I honestly don't think that the themes Jensen discovered are misogynistic. Porn is about sex and sex alone- both male and female libidos are heightened, just as the stars of these films often have unobtainable, exaggerated body shapes. There’s no such thing as gender equality in porn, nor should there be.

As a rape survivor who has had to reconcile her naturally high libido with a devastating act that occurred years ago, I can say with pretty strong conviction that there shouldn't be any fear in exploring pornography and the sexual impulses of men and women, however strange and "wrong" they may seem to be. Human sexuality is far too complicated and rarely politically correct.

I just finished Pornified by Pamela Pern, and I really liked it. Not quite as self-hating (since the author's a woman), but makes some similar conclusions. I thought I'd throw that out there, in case someone else wanted to read more about porn.

porn, for the majority of viewers, lives in a vacuum. More so than destructive behavior, it lends itself more often to spreading misinformation. (i.e., less enlightened men are usually surprised to learn that all women cannot ejaculate if they want to and that anal sex in porn is most often preceded by a thoroughly cleansing enema.)

How do these two statements work together, katiz? One the one hand you say porn lives in a vacuum and doesn't affect how men think about women. On the other hand, you point out two concrete examples of how porn does affect how men think about women sexually.

Thanks for that book review. I've seen the book mentioned and excerpted elsewhere and I didn't like the excerpt. But it is an interesting topic.\

I would urge those wanting to discuss it to be clear on what you mean by porn. I found on other online discussions that people talked past each other because they were operating with different definitions. I realized that when someone posted Dworkin and MacKinnon's definitions which limited the term to misogynistic depictions of sex. It seemed circular to me, but that's a different matter. Anyway, some posters were saying porn was not necessarily anti-women and others were saying yes it is, but they were talking about different things.

I have so much to say on this that it's hard to know where to stop.

1) I have read Jensen's essays, and the excerpt linked in the last thread where I commented extensively. While I agree with much of Jensen's position -- basically, I agree with him on the institution of industrially produced het porn -- I disagree with much at the margins. I will read his book, though.

2) About porn: the whole universe of erotic material, IMO, can be analyzed on a spectrum from the interactive to the commodity. At the far end of the spectrum is mass-market porn where there is little in the way of shared language or experience between customer, performer and producer; at the far other end (as I often note), there are erotic images exchanged between friends and lovers that are more like sexual intimacy by proxy than like porn. This is, of course, not the only analysis; but looking at it this way does do a lot of work in terms of talking about what the audience will take away from the material. That's why by-us, for-us material for gay men or lesbians or the BDSM community are different from mass-market het porn; that's a way in which fanfic is different form het porn; etc.

3) The porn industry has a bad streak of abusing women in the production of porn, and of using women who are exploited and wouldn't do it if they had better options. That's not something that ought to be, IMO, ignored, glossed over or conflated with every other kind of capitalist exploitation complaint.

4) As Shiftercat said, huge areas of porn, and growing areas, have gone over to the practice of playing openly to misogyny.

5) Because of 3 and 4, I have stopped buying porn. I still look at a lot of stuff that is available for free, but I gave up buying from the industry a while ago; for a long time I was only willing to pay for niche, non-industry stuff, and I'm not even doing that right now.

6) There's a lot to what Jensen says about masculinity, but porn is not the only way to get to that conclusion. I have a daughter, and I have sons. I can't think of a way to tell my sons what it means to "be a man" that I want to exclude my daughter from. Tough? Determined? Responsible? I want her to be all that. A citizen, the cornerstone of a family? All that. Those are things I want all people to be. An athlete? Her, too. So what is it to be a man that I don't want a woman to be? I'm at a bit of a loss on that one, honestly.

This is a fundamental problem with identity: when a system of stratification exists and a group is defined largely by its place outside the top of the hierarchy, then whatever that group claims for itself as an identity has value is giving its members something positive to identify with; but for the group that defines privilege, can the label mean anything but bragging about the privilege? Being white, to me, means nothing but being the recipient of unearned privilege. I have lots of positive cultural attachments; but they're not from some nebulous "white" culture. They're from my Scottish heritage, or to a lesser extent from New England, or my hometown, or my peer group; something specific, not a class definition that exists only to make sure that the cops leave me alone while they hassle other people.

Manhood is a lot like that. "Man," to the extent it is a social construct, exists in contradistinction to "Woman," the sex class. What do I get from being a man that isn't unearned privilege? What is positive about my manhood that I don't also want to pass on to my daughter?

7) I strongly agree with Ivoryalleycat that feminist speech, especially radfem speech, that I disagree with in substance is important, at least because it widens and shifts the Overton window and creates talking and working space for less radical reform. To the extent they're right, they should keep talking; to the extent I think they're wrong, they should still keep talking, because they give more traction to positions I agree with. (That's not to say that I endorse all the speech I disagree with: I am not excusing either the history of bigotry by some radfems towards transpeople, or the way some radfems execrate, often ignorantly, BDSM.)

Trigger warning.

"I honestly don't think that the themes Jensen discovered are misogynistic."

I'm sorry, but in what universe is the horrible shit done to women in porn - plastic bags over their heads, choking, spitting in their mouths, slapping, biting, making them puke, holding their arms painfully behind their backs, etc ad fucking nasuem - not constitute a misogynistic theme?

Just want to say thanks everyone for this really interesting discussion! Porn/erotica is something I've just started to really think about purposefully, and this is giving me a lot of food for thought.

One the one hand you say porn lives in a vacuum and doesn't affect how men think about women. On the other hand, you point out two concrete examples of how porn does affect how men think about women sexually.

I'm not sure that katliz meant this quite the way you read it EG (correct me if I'm wrong katliz!) . . . something can exist in a vacuum and still affect us, in that we bring those experiences into the rest of our lives--just subconsciously. What we aren't doing in that case is integrating those ideas/experiences into the rest of our lives; not consciously understanding the reality or unreality of what we're experiencing in the fantasy world (it's FANTASY afterall . . .)

Because there's not much conversation about sexuality and sexual relationships in real-life, we don't learn to distinguish fact from fiction the way we do, say, when we're reading science fiction or fantasy literature. We "read" unrealistic porn as literally true because we don't have anything to compare it to.

"Human sexuality is far too complicated and rarely politically correct."

Wow, do I hate that term. What does PC mean, exactly? It always seems to mean, "I'm going to shame you into not talking about this because I disagree." I really, really hate that term.

I agree that human sexuality is very complicated. I also believe that porn is highly diverse and complicated. The problem that I see that needs to be addressed is the normalization of gonzo porn and the normalization of depictions of violence and humiliation of women in mainstream porn. I think that the availability of the material does affect how men feel about women and how women feel about themselves. I think that this kind of porn is harmful and insidious. As a person who considers herself to be sex positive, I consider purveyors and consumers of this kind of porn to be very sex negative. I consider them to be operating from a harmful, shame-based framework and I think that they are rehearsing misogyny.

Is that PC? Fuck it, my voice on this subject can't be silenced that easily.

P.S. And Thomas, thanks for this thought (along with your whole post):

About porn: the whole universe of erotic material, IMO, can be analyzed on a spectrum from the interactive to the commodity.

That is a really helpful way of thinking about the different sorts of sexual images our culture produces! And, as someone who is seeking to support the interactive and oppose the commodified or non-participatory in a number of fields, it's a really useful tool in helping me sort out how to support certain kinds of sexual imagery over others.

Trigger warning

"spitting in their mouths, slapping, biting, "

Betty, the answer is "when presented explicitly in the context of a consensual BDSM scene." As a bottom, each of these things is done to me regularly by the person I love most in the world.

However, the current trend in gonzo porn is to present this stuff in a context where it is understood, as far as possible, not to be consensual or desired ... and that's really, really disturbing. For those familiar with the material, contrast the Kink.com trailers, with their pre- and post-scene interviews, with some of the misogynist shit (and I'm not giving max whatsisname any more traffic): the one has the performers (men bottoms and women bottoms) talking about why they did and their reactions to it. The other explicitly portrays the women -- always women -- as unsuspecting and in over their heads. While I'm not taking up the cudgel for the former (jury's still out on Acworth & co. IMO), the contrast with how the material is presented is huge.

Anna, there's an example I use in these discussions a lot, and I shorthand because for the regulars it's tiresome to read the same stuff over and over, but I don't want to leave it out for folks that have not seen it before: my favorite example of sexual image that is more interaction than commodity is when a friend sends erotic photos to my wife and I. They're from our friends; we know our friends' sexual practices and fantasies (at least the ones that send us erotic photos), so we have a base of common understanding: the performer is the sender, we know pretty well the conditions of production and the intent of the work, and the creator knows enough about the audience of two to have a pretty good understanding of how the work will be interpreted.

Farther down the line, there are folks that produce photos and video for a slightly larger circle of friends or put on live performances. If two guys put on a live performance for a few dozen friends in somebody's apartment, I think that's more like an interaction and less like mass-market.

At the far end, ShifterCat's boss has no idea who the producer is or what he intends, little idea who the performers are or what they want, and none of them share much in the way of common understanding with the consumers, who are that subset of the general population that looks at porn.

I'm importing a certain amount of half-assed Roland Barthes here, BTW, assuming a process of semiotic coding and decoding where the amount of common understanding and common reference between creators and consumers will determine how like the creator's understanding the consumer's understanding is. To the extent that niche populations are critical of patriarchy, they can produce work that, to like minded people, participates less in patriarcy; while when something is cast to the swine of patriarchy, the swine will see it through their patriarchal lenses, pearl though it may be when it leaves the creator's hands.

(and that's a problem with BDSM niche porn, BTW -- we can all agree on who we are, and what we mean, but when Joe Shmoe who doesn't share our norms sees it, he doesn't bring that understanding to it, and that's why the audience matters. But that's not a complete answer -- if the set of one pair of het male eyeballs was an intolerable intrusion into lesbian speech, then there could be no On Our Backs. So it's a mode of analysis, not a set of conclusions, IMO.)

I would like to think that most men would be able to realize that porn does not, and in a lot of cases, should not reflect how sex with someone is in real life.

However, I think teenagers have a hard time with realizing what is real and what isn't. There is porn out there that isn't too degrading or misogynistic, but most of what I've see is. I think the fear used to be that boys would see porn stars and have unrealistic ideas about women's bodies. Now, with the rise of amateur porn, it becomes a bit more real to see an average looking person having sex right in front you.

Porn is about people having sex, it's supposed to be a fantasy, and it's supposed to turn people on. I just wonder if men would be turned on by something else or something more if it's presented to them. Porn is pretty much the same these days.

I really think that parents need to talk about sex with their kids earlier, especially with boys who are going to start looking at porn as teenagers. If no one is there telling them it's a fantasy and that sex doesn't really mimic porn, or that women don't like to be treated the way they sometimes are in porn... then the porn is the only thing teaching him. Oh, and abstinence-only education in school, of course. ;)

This book sounds very interesting...

Let me offer the perspective of a man who considers himself not only to be a feminist, but to be a radical feminist, and who happens to like porn.

To begin with let me offer the best definition of porn I've ever encountered: "Porn is media which is used primarially as a masturbation aid, and in which a person loses almost all interest following orgasm".

There's no doubt that there has been a marked rise in blatently misogynist porn, but I would disagree that porn, by definition, is misogynist.

There is also the critical issue of separation of fantasy from reality. I liked watching the movie Terminator 2, that doesn't mean I want to blow up computer factories in real life. Likewise wanting to see behavior X in porn is not the same as wanting to see behavior X in real life, or even to act out behavior X with a willing partner.

There's also a sub-genre of porn, not huge but hardly tiny either, usually produced for a male audience involving men being beaten, analy penetrated, etc by dominant women. Which does not quite fit the "porn == violence against women" model that Jensen seems to develop. Not having read the book myself yet I have only Courtney's review to go by, did he include porn of that nature in his analysis, and if so may I ask for a summary of how? I'm also interested in how, or if, he included male homosexual porn and bisexual porn?

I'm also interested in the terminology Courtney presented in the beginning:

“features� (soft core) and “gonzo� (hard core)

Generally "hard core" is used to describe porn which explicitly shows the genetals, penetration, etc, "soft core" is used to describe porn which focuses on nudity rather than explicit sex, and "gonzo" is used to describe porn of the intentionally misogynist variety. If Jensen deliberately juxtaposes "hard core" and "gonzo" it would, to me anyway, indicate that he's being disingenuous at best, and outright decieteful at worst.

Porn, from my POV anyway, holds much the same place as violent movies: nifty to watch but having little or nothing to do with real life. Fantasy, after all, is just that: fantasy. While some mentally defective individuals cannot separate the two, most humans have no difficulty doing so.

Sex is a visceral thing, and for some people it often gets tied with visceral fears: fear, pain, etc. Thus we have men with cuckold fantasies, women with rape fantasis, men and women into sadomasochism, etc. Thus some porn will have, as its primary objective, to trigger those visceral fears that have become intertwined with sex in the minds of its intended audience.

I do think that much of the rise in deliberately misogynist porn is due to men who have fully internalized the patriarchy and who feel harmed by the continuing rise in women's status indulging in revenge fantasies.

And, finally, I'd argue that most porn is of the rather straightforward "two (or more) people engaging in consensual sex" variety. While it is true that the women in porn are always open to sex, that hardly seems significant as its the entire point of the genre: people having sex. Try to imagine a porno with any other mechanic:

Male actor: So, how about it?
Female actor: Naah, I just don't feel like screwing today.
Roll credits

Sotonohito, I commented in the last Jensen thread about porn and fiction: I don't think it is. The part of porn that people focus on is the part that purports to be and us unsimulated; that's one of the principal features; and when the term "porn" has drifted to other genres (climbing porn, car porn) it means exactly that: the explicit depiction of the thing itself for those with a quasi-masturbatory interest in the thing itself. So, whereas in narrative fiction the focus is on what is simulated (characters and plot), in porn the simulated parts are not what people are there to see.

I don't think porn is fiction in any meaningful sense. It is performative; the sex isn't like people who have sex without an audience, and it is stylized; it follows genre conventions and isn't the only way people would have sex for an audience. But it's not fiction.

"Porn, from my POV anyway, holds much the same place as violent movies: nifty to watch but having little or nothing to do with real life. Fantasy, after all, is just that: fantasy. While some mentally defective individuals cannot separate the two, most humans have no difficulty doing so."
Apologies, but I am so sick of hearing this excuse in defending porn. Fantasy is just fantasy, yes. But we're not talking about fantasy –we're talking about actual porn that actually shows women being actually abused. To you the woman in the video may be just a fantasy, but I'm pretty sure she's quite aware that it actually happened.
Now you may not want to act these things out in real life, but if you do want to watch them in porn – these things actually being done to actual women – please stay far far FAR away from me.
Thanks.

P.s. NO woman has a rape fantasy. None. An event occurring in their imagination is one that they have total control over. Nothing happens they they don't want to happen. That negates the possibility of it being "rape".

Thomas – please don't take the above as an indictment against willing bdsm people. That's a world of difference, as you rightly pointed out, then the "bitch didn't see it coming" rape porn all over the place now.

three points -

1. It is problematic to call male feminists "self-hating," just as it is problematic to call female feminists "man haters." Doesn't anyone else see this? As though critiques of patriarchy and misogyny have to automatically come from a position of *hate.* Interestingly, this seems to surface the most when discussions of porn come up. Dworkin and Mackinnon are always framed as hating & wishing to destroy male sexuality, and now Jensen is being accused of the same thing, This is twisted - if anyone hates anyone else, it is pornographers who hate women. I feel like this is pretty obvious.

2. While there IS tremendous variation in what turns people on, I am hesitant to call it "natural." Sexuality, like gender, is socially constructed for the most part.

My story: I like to be dominated & hurt during sex. But I would never argue, as folks like Rachel Kramer Bussel and Tristan Taramino do, that pursuing what I want in bed is empowering, healthy, liberating, etc. Because I didn't just one day magically feel aroused by pain or humiliation - it happened after a series of sexual assaults during my adolescence. I believe that "what turns me on" is drectly linked to these experiences, in a complicated way that is hard for me to articulate. I seek out encounters that trigger flashbacks. When I worked in the sex industry, I met many other women with similar feelings. (Although I concede that a number female bottoms/submissives were never victims of childhood abuse - but certainly victims of our misogynistic society.)

3. Porn is not "a fantasy" for actual sex workers, as I have repeated in every porn thread on this site, to no avail. Please stop insisting that it is, this is infuriating to those of us who have been comprimised and sacrificed for your "fantasy" orgasms.

Betty, I didn't think you were taking a shot at us.

It behooves us BDSMers to yell loud and clear that these creeps are not with us, to deny them as far as possible political cover. The BDSM community has norms of consent and mutuality; folks operating outside that framework ought not to be permitted to leverage the hard-won limited acceptance we've achieved, and I just wanted to say that, less to you, than to as big an audience as this will find.

Porn is not "a fantasy" for actual sex workers, as I have repeated in every porn thread on this site, to no avail.

Point taken, and I'm sorry if I was throwing around the idea of "fantasy" and "fiction" too liberally.

I understand that certain kinds of porn (to use sotonohito's definition: "Porn is media which is used primarially as a masturbation aid, and in which a person loses almost all interest following orgasm") are performative: with actual actors doing actual deeds. But are we not including non-performative types of media? What about text and images that are created without the use of actors? Does that not count as porn?

SweetZoeJane, I think boys *do* realize women don't usually enjoy beated, tortured, suffocated during sex. That is the point. They get off on seeing women suffer.

@ sotonohito:

Beautifully written, and explains what I was trying to say better than I could.

This is one of the more lively conversations I've read on the subject in quite some time. Since sex is such so viceral a topic, however, there's never going to be a consensus when it comes to reconciling feminism and porn. Our personal experiences color our views, often to an extreme degree.

This is what excites and depresses me most about human sexuality. So open to interpretation, which is great except where government is concerned and the few decide for the many. Great though, for blog comment threads!

The problem that I see that needs to be addressed is the normalization of gonzo porn and the normalization of depictions of violence and humiliation of women in mainstream porn."

This pretty much sums up my position re: violent porn as well. I think we definitely need to explore the possible ramifications of the increasingly-popular depiction of sex paired with violence. I'm not sure when it started, but it seems more and more we're presented with increasingly aggressive and violent depictions of sex in our media. Not just in porn, but TV and movies as well. I sometimes think we're beginning to conflate "passionate" with "violent." How often does a "hot" love scene involve things breaking, the couple shoving each other around aggressively, "fuck fighting" (start out having a fight/argument and end up passionately kissing/having sex)? Does this happen more often than it doesn't? Was this always how "hot" sex scenes were depicted? What effect, if any, has exposure to these sort of depictions had on how we perceive sex and violence? Has repeated exposure to this sort of thing gradually skewed our perceptions of "normal" sexual behavior more and more toward the violent end of the spectrum? Do we now find violence sexy, and sex violent? If we do, is it harmful, or harmless? When you look at the apparent increasing popularity and acceptance of misogynistic porn, "torture porn" films, rape and attacks on women's rights, it's easy to imagine that maybe all these depictions of violent sex have had an insidious subliminal psychological effect on all who've viewed them. Orgasm is a spectacular example of positive reinforcement, after all. But then again, maybe the popularity of those depictions is just another symptom of a greater problem, not the cause of it. I honestly don't know, but I'd love to see someone explore the idea, and would be very curious to see their results.

I want to react to what Alice Paul said:

There is no consensus on why we're kinky. I know men who top, bottom and switch, women who top, bottom and switch; het and queer. Some were the product of violent environments and some were not. Some were sexualized early and some were not. I have not seen a pattern, anecdotally or quantitatively.

Some of us, like Alice Paul, can point to something and know why we are the way we are; others can't. For some of us, we found it late in life; for others in interest in power exchange or something related has been with us so long that we can't recall a sexuality without it.

Since our experiences are diverse, any account of the meaning of what we do has to take that diversity into account, and we certainly ought not to tell each other what our experiences mean.

Alice knows why she is the way she is, and she interprets it in a way that's consonant with that. She mentioned Tristan; Tristan's experiences were different. AFAIK, Tristan was neither the product of a violent environment nor sexualized early, but she's a dyke-identified bisexual and the daughter of a queer dad, so her experience may be one where her kinks were part of her and her family's position outside the heteronorm: part of the political experience of being a sexual minority, which would explain why she experiences her BDSM play as empowering. (Also, she's a switch.) (I won't try to explain RKB, because I often feel she does make the assumption that something about her desire to submit can be generalized to women broadly, and that's an idea I reject.)

About Dworkin: for those that don't know, she was partnered with a man named John Stoltenberg for the last decades of her life. She didn't even advocate political lesbianism the way for example Shiela Jeffries does: the accusations that Dworkin hated men are just political demonizing from people that refuse to engage with what she actually said.

Betty Boondoggle wrote: "P.s. NO woman has a rape fantasy. None. An event occurring in their imagination is one that they have total control over. Nothing happens they they don't want to happen. That negates the possibility of it being "rape"."

I think we're miscommunicating. There are women, and men as well, who have sexual fantasies involving themselves as the victims of rape. While, self evidendly, one is in complete control of one's own fantasy and therefore it is impossible to be raped in your own head, it is possible to imagine oneself as a victim and to enjoy that fantasy. It isn't my thing, and it may not be your thing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

"Apologies, but I am so sick of hearing this excuse in defending porn. Fantasy is just fantasy, yes. But we're not talking about fantasy –we're talking about actual porn that actually shows women being actually abused. To you the woman in the video may be just a fantasy, but I'm pretty sure she's quite aware that it actually happened."

Yes, just as the person in a zombie flick is actually running around, but not actually being persued by zombies an actor in a BDSM flick is actually being beaten/whatever but not actually a victim of criminal assault.

Your comments appear to be based from the "I don't want to do/like X, therefore no woman would want to do/like X" mental process. Your tastes are not universal, you do not represent all women, people are infinately varied.

The deliberately misogynist porn is a separate issue from BDSM porn. I don't like misogynist porn myself, but its hardly as if the women appearing in it are kidnapped off the street and actually abused. They're actors playing a part and they're paid for doing so (not paid enough, but that's a different topic). I won't argue that many, possibly all, of them wouldn't chose different work if they were not under economic strain.

OTOH, people are infinately varied, there are men who are sexually excited by being beaten, spit on, verbally humiliated, and so forth, by women which would and there are women out there who like the same thing from men. I won't claim that all women involved in such porn enjoy that sort of thing in real life, but neither can you claim that such women don't exist. Masochism is a very real phenominon and it includes women as well as men.

And, finally, there is a large amount of textual, animated, etc porn which does not, actually, involve real human actors doing anything (except voices).

The subject of whether porn has an influence on real life behavior is another issue.

Currently discussions of that sort tend to center around two polar positions 1) ideas are toxic, and 2) ideas are perfectly safe. I think both of the positions are false, and propose a nutritional model instead.

Self evidently people can, for example, read Mein Kampf and not become Nazis, equally obviously a steady diet of nothing but Nazi literature would probably have an affect on most people.

The same, I think, can be said for porn. If a person consumes nothing but misogynist porn its probably going to have an effect, mental malnutrition if you will. But the occasional sampling isn't going to turn a normal person into a raving Republican anymore than eating the occasional chocolate will make your teeth fall out.

As long as the people involved are consenting, I see no problem with porn of any variety. I may not like it, but if all parties involved consent to it then I'd say its their business.

If a person involved in a filmed sexual act isn't consenting, that's not porn, its evidence in a rape case.

Okay, I am probably one of the younger posters here (maybe not by much, but I'm in college) and I would like to say that, as a teenager, I certainly had friends encounter guys who had too many misconceptions about the way sex should be, thanks to porn. (Among the worst was a guy who wouldn't stop having intercourse with my friend (i.e. rape) until he thought he had made her cum.) Some of this was to the point where I've decided this may be among the most harmful things about porn (that and the fact that women's desire for labioplasty has risen dramatically).

Sure, as some of you pointed out, if no sex happened, it wouldn't be porn. But to me that doesn't rule out the idea of: "why don't they show couples communicating? (something teenagers have a heck of a time figuring out they're supposed to do) Why don't women tell the men what to do in order to feel good? Why isn't there occasionally something one partner wants but the other doesn't, so they move on to a different activity?"
And if you're tempted to answer that "well, that's not as sexy" then think long and hard about what that means for us, culturally. Because all of those things I've mentioned above are integral to /realistically good/ sex.

Personally, I've seen plenty of porn since I was a teenager. It all started when it was like a popular activity for people to watch porn together in high school, and then when I was older I watched some on my own. However, the vast majority of porn I have happened to watch did not involve inflicting pain on women, or forcing them to do anything. (some of it was supposed "woman-centered porn") However, just personally, there have only been one or two flics I've ever seen that actually felt sexy to me, that actually turned me on. Maybe it's b/c there often isn't a lot of body-body contact when people are trying to make an act visible for the camera. Maybe it's b/c for me, the physical sensations of sex are far better than any visual.

Anyway, suffice it to say that I don't exactly "get" porn. I just know that it can have negative effects, for teenage boys' sexuality, for some women's body image, and for any actors which may be coerced into their roles...

sotonohito:

Various studies have showed that around 90% of sex workers (talking about all kinds of sex workers here) were sexually assaulted prior to the age of 18. A lot of the top porn stars have said that this was the case for them, as well. So maybe it's complicated and difficult to analyze, but there is something more complex and possibly not totally self-loving going on in the psychologies of many women who act in porn.

Secondly, many porn actors are coerced by someone else into the biz, are drugged (like prostitutes) as a method of coercion, are not treated well by directors or male actors. I know I've seen books on it (does anyone have titles here?) This is even more likely to be the case with internet actors, b/c a lot of internet porn is unregulated. A lot of people who act in internet porn are actually underage. Being underpaid is really not the only bad thing that ever happens to porn actresses, seriously. (and of course you can't /tell/ that anything unpleasant goes on behind the seens when you're watching a porn flick, that's the whole point...)

I've read a bunch of excerpts from the book on Alternet and what I find most fascinating is his analysis of masculinity in America is the ability of men to tolerate and even get turned on by the suffering of others. The images from Abu Graib of prisoners in mock sex positions is the most blatant example of the conflation of porn and American imperialism.

I see a connection between men who can get off on viewing pornography that abuses women, yet lead conventional lives in which they would never act that way to the women in their life with out country which acts out its 9/11 trauma by inflicting maximum damage to a portion of the world population.

Many people in this country "got off" watching bombs fall on Bhagdad but would never exhibit hostility interacting with people in their daily lives. Some men get off watching women gagging on multiple men's cocks, but would never force their wives to do so.

How often does a "hot" love scene involve things breaking, the couple shoving each other around aggressively, "fuck fighting" (start out having a fight/argument and end up passionately kissing/having sex)? Does this happen more often than it doesn't? Was this always how "hot" sex scenes were depicted?

The wedding night scene in Hitchcock's Marnie and Scarlett O'Hara being carried up the stairs, protesting, by Rhett Butler both immediately spring to mind.

Also, sotonohito, thanks for your last comment. Rape fantasies aren't my thing in the least, but if we don't recognize the wide variety of what people enjoy and use, we're just talking past each other, IMO.

Great review, Courtney.

I know this is a bit of a hot button issue in feminism, and I don't have the energy or the inclination to get too involved in a debate on pornography.

However, I'd like to offer this excellent essay on the subject by none other than the great Alan Moore, author of Watchmen, Promethea, and of course, the epic work of erotica entitled Lost Girls.

I haven't read the essay in a while, but I remember totally enjoying it and I tend to agree with his view on the subject. To me the true issue is the way our culture treats pornography.

Please check it out.

http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=1685

"it is possible to imagine oneself as a victim and to enjoy that fantasy. It isn't my thing, and it may not be your thing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

Are you not seeing the problem with this logic? Of course you can imagine being the victim of rape - it's still something you have complete control over. the point is the *actual* experience of being raped (being completely out of control and being used and hurt)is not something people fantasize about. They fantasize about what they want rape to be like, when it's not actually like that at all.

hence, still not a rape fantasy.

"Yes, just as the person in a zombie flick is actually running around, but not actually being persued by zombies an actor in a BDSM flick is actually being beaten/whatever but not actually a victim of criminal assault."

Once again – major logic flaw. The zombie flick is clearly fictional –every one wears make up and pretends to be hit. Porn is not pretending anything. The women being choked, slapped and spit on – that's happening. You don't know if she's willing or not. I'm sure many want to believe she's all into it, but they have no proof.

"Your comments appear to be based from the "I don't want to do/like X, therefore no woman would want to do/like X" mental process. Your tastes are not universal, you do not represent all women, people are infinately varied."

You comments appear to be based on the "I like porn and I will employ whatever I can to justify it. Including lame implications of prudery".

"I don't like misogynist porn myself, but its hardly as if the women appearing in it are kidnapped off the street and actually abused."

What proof of this do you have? Seems to me you're telling yourself what you have to believe in order to continually justify watching porn. You don’t know what happened behind the scenes. Has it somehow escaped your notice that countless millions of women and children are forced into sexual slavery every year? Do you really think porn is somehow immune? Stunning self-deception, if that's that case.

"I won't claim that all women involved in such porn enjoy that sort of thing in real life, but neither can you claim that such women don't exist. Masochism is a very real phenominon and it includes women as well as men."

I didn't claim there aren't women who enjoyed it. I didn't say there aren't people who enjoy it. In fact, I made it very clear at the end of the post that I wasn't talking about willing private citizens. We're talking about porn, let's not turn this into yet another round of "you're oppressing me!"

"As long as the people involved are consenting, I see no problem with porn of any variety. I may not like it, but if all parties involved consent to it then I'd say its their business."

I agree that willing adults can do whatever they want and need not my permission or approval. I disagree that there's a right to create, market and distribute porn that explicity advocates rape. See the difference?

"If a person involved in a filmed sexual act isn't consenting, that's not porn, its evidence in a rape case."

And, once again, you have absolutely no way of knowing the difference. I would also argue that porn selling itself explicitly as rape (i.e. "bitch didn't see that coming") poses an even bigger problem as there's not even the pretense of the women enjoying it and therefore even less proof it wasn't an actual rape and assault you were watching.

Thomas-
For those familiar with the material, contrast the Kink.com trailers, with their pre- and post-scene interviews, with some of the misogynist shit ... the one has the performers (men bottoms and women bottoms) talking about why they did and their reactions to it.

It's ironic that you bring this up, because from talking to the people who make BDSM porn (sexandsubmission.com), the only reason they include that stuff is on the advice of lawyers, because it will be useful when the (they believe, inevitable) obscenity prosecution comes down. Not to say that the relationships between the performers being depicted isn't real (I think they are, from knowing some of them), it's just that they wouldn't have included it if it weren't for the threat from the right wing.

Betty, what would be your yardstick for something that 'explicitly advocates rape'? Isn't this the same sort of thinking that got On Our Backs and the like banned?

And of course there are ways of knowing if consent is given in a pornographic video. I think it's pretty safe to say that, for example, Jenna Jamieson isn't living in slavery. Of course, exploitation is a trickier subject, but I don't think cloaking the subject in more shame is a solution-- it never has been, historically.

thomas, excellent posts.

sotonohito, i agree with some of what you've said, but for the sake of discussion, you say that porn has little to do with reality and that most people can easily separate fantasy from reality. while i don't think people who watch violent porn are going to go out and strangle women, i do think that watching this can have a more lasting and subtle effect, even if it's occasional.

we can already point to ways that porn has influenced the outside world--a brief history of pubic hair in america verifies that. i'm not saying that more women getting brazilians is some horrible thing, but the feeling that men want us (women) to look more like porn stars and act more like them is dangerous to me.

1. Betty Boondoggle, I take it you think the term 'rape fantasy' is an incorrect term for those fantasies some people have of being raped. But do you have a correct term to be used in its place? I ask because I think the term 'rape fantasy' is the standard term in contemporary English.

2. I wonder whether this discussion is ignoring lots of what goes under the name 'pornography'. Here's what I mean. When my friends and I mention masturbating to porn on the Internet, I think what we mainly have in mind is masturbating to pictures of naked women (or women in revealing outfits). But this kind of pornography doesn't involve any rough sex or domination or the like. So it seems significantly different from the kind of pornography discussed in this thread. (Perhaps my friends and I are extremely unusual in this respect, but I doubt it)

Of course, I don't mean to suggest that pictures of naked women are perfectly harmless. I can think of a number of plausible objections to this kind of pornography. But again, it seems quite different.

"Betty, what would be your yardstick for something that 'explicitly advocates rape'?"
Call me crazy, but when porn advertises it self as rape porn, or highlights the portrayal of something being done without a woman's knowledge or consent– I'd call that the yardstick.
"Isn't this the same sort of thinking that got On Our Backs and the like banned?"
You'll need to explain this reference, because I have no idea what you mean.
"And of course there are ways of knowing if consent is given in a pornographic video. I think it's pretty safe to say that, for example, Jenna Jamieson isn't living in slavery."
This dismissive attitudes comforts pro-porn people, I'm sure. Does Jenna Jamison do the type of porn we're talking about? That's an honest question. Despite that, Jamison is not your average porn actress. Very few reach the well-paid superstar level. What was the start of her career like? What about the countless millions who don't make it to her level? Is their possible and potential exploitation and abuse somehow lessened because Jamison wasn't?
I'm not trying to be snarky – I really don't understand what one famous porn actress has to do with the topic.
And, since someone else has already pointed out that there is quite a bit about the industry that isn't regulated (i.e. amateur) – you have absolutely no proof (other than the word of the company taking your money for their product) that you're watching consenting, willing people.
"Of course, exploitation is a trickier subject, but I don't think cloaking the subject in more shame is a solution-- it never has been, historically."
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying I'm shaming people? That confuses me – haven't I made it perfectly clear that I'm not saying willing adults can't do whatever?

And of course there are ways of knowing if consent is given in a pornographic video. I think it's pretty safe to say that, for example, Jenna Jamieson isn't living in slavery.

So, because Tim Gunn sews garments by choice, there are no sweatshops in which nameless, faceless people toil in slave-like conditions? Yes, there are famous porn actors and actresses who work in regulated conditions, and we can have a certain amount of confidence in their situations. But the porn industry is incredibly large -- can you account for the treatment given to all actors in it, in all forms of media, such as the Internet? I doubt you can.

Well, it might be dangerous (where the misogynistic type is brought into the bedroom) or it might not. The pubic hair shaving is an interesting point. Male shaving has started to enter the fringes of mainstream, see for example the sophomoric film "American Wedding". Did it come from porn, gay or straight? I can remember being in a health club/gym and shaving my face when a guy several sinks down shaved his penis. I thought to myself at first, that seems pretty gay. Then I thought, well so what if it is, it makes pretty good sense to get some of the shaggy stuff out of the way. It reminded me of the sign I once saw in my dentist's office: "Q. Do I have to floss all of my teeth? A. Only the ones you want to keep."

Mithras, Sexandsubmission.com is part of Peter Acworth's company, Kink.com, which I referenced. I don't know who told you what from that company, but Acworth makes the decisions, and Acworth says publicly that he's a BDSM activist.

I'm a lawyer and I'm familiar with the obscenity laws, and I can tell you that the post-scene interviews would help move a judge and a jury, but that their application to the actual legal standard is tenuous -- I will share, if people want, my account of how to immunize BDSM porn under the prevailing "LAPS value" aspect of the Miller standard, and it's not what Kink.com does. I'm telling you that whoever told you that, while that may be what they've concluded or even been told, they were NOT giving you a first-hand account of the advice lawyers give them (and would not; those communications are privileged and by telling you they would be breaking the privilege) and is NOT Acworth's view.

If you are buds with Acworth, don't go telling people that he's waiving his attorney client privilege. He was in financial services; he should be smarter than that.

The effect of the pre and post-interviews, ragardless of whose lawyer said what, is to contextualize what happens as consensual and part of a negotiated scene.

Further, Acworth is not the only BDSM auteur to do it. The models at the late and lamented Insex used to do chat sessions about past and upcoming scenes. Like Kink.com, they had both make and female tops and both male and female bottoms, and those folks often made explicit what the negotiated limits of the scenes were, either during or after the scene. )(Also, Insex was the last place I paid to see a woman bottom, and I vividly recall at least two scenes that they stopped -- one male and one female top -- because the bottom was not in a good place. Seeing that sends the clear message that they are not, in fact, abusing anyone and will stop a paid, live scene if the bottom is not in the right frame of mind for what's going on.)

Finally, Sotonohito, I have read first-hand accounts from mainstream porn actresses of scenes where male performers blew discussed limits and physically hurt them and where their pleas to stop were ignored not just by the male performer but also by the director and the set. So you're making assumptions about how the industry works that you cannot back up. Ask Melissa Ashley about being raped on set -- Put her name in wikipedia, go to the blog and read. I'll bet her account is still up. She's pretty damned San Fernando Valley mainstream.

Betty Boondoggle wrote "Are you not seeing the problem with this logic? Of course you can imagine being the victim of rape - it's still something you have complete control over. the point is the *actual* experience of being raped (being completely out of control and being used and hurt)is not something people fantasize about. They fantasize about what they want rape to be like, when it's not actually like that at all.

hence, still not a rape fantasy."

I don't know where to begin.

Let's start with terminology. You claim that it is incorrect to term a fantasy involving being the victim of rape a "rape fantasy". What *would* you call it then? A "not at all rape fantasy"? I'm completely in favor of linguistic hair splitting, its a hobby of mine, but you seem so unable to grasp the concept that you're unwilling to apply the only label that makes sense.

Then there's this "the *actual* experience of being raped (being completely out of control and being used and hurt)is not something people fantasize about." You are simply factually wrong. The being completely out of control, being used, etc is, according to the sexual psych books I've read, a central part of the fantasy in most cases.

"The women being choked, slapped and spit on – that's happening. You don't know if she's willing or not. I'm sure many want to believe she's all into it, but they have no proof."

You're asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible. You're also asking me to defend deliberately misogynist porn, which I don't like myself and therefore have, at best, an academic interest in defending.

I will observe that there have been incredibly few accusations of coersion or rape leveled against porn producers. The case against the contemptable Joseph Francis is the only one I can recall hearing about, actually.

I am not attempting to argue that coersion is not a problem in sex work of all varieties. Prostitution, especially in localles where it is illegal, often is nothing more than sexual slavery. That's actually one of the prime reasons why I favor legalizing prostitution, studies have shown that where it is legal there is less abuse and coersion. Not enough, but it seems like a rational place to start.

That said, there is no evidence to support the claim that coersion is particularly common, much less rampant, in the production of pornography. If you claim it is, offer your evidence, but merely asserting that porn suffers from an epidemic of coersion is hardly a valid argument.

I've got minor personal experience here, two people I know, one a friend the other an acquaintence, have appeared in internet porn. The friend because she thought it sounded like fun, the acquaintence because she needed some money. Anecdotal, and I'm not presenting it as evidence of a complete lack of coersion, but merely as my own experience.

Ninapendamaishi wrote: "Various studies have showed that around 90% of sex workers (talking about all kinds of sex workers here) were sexually assaulted prior to the age of 18. A lot of the top porn stars have said that this was the case for them, as well."

True, though when the stats are limited to porn actors the numbers drop significantly. Still, there's no arguing that many people involved in porn do have a bad sexual history. Others, however, don't. The real question is what relation that observation has to do with the subject at hand.

"This is even more likely to be the case with internet actors, b/c a lot of internet porn is unregulated. A lot of people who act in internet porn are actually underage."

Porn, including internet porn, at least that produced in the USA, is regulated quite heavily WRT proof of age, which makes your first statement demonstorably false, at least as far as US porn is concerned. The proof of age regulations were recently rewritten to be vastly more difficult and expensive to meet, requiring among other things that the archives of proof of age be accessable 24/7, not just during regular business hours.

Given that the US Justice Department has, since Bush's theft of the 2000 elections, been actively seeking prosicutions against anyone involved in the porn industry, the lack of porn producers convicted for using underage actors implies rather strongly that your second assertion is wrong as well.

Courtney, get out of my head.

I ordered the book last week, and am halfway through writing a review for my blog tomorrow.

It's the best thing I've read since, oh, your book.

Jensen gets it, perhaps better than any other man I know out there. Of all the books I've read about men recently that I wish I had written, this is the one. It inspires me to work harder on getting my own work out there and making it sharper and richer.

Sotonohito did you not read alicepaul's posts? Or are you just blatantly disregarding them b/c they interfere with your sexual proclivities? She has worked in the sex industry. She is telling you that she has sacrificed her body so that people can get off on watching her get hurt. Sounds pretty titillating doesn't it?

And I get really really tired of the "He might like to watch a woman have a cock forced down her throat and choke on it, but he'd never do that to his partner/wife/girlfriend/random person he met at a party!" That's not the point. The point is that he got off watching someone be choked, nonconsensually. He got off watching someone be raped. He got off watching a woman be beaten. I don't care if he never acts that out in bed. That is blatant misogyny. And I don't want any man who thinks it's sexaaayy! to watch a woman be beaten or humiliated anywhere near me. For my safety, and for his.

And why is it that so much of feminism is for deconstructing the notion of "femininity," but when we want to deconstruct what is considered to be masculine, suddenly we've hit a big nerve? The construction of masculine, at least in the US (I can't speak for other cultures) is fucking toxic. I would much rather be with a man who embraced his humanity and eschewed what he was told was manly, than someone so desperate to preserve the shreds of what prop up his machismo that he can defend the abuse of women as masturbatory material.

Give me a human over a man any day of the week.

A further note on Insex: I got upset when they used some misogynist advertising, and they eventually sold the site, but back in the early part of the decade when I subscribed, they had a woman ride herd on the chat during live webcasts. Anyone who said anything misogynist or negative about the performer was GONE, instantly. Also, the lead top, named PD, once had a scene proposal from a performer who wanted to do something where she was verbally humiliated by the viewers on the live chat: his initial reaction was flat no, because he didn't think he could keep the audience to those that knew the model and the norms of the site well, and he was not willing to have people who were not well integrated into that community get the impression that saying negative things about the performers was in any way okay. As I recall, eventually settled for a scene where the performer made up her own things to say about herself, which obviously put her in control.

Thomas-
I don't know Acworth and, obviously, didn't know kink.com and sexandsubmission.com were related entities. I think the people I do know were telling me what they believed, but I have no reason to think they would be privy to privileged communications.

GodRousingDogPipes

" I take it you think the term 'rape fantasy' is an incorrect term for those fantasies some people have of being raped. But do you have a correct term to be used in its place? I ask because I think the term 'rape fantasy' is the standard term in contemporary English."
They're not fantasizing about being raped. They're fantasizing about having total control over a scenario in which they are the passive party in a (likely) violent fantasy. That's not rape. I'm not sure what is the "correct term" to be used in place.
I will say though that "women have rape fantasies" is a favorite trope of MRA s and various other misogynists to deny rape happens – at all. They use it to suggest women secretly "want it". So, to hear people on a feminist board use the same phrase is . . . disconcerting, to say the least.
I'm not denying that people do have aggressive, rough or violent fantasies. I'm saying that I'm willing to bet my right arm that virtually none of them are out actively trying to actually be raped. The fantasy allows someone to have total control over a situation which in the real world would be VASTLY different from even the most violent fantasy because that changes it from being something the one having the fantasy has total control over (even if the fantasy is about having no control, it's still something they *chose* to be happening).
"I wonder whether this discussion is ignoring lots of what goes under the name 'pornography'. "
For our purposes here I'm not talking about porn as a monolith. I'm talking about racist, misogynistic, abusive, degrading, humiliating, harmful porn. Basically, I'm talking about what Jensen is talking about.
I agree that this - the talking passed each other - is a tremendous problem. Every individual has their own version of what constitutes porn or erotica, etc.
For the record, I don't believe that porn is *all* this type or is inherently misogynistic or degrading. While I avoid hateful abusive porn myself, that doesn't mean I don't enjoy looking at what I consider good looking naked people getting it on.
I've never argued that porn or erotica need be verboten. But, there are limits to what is acceptable. We see the pics of the torture at Aru Gharib and we're horrified. We see depictions of women being put through far worse and we're actually having a convo about whether that's okay. In a society that didn't hate women, this wouldn't be a question.
Now, don't mistake this as me saying *I* get to decide what's acceptable and what isn't. Once again, I don't care what willing adults do in the privacy of their own home. I will, however, continue to object to it being created for a profit and it becoming common place and mainstream.
Funny, isn't it that toy makers stopped making realistic toy guns when it was acknowledged that they can cause great harm without cries of "censorship!", but we're actually discussing whether watching a woman being choked and slapped until she cries – and finding such sexually arousing - is acceptable "free speech".
It boggles the mind.

Thomas, this is entirely too late to address the point you were making back in the day, but I wonder if thinking of masculinity in terms of things that are good but you wouldn't want to teach your daughter is maybe not the right way to go about it. I mean, I can think of many positive aspects of traditional femininity (consideration for others, controlling one's temper, kindness, nurturing, appreciating sparkly objects). But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to encourage them in sons. There's a lot a like in traditional masculinity: courage, standing up for one's rights and principles, a sort of swaggering toughness that I admire, confidence. Of course I'd like to see those things in any daughters of mine as well.

not alot to add, just my personal experience. my family got internet access when i was 14 and i started checking out porn pretty much right away. i got really really into it and viewed alot of porn. the more porn i saw the more extreme what i was looking at needed to be to arouse me, to the point where i was looking at things that were just plain wrong and possibly illegal, and eventually even that shit did nothing for me either. i had to take a step back and i sort of burnt out on the whole thing. now im 26 and in the past year or so ive started checking out porn again, and initially im aroused, but only by the idea of pornography, when i actually watch the videos nobody seems happy, nobody seems to be having a good time, its all so fake and false. im not turned on by the sex acts themselves, im turned on by other people being turned on, and (for the most part)porn lacks that. i end up just feeling really freaked out by the whole thing.

I'd like to respond to whoever mentioned that Jensen is "self-hating."

I'd really like to refute that. I don't know Jensen, but nothing about being a male feminist, and rejecting masculinity strikes me as "self-hating." Jensen hates masculinity. Jensen is a man. I don't believes rejecting masculinity is rejecting the fact that his sex is male, nor do I believe it is self-loathing.

If you hate masculinity (traditional masculinity), I would imagine that you're attempting to consciously reject thoughts, words and actions that are made manifest by masculinity. That doesn't mean you hate yourself.

As a male feminist, I've found that rejecting traditional forms of masculinity makes me like myself more. I think it has made me a better person, and I would imagine that Jensen thinks that his beliefs about masculinity have made him a better person, and I would hope that he doesn't hate himself for it.

"I will observe that there have been incredibly few accusations of coersion or rape leveled against porn producers."

Uh-huh. Statisically, most rapes go unreported. Does that mean that since you will likely observe that there are few reports of rape that it means it doesn't happen?

Just wondering exactly how far your denial is willing to go.

"If you claim it is, offer your evidence, but merely asserting that porn suffers from an epidemic of coersion is hardly a valid argument."

Neither is asserting that it isn't true because you, yourself, haven't bothered to investigate it.

As for evidence - nopornnorthhampton.org.

They're far more equipped for that than I.

"BUT I don’t believe that masculinity is inherently evil..."
Both femininity and masculinity are social constructs created by patriarchal systems. Therefore, both of them are inherently evil, in my opinion.

"The wedding night scene in Hitchcock's Marnie and Scarlett O'Hara being carried up the stairs, protesting, by Rhett Butler both immediately spring to mind."

Good examples. However, I wasn't trying to imply that such things never happened prior to 19-whenever or asking if they ever had. I was asking if anyone else (besides me) had gotten the impression that violent/passionate sex scenes had become de rigeur in the past decade or so.

Has the ratio of sex scenes incorporating violence vs. sex scenes that don't increased in the past few decades? Or does it just seem that way?

"but you seem so unable to grasp the concept that you're unwilling to apply the only label that makes sense."

The only label that makes sense? My goodness - honey I am not the one who's not grasping the concept.

Let's define rape. Would you agree that rape defined is: any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person?

When one is fantasizing the ONLY things that happen are what that person wants to be happening. You can fantasize about being ravished by the entire Roman army and you're still only fantasizing about what you chose to be happening. What you want to be happening. Even if you're fantasizing about being bound, gagged and crying its still what you chose to be happening.

Rape is a violent attack on you. Fantasizing about the same is what you chose to be happening.

They're not even kind of the same thing. I don't know how I can make this more clear.

Warning: TMI & ignorance ahead.
---
--
-

Do some women really experience arousal when someone is inflicting pain on them? I honestly don't know if I believe that.

I am incredibly submissive in bed, and I allow people to doing things to me that are not only uncomfortable but extremely painful. I have a very high tolerance for pain and I'm able to disassociate whenever I'm experiencing intense pain.

Given that, I would never say to myself or others that I enjoy sadomasochistic sex. I act the way I do because it's the only way I know how to be. -And I recognize how seriously unhealthy this is.

How can some women derive sexual pleasure from experiencing pain unless it is some sort of unhealthy sexual defense mechanism? How is it humanly possible to enjoy physical degradation? Is it just that some women get off on seeing the pleasure that their partner derives from inflicting pain on them?

In no way am I trying to suggest that the way I feel during this type of sex is the way that all women feel... but I am just wondering how it is possible to feel any other way.

Someone want to enlighten me on this?

As a male feminist, I've found that rejecting traditional forms of masculinity makes me like myself more

Amen, Jeff; this male feminist feels precisely the same way.

EG: I think you misread Thomas. He said that there were positive traits usually associated with masculinity that he /would/ also like to encourage in his daughter.

Vervain: I have to say that I personally disagree. I mean, okay, movies are not all that old, and they used to not show sex /at all/, so I think that's tough to quantify. However, in the 1950s there were sex manuals that encouraged women to "just lie there" and prior to Kinsey's studies the notion that foreplay was extremely important and that women should orgasm too was not wide-spread. Also, some of our most famous American poets from early in the century have poems romanticizing rape. I've also read Victorian-era erotica/porn by men basically describing their rapes of women and children. It seems to be a pretty-ingrained part of western culture, to me...

So, because Tim Gunn sews garments by choice, there are no sweatshops in which nameless, faceless people toil in slave-like conditions? Yes, there are famous porn actors and actresses who work in regulated conditions, and we can have a certain amount of confidence in their situations. But the porn industry is incredibly large -- can you account for the treatment given to all actors in it, in all forms of media, such as the Internet? I doubt you can.

By that logic, we should make all our own clothes from handspun, as there's no way to account for all actors in making the fabric, designing the clothes, and constructing the clothes. Part of my argument (which I'm clearly not making particularly well) is that the cultural taboos against pornography make it particularly hard to 'shed light' on the subject. Jenna J. was just an extreme example-- as Tim Gunn is. For me the goal is to make circumstances for all people producing goods of value to have rights and not be exploited-- whether they're making clothing or BDSM videos.

Betty: In my experience the first porn that gets edited/censored/pulled off the shelves is often 'fringe' materials-- I have a compilation of material pulled from mailing in Canada back at home, for example, that contained a long, detailed BDSM sex scene of a lesbian woman being sexually assaulted by a cop...only it turned out the entire scenario was a 'scene' constructed by her lover. (I was also trying to reference the lesbian magazine whose title I am now completely unsure of.) Would you consider that something that 'advocates' rape, especially in the light that only at the end of the story was the true nature of the scenario revealed?

Haven't I made it perfectly clear that I'm not saying willing adults can't do whatever?

Vervain, I don't know either, but the fact that I could pull up those violent sex scenes from 'classic' movies in my head that quickly made me wonder. There's certainly more onscreen rape, but I see that as hand-in-hand with increasingly explicit violence-- like those fucking Saw movies.

I get the impression that, prior to sometime around the 1950s or so, the notion that men would /need/ consent from their wives or girlfriends was not widespread, and plenty of men seemed to think they didn't need consent from anyone. Marital rape wasn't on the law books until the late 1970s. All of that is pretty much violence, if you ask me.

That being said, I totally think sort-of rough sex (knocking things over, biting, pulling hair) is hot, and totally not incompatible with a very loving, affectionate connection with someone. I mean, a lot of ancient sex manuals (e.g. the Kama Sutra) mention biting and pulling hair, so those techniques have been around longer than western culture as we know it has...

I just thought of another old movie with violence against women: "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers"

The things about these so-called "classic" movies, is that since sex was not explicitly portrayed, what you have is insinuation. Also, though women being taken against their will may be insinuated, it is always portrayed as sort of romantic, and a lot of the time they like it. (sound familiar?)

1. Betty Boondoggle, I take it you think the term 'rape fantasy' is an incorrect term for those fantasies some people have of being raped. But do you have a correct term to be used in its place? I ask because I think the term 'rape fantasy' is the standard term in contemporary English.

2. I wonder whether this discussion is ignoring lots of what goes under the name 'pornography'. Here's what I mean. When my friends and I refer to masturbating to porn on the Internet, I think what we mainly have in mind is masturbating to pictures of naked women (or women in revealing outfits). But this kind of pornography doesn't involve any rough sex or domination or the like. So it seems significantly different from the kind of pornography discussed in this thread. (Perhaps my friends and I are extremely unusual in this respect, but I doubt it)

Of course, I don't mean to suggest that pictures of naked women are perfectly harmless. I can think of a number of plausible objections to this kind of pornography. But again, it seems quite different.

Oops, sorry for the double post. It showed me an error message!

"Would you consider that something that 'advocates' rape, especially in the light that only at the end of the story was the true nature of the scenario revealed?"

That's almost a trick question. The scenario itself? No, because it makes clear that it was something they agreed to. (But again, that's not that type of porn we're talking about.)

But that says nothing about whether the actual people involved were actually consenting.

"I still don't understand what you're advocating for, though-- is it just greater understanding? "

Actually yes. I'm not attempting to begrudge anyone their fun – no matter what that means – providing that it is between willing adults. I will, however, continue to object to these types of porn because:

a) we don't know – really know- that everyone involved was willing. As Thomas pointed out (and nopornnorthhampton points out) there have been cases – even in the big companies some here would have you believe are harmless - where the limits of what was okay set before production were flagrantly disregarded once filming started. There are even cases where you can hear the woman objecting on film and the act continues. That's rape. Which means that those owning that particular movie are watching and getting off on a woman being actually violated. This is not okay.

And that says nothing about the dizzying amount of sexual exploitation in the world.

b) because normalizing such sets dangerous standards and expectations.

c) because were this not a society poisoned by misogyny, this wouldn't even be an issue and being a feminist means fighting misogyny.

Among other things.

_______

Ninapendamaishi – is it advocating doing it to an unwilling partner, or as something to be shared between people that are?

That's the important distinction I'm trying to articulate (and failing, apparently).

Betty Boondoggle

So answer the question, "what is the proper term?"

You've rejected the standard, mainstream, used in every sexual psychology book ever written, term as unacceptable. So what term do you want to substitute?

I honestly do not get where you are going, or what your point is, with your rejection of the term "rape fantasy".

"Let's define rape. Would you agree that rape defined is: any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person?" I'll accept that definition if we have a sufficiently expansive definition of "intercourse". A coerced handjob is as much rape as forced vaginal penetration is, but I'm unsure if most people would define a handjob as "sexual intercourse". Still, we're essentially on the same page here.

"When one is fantasizing the ONLY things that happen are what that person wants to be happening." and I'm still in agreement.

"Even if you're fantasizing about being bound, gagged and crying its still what you chose to be happening." Yup. No argument at all.

"Rape is a violent attack on you. Fantasizing about the same is what you chose to be happening." Still with you.

"They're not even kind of the same thing. I don't know how I can make this more clear." Complete lack of understanding.

I'm not, repeat *NOT*, trying to say that people are, somehow, being coersed into having a fantasy, that doesn't even make sense.

I'm saying that people have fantasies about being raped. If someone has a fantasy about getting a blowjob we could call that a "blowjob fantasy", even though no actual blowjob took place, yes?

If someone fantasizes about getting revenge we call that a "revenge fantasy", right? Even though no actual revenge took place.

So why, if someone fantasizes about being raped shouldn't that be called a "rape fantasy"?

I'm not being deliberately obtuse here, I'm simply not comprehending where you are coming from.

Let me give a similar example from my own past (at the risk of exposing my own insanities, embarrassing moments, etc). When I was about 8 I learned about the JFK and MLK assissanations and saw a couple of movies involving a good and bold person assissanated by the evil bad guys. Martyrdom seemed cool.

I remember, quite clearly, being in a boring classroom situation and briefly fantasizing about being assassinated by the evil bad guys, they shot me with a bow and arrow right through the heart, and my being martyred really made a difference. I had no desire to be really shot, and I think we'll agree that just as with rape that's a violent attack. But wouldn't that be called a "martyrdom fantasy"?

If you'd agree that I had a martyrdom fantasy, how does that work with your rejection of the term rape fantasy? Both involve fantasizing about things that, in real life, would be violent attacks and outside one's control, and in both cases the fantasy is fully within the control of the fantasizer.

"And what about women (or men) who actually enjoy playful pain with their sex? Feminist erotica has plenty of painful play in it. Would Jensen argue that these women are self-hating?"
I don't know what Jensen would argue, as I never read his book, but I will argue that yes, these women are self-hating. Allow me to explain. Some time ago I read how some radical feminists asserted that any sexual intercourse which involved penile penetration was a rape. This puzzled me exceedingly, until I read an interview with some feminist (I don't remember her name) who explained this very comprehensively: in no area of human activity women exercise a free will, because since their birth they are indoctrinated in believing themselves inferior to men in strength, intelligence, etc. Therefore, it is absurd to assume that as soon as a woman finds herself in bed with a man, she somehow suddenly becomes free from years of open and covert brainwashing and can give a free consent. The same applies to women who enjoy pain in sex. They...we all were indoctrinated into becoming masochists, because that's how patriarchy likes its women. Because what would happen to society if women did not like or were at least prepared to tolerate a lot of pain in their lives? Who would agree to bear children? Who would wear painful high heels for someone's else visual pleasure? And we cannot know what unbrainwashed women would enjoy in sex--pain or no pain--because not a single woman managed to be raised outside of patriarchal society so far.

For follow up reading on masculinity and violence, I recommend Jackson Katz. He has a book called _The Macho Paradox_, and a film called Tough Guise. There is a preview for Tough Guise on YouTube.

skoropeya,

I have to say that I pretty much disagree that every intercourse is rape of the woman. I mean, animals have intercourse, and they sure aren't raised in our culture. Sometimes women initiate intercourse. I think sex, in one sense, feels great, and is very natural. Of course it is always going to be /influenced/ by culture, but that's different than it being completely cultural. I don't think our culture is so overriding however that there aren't men and women out there who love and desire each other deeply as equals.

Nothing is ever black and white, least of all porn. I haven't read the book yet, but I plan to. The ongoing debate surrounding it and other works is a good sign--it means awareness.

Actually, I've always found the logic of the "all hetrosexual sex is rape" line compelling. It isn't true, but it does make a good point.

It, unfortunately, also makes a bad point that always seemed a bit anti-feminist to me, and that's that under that logic no woman is competenent enough, strong enough, or able enough to shake free from the patriarchy.

I think that, much like the ancient Greek philosopher who wrote that all things are made of water, its not supposed to be taken as literal truth, but as a starting point for debate, a way to illustrate an underlying philosophy, etc.

sotonohito, not to speak for betty, but what i believe she's getting at is the fundamental disconnect between rape and fantasy: rape by definition involves a lack of agency by the victim, whereas fantasy is something the fantasizer creates.

it's hard to put succinctly, but when "not wanting" is the essence of something (rape) and "wanting" is the essence of something else (fantasy), the phrase "rape fantasy" can have no comprehensible meaning. note that i'm not saying that people don't fantasize about violent/rough sex or being surprised by an intruder, tied up, all the trappings of what you refer to as "rape fantasy", but it needs to be called something else. i don't see why you are pushing betty so hard to come up with an alternate term--why is that her responsibility? we can call it "kerbloppenfrazmp" for all i care.

as to the martyrdom thing--you are missing betty's point because the the getting assassinated or whatever fantasy is about the bad thing that happens to you. rape fantasies can't exist because what defines rape isn't that you get tied up or smacked around or put into the trunk of a car--it's the fact that you did not WANT the sex. so to want "not wanting" is impossible.

okay, sotonohito, a few points to make here, and add me to the list of people who are not trying to speak for betty. riley, above me, sorta made this point, but worth reiterating- inherent in the definition of the word rape is the idea that it is something that is not wanted, so having a fantasy about it is something of a paradox. what's being fantasized about is probably more akin to a simulation of rape, and not an actual rape. in fact, i'll call it that for the time being- a "rape-simulation fantasy." best way to see the distinction, i think, is that when people act out this type of fantasy, they get someone to pretend to rape them, they don't go out and actually get raped.

perhaps the more important point is that in this particular instance (i.e., rape) there are actual, practical reasons to not use the term "rape fantasy." i believe betty mentioned these in one of her posts- the idea of a "rape fantasy" is used by assholes to argue that rape doesn't happen "because women secretly want to be raped." i think her insistence on the point is related to this fact. the practical realities of rape necessitate that terms like "rape fantasy" not be allowed to propagate, even if we might allow a similarly imprecise usage to continue elsewhere.

finally, on the martyrdom fantasy- this is actually a different case. the pleasure in the martyrdom situation is related to the theoretical accolades you would receive after being martyred- not the act of being killed. a "rape-simulation fantasy" is about the physical act- it's essentially a particular flavor of a submission fantasy. no one is fantasizing about the lifetime of trauma they would experience as result of rape.

so, yeah, whether that all sounds reasonable or not, drop the point, because you're coming off as troll at this point, and i don't think that was your intent. also, betty- i would be curious to hear if this is at all in keeping with what you're actually thinking, just cuz i'm curious.

Ninapendamaishi, good points. I'm also in college and studying porn from a feminist perspective, and I think it's really important to remember that while there may be amateur porn that is a completely different genre than mainstream porn, that's not what fourteen-year-olds are going to find online. Young people of all genders have far more access to more mainstream porn, and the majority of that porn without a doubt completely misogynistic. The "online" aspect is also really important to remember--even if you take for granted that mainstream porn released on DVD is, in fact, totally consensual (and I don't agree with that at all), there's still the internet, which is not really regulated much at all.

Re: "And I get really really tired of the "He might like to watch a woman have a cock forced down her throat and choke on it, but he'd never do that to his partner/wife/girlfriend/random person he met at a party!" That's not the point. The point is that he got off watching someone be choked, nonconsensually. He got off watching someone be raped. He got off watching a woman be beaten. I don't care if he never acts that out in bed. That is blatant misogyny. And I don't want any man who thinks it's sexaaayy! to watch a woman be beaten or humiliated anywhere near me. For my safety, and for his."

Actually, if you read the introduction of Pornography: Men Possessing Women, you will see that that does, in fact, happen in real life. Here, I'll even provide a link to it:

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/PornIntro1.html

And finally, since the idea that all heterosexual sex is rape has been brought up, I just want to make a point. That idea is most commonly attributed to Andrea Dworkin. She did NOT say that. People print this all the time, but even when she requested that people who had printed that interpretation of her work print her rebuttal to that position, they refused. You can probably also find a clarification of Dworkin's position online somewhere, where she explains why she does not actually believe that all hetero sex is rape.

Ah, Feministing, the humorless man-bashing brought me in, but the ideological blindness to irony keeps me coming back.

CarmelizedMe, thanks for defending Dworkin against one of the most common slurs thrown against her.

I swear (oh, wait, I'm still too Mennonite for that), we need a new version of Godwin's Law: first person in a feminist thread to claim Andrea Dworkin said all heterosexual intercourse is rape automatically loses the argument.

ahaha we can call it schwyzer's law if you want!

I must admit that I started out a bit dubious about Betty's position on the term "rape fantasy," but I think I fully grok it now. Knot, you hit it home for me, I think, and I appreciate that.

For fear of verging into the realm of TMI, I'm going to talk briefly on this as well. As a liberated male I experienced a great deal of cognitive dissonance regarding a previous long-term relationship of mine with a woman who had, for lake of a better term, "rape simulation fantasies." Not quite to the extent of fetish, but very close. This was difficult for me at first, as the closest thing I have to a sexual requirement is that my partner be an active and happy participant (reflective empathy). Something that was seemingly at odds with her preferences.

But of course, as various posters have pointed out, it was quite the opposite. These fantasies are, inherently, what is *wanted* by the person who is having them. In her case it was almost more about the being able to be "not responsible" for what was happening (I blame conservative religious upbringing), and of course that's exactly what she wanted. In a real rape scenario, as has been said, it is never what the person being raped wants. Period. End of story. Even if they might fantasize about simulated circumstances otherwise.

So I'm convinced. Rape Simulation fantasy it is, from now on. Until we come up with a better term.

But this leaves me with an interesting side question. What would you call what is apparently the traditional patriarchal male attitude regarding the desire to "rape the willing?" I.e., the traditional fantasy (Brett and Scarlet, taming of the screw, ad infinitum) involving the taking of a woman who protests outwardly but secretly desires it to happn? Again, it's not quite a "rape" fantasy, but what is it, precisely? Whatever it is, I see a lot of it behind this influx of "forced sex" pornography and the like...

knot, rileystclair, et al:

I can see the point that some may attempt to use the existence of people who indulge in the fantasy with no name as a justification for real life rape. But I don't think trying to change the, established, used in all the literature on the subject, name is really going to change that.

I've been persuing this because I do try to see things from the other person's POV, even if I disagree, and even after all the explanations offered here I'm still not seeing it.

I'll admit freely that I am into semantic and rhetorical hair splitting, and thus likely kept up this derail well past the time when everyone else was sick of it. Sorry 'bout that, and I won't chase this one any further here.

knot, you did a nice job of saying what i wanted to say in a more articulate way.

can we call it "frape" from now on? like faux-rape abbreviated? i like that because it reminds me of frappuccinos.

Nina, no, I think I got what Thomas was saying. I thought that what he was saying is that he didn't know what to do with the idea of masculinity, because he did not want to limit the positive attributes of it to boys and men, and that maybe that meant that masculinity was a negative construct. I was just trying to suggest that those positive qualities are still aspects of traditional masculinity, and that we should value those aspects and recognize where we get them from. I wasn't trying to slam him or anything. I always have the very highest respect for Thomas's posts.

Haha, Schwyzer's Law it is. Why is Feministing so much more interesting than writing term papers!?

yeah, sotonohito, i understand- i'm always the one who plays devil's advocate, and if it's not obvious, i've split a rhetorical hair or two, myself. anyway, i don't want to drag this out, but i do think there's an important point to be made regarding the change in terms, so i'm going to give it one last try, and it goes thusly:

feminists have worked very hard over a very long time (are still working, even) to define "rape" as something which is never secretly "wanted" by the victim, and is never ok, and which is a clear-cut Bad Thing with little-no-grey-area surrounding it (I swear to god if anyone brings up grey rape here...). anyway, point is, when feminists use a term like "rape fantasy" without any qualification, it weakens that hard-fought definition of rape, by acknowledging (incorrectly) that rape can be somehow desired.

so the point isn't so much that changing the term might help the argument, it's that using it makes things worse, established terminology or not. additionally, theoretically, reinforcing some type of qualification (i.e., "simulation," or whatever) might draw attention to the idea of that "rape fantasy" is a contradiction in terms, and actually help, although i admit that this is probably only going to work with people who already see a distinction.

any clearer?

isfa,
I love sex-positive porn! My favs are vivid alts selection. I loved the movie, "Mans Ruin!" I think its also directed by a woman.

However, I completetly see what the author claims is depicted in much of the pornography out there. Sometimes you get a video that completetly pisses you off. The women are literal objects, and are treated horribly. I understand what he means when he says," if men are going to be full human beings, we first have to stop being men."

I believe that when a person stops seeing themselves through a label they are able to explore a new spectrum of themselves. It would also discourage being vulnerable to having ones self-identity molded by others who use the word in a more stereotypical way from having influence over yourself. The meaning that is associated with the word would also change. If men stopped thinking misogynistically, they wouldnt be misogynistic.

I'm getting here a little late to this discussion and I'm not even going to attempt to respond the all of the above posts. But:
1. I work at a women-owned sex toy store
2. I've watched more porn (mainstream and otherwise) than almost everyone I know

I'm here to say this. There is good porn out there. Yes, much of the mainstream stuff is crap. But there are alternatives - films that both men and women come looking for. And let us not forget the amazing queer porn out there. This discussion has been overwhelmingly heterosexual.

For everyone here that is having a discussion about porn without seeing the full range of options, let me introduce you to:

Candida Royalle (esp One Size Fits All and Aphrodite Superstar)

Veronica Hart (esp Edge Play)

Shine (esp Crash Pad)

Tristan Taormino (esp Chemistry and her totally hot - and mainstream - ed movies)

Anything by Libido films (esp Urban Friction)

Anna Span

Comstock films (exp Xana and Dax)

Pornograflics

Hard Love/How to Fuck in High Heels

This is anecdotal, but I can't tell you how many men come all the way to our store when they could go anywhere else because we have a selection of porn based on pleasure. Once they get a taste of what good porn can be, they never want to go back to the mainstream stuff.

Morosa, I cannot speak for women, but I can speak as a bottom. I am a masochist. I like some kinds of pain, and am aroused by pain in an erotic context.

In my experience, preferences in painplay are highly specific. Some folks like sting and hate thud. Some folks detest nipple clamps, others hate genitorture. Some folks love caning, some hate it. And of course context matters: I don't like stubbing my toe any more than anyone else. There are painful sensations that I hate and dread, some I really like, and some that I love to hate.

Also, you made a remark about physical degradation, and that's not the same thing as pain. Some of us are pure endorphin junkies: pain produces a rush that is chemically like runner's high. I get that, especially from piercing and nipple clamps. I like pain for more emotional reasons, but I don't experience it as degradation. When my spouse hurts me, the shared experience of that extreme sensation and the vulnerability I feel with and to her is very intimate for me.

So, if you don't like pain but you're a bottom, then you're not a masochist. But some other bottoms are masochists.

I know quite a few guys who treat women well, respect them and don't view us as objects. I even know a few that consider themselves to be ahead of the curve in regards to their treatment of women (ya know, treating us like equal HUMANS). BUT, whenever I have happened to be on their computer, I have found extremely degrading pornography. Somehow, they consider it inappropriate to insinuate that women belong in the kitchen or to say things like "chick car", but watching women being pulled onto a couch into the doggy style position and forcibly (NOT rape, just forceful)reamed anally (complete with upclose anus shot)perfectly acceptable. Enjoyable even! Treatment of women in the bedroom and in public should be the same. Porn usually doesn't allow that to happen. Pornography is such an important issue, because it seems to be the most pervasive, unapologetic form of female hatred. Objectificaion porn seems to be the one thing we as a society can't give up in our quest for gender equality. I'm just...scared.

EG, if the good parts of traditional masculinity are things I want to pass on to my daughter as well, then they are not really masculine. They're just stuff that has been assigned to men and masculinity, but those are the constructs that I want to break down.

I'm not saying that's an easy conclusion for me; it's very discomfiting. But I think the patriarchal sex roles limit us all.

I guess what I'm wondering is what is meant by "really" masculine. Since I do take the position that masculinity and femininity are for the most part social constructs, I usually think about what it means for something to be traditionally masculine instead. And I certainly agree that I want girls to be brave etc. But to my mind, that doesn't change the fact that courage has traditionally been considered part of masculinity, and insofar as that's true, it's a positive aspect of masculinity.

I don't know; perhaps it's just that there are several aspects of masculinity that I admire and find appealing, and that I have yet to see recreated by women, but it's hard for me to articulate what they are. Camaraderie is one, I think--a sort of easy sense of group and belonging; maybe an ease about tusseling is another. I'm not doing a good job of expressing this--it's always been a bit...hard to put into words for me.

Why is Feministing so much more interesting than writing term papers!?

I'm sure there's a magic formula that could explain, but meanwhile I certainly second the sentiment!

Because what would happen to society if women did not like or were at least prepared to tolerate a lot of pain in their lives? Who would agree to bear children? Who would wear painful high heels for someone's else visual pleasure?

On the issue of "pain" I think it's important to distinguish between types of pain. There's involuntary "done-to" pain, and then there are voluntary pains, or productive pains--I mean, labor pain in childbirth is in a whole different genre from rape.

I do not read the culture in such a monolithic way. Are we affected by the dominant cultural (and often misogynistic) gender paradigms? Absolutely. But we also have agency to subvert those paradigms.

inherent in the definition of the word rape is the idea that it is something that is not wanted, so having a fantasy about it is something of a paradox

I take the point seriously that "rape" is not really a word we want to use lightly, and probably not a good idea to pair it with "fantasy" as fantasizing about rough sex is categorically different from rape because of the agency involved.

However, can I just throw out there that--as someone who has never experienced sexual violence (thankfully)--as a teenager I would have really vivid dreams about being raped that were arousing as well as violent. I haven't had one in a while, but who knows if they're still lurking. They aren't exactly conscious fantasies, so I'm not sure where they fit on the agency spectrum. It seems like that sort of muddies the categories we're trying to establish. Obviously, it's still an imaginary act--no one is actually physically getting hurt--but it's also not something totally controlled by my own conscious imagination either. Thoughts?

I think it's really important to remember that while there may be amateur porn that is a completely different genre than mainstream porn, that's not what fourteen-year-olds are going to find online.

Isn't this an argument for more diverse and better "porn" or erotic imagery? I always feel, in terms of free speech, that the best solution to bad speech is to flood the market with better speech!

And I'm also still wondering why this conversation is so focused on visual/film hetero pornography . . . maybe because that's what Jensen is discussing? But it seems, to me, like if we're going to talk about cultural expectations and representations of sexuality, and how those interact with our expectations, and actual practices, of relational sexual activity, then more than just video porn should be included. We need to think about how to responsibly interact with other forms of erotic representation too.

Thanks for the discussion. The Sex Workers' Outreach Project is sponsoring a "Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers" in the following cities:

* Chicago, IL
* San Francisco, CA
* Los Angeles, CA
* Cleveland, OH
* Burlington, Vermont
* Atlanta, GA
* Las Vegas, NV
* New York, NY
* Lansing, MI

They have more information at http://www.swopusa.org/dec17/index.html

Look, I've only read half the comments so far, but I find this "people want to see things they don't actually want to do - and it's normal" argument very irritating.

I am a woman. I like porn. I like BDSM porn. I do not like degrading mainstream internet porn (can't say I've been willing to buy a lot of porn).

I have a friend with whom I used to exchange soft porn. He sent me a video one day which struck me as non-consensual. When I pointed it out he was horrified (it was all women, and Japanese women at that) - that it was, and that he hadn't noticed.

I used to peruse a site made up of free porn links - it started to kill me that I couldn't watch people having sex without commentary about bitches, sluts, without stories revolve around women being tricked... Myself and the men I know watch this to get off. But it's not because they (or I) want to see this shit, it's because it's really hard to find free porn that isn't degrading. I like watching people have sex. I hate hearing or reading derogatory comments about the women. But unless you look at alternative porn that's what you get!

It makes me angry and I really do think it's teaching young men and women that that is normal and OK because they go looking for images to get off on and by default find material that is degrading to women. This is not needful, dammit!

Ok folks, here's your homework for tonight:

http://www.zetetics.com/mac/xxx/

Thomas:

I feel that masochism is already so ingrained in our definition of female sexuality that it might be difficult for some women to distinguish between liking pain and liking to please others by experiencing pain. I think enjoying pain can be a learned behavior.

-And for me personally, it's a bit more extreme in that I like sexual pain for the sense of worthlessness it gives me. For me, this is an unhealthy learned behavior, not a natural inclination.

Thank you for the clarification though.

I actually just wrote a paper on this subject, and I must say I disagree with the idea that viewing pornography leads to the commission of violent sex crimes.

I think pornography can be a problem, but the major issue is that sex education is virtually non-existent in our country. In the absence of real education, adolescents seek "real" information in pornography.

Frank discussions between parents and their children, partners, etc. would go a long way toward eliminating many of the problems currently blamed on pornography.

I'm not a fan of Andrea Dworkin at all, but I am a fan of debunking urban legends.

RE: Incorrect Dworkin Quote

Snopes.com to the rescue!

They actually say that the quote is misattributed to Catherine Mackinnon and Andrea Dworkin.

I'm not a fan of Andrea Dworkin at all, but I am a fan of debunking urban legends.

RE: Incorrect Dworkin Quote

Snopes.com to the rescue!

They actually say that the quote is misattributed to Catherine Mackinnon and Andrea Dworkin.

I'm not a fan of Andrea Dworkin at all, but I am a fan of debunking urban legends.

RE: Incorrect Dworkin Quote

Snopes.com to the rescue!

They actually say that the quote is misattributed to Catherine Mackinnon and Andrea Dworkin.

I am a man. There is porn that I enjoy. I am very concerned about exploitation and objectification and its effects on the people at both ends of those power relationships. I am willing to examine how and why I maintain my own sexual identity.

I listened to an interview of Mr. Jensen with as open a mind as I feel I am capable. I was left feeling uncomfortable and uncertain whether that discomfort was with him or myself as I imagined he might view me.

Thank you very much for writing your own careful and nuanced view of his views. It has given me additional basis for judging my reactions.

As an ancestor of Europeans, acculturated by U.S. social norms, I struggle with racism all the time, including the reverse racism of bending over backwards. So I do not expect perfection in my racial identity, just constant effort.

I view sexual politics as even more difficult.

So thanks again for your very, as I said, nuanced remarks on Jensen.

I'll be posting on this tomorrow, folks -- and just a friendly warning, Courtney, I'll be taking gentle issue with your characterization of Jensen's prose as reeking of "self-hate and desperation."

And yay for Schwyzer's law, even if it doesn't survive this thread.

CarmelizedMe: I wasn't saying that it never happens, I meant, I don't care if a man or woman who gets off to the image of a woman being brutalized never actually brutalizes a woman. He/She might as well have. And for that, he/she is a misogynist to the bone.

To all the posters who've said, for one stance or another, "We can't tell whether the sex workers in porn movies have been coerced" -- actually, to an extent, you can. As this post points out, a lot of porn actors have blogs, or at least webpages wherein they answer fan mail. Google the names.

Also, if Company A has a good record with its employees, and Company B's employees are silent (or worse, some of them have tearful revelations of abuse), then stay the fuck away from Company B.

It is my opinion, though, that consumers shouldn't have to do this. This is why we really need inside-the-industry watchdogs.

Dallas: I'd also add Nina Hartley's instructional videos and the Girlfriends Films studio.

I have a lot of praise in particular for Girlfriends Films. They do movies by and for lesbians, featuring actresses who wear pretty clothes and choose their own toys. They show lots of kissing, foreplay and afterplay. The only objection I have is that they keep those silly fake fingernails on.

And these things sell. They sell to men, to women, to straight couples and to lesbian couples. My store can barely keep them on the shelves. Not only that, but my husband, who is probably the pickiest guy in the world when it comes to video porn, actually likes Girlfriends movies.

I just want to point out that some of the terminology used in the article--it might be Courtney's or Mr. Jensen's--is off.

1) Softcore is used to describe any movie where there is full nudity, kissing and groping, and all the right motions, but no onscreen penetrations or ejaculations.

2) Hardcore is used to describe any movie with full nudity and explict penetration and/or ejaculation.

3) Feature is used to describe any movie with a plot, softcore or hardcore.

4) Gonzo is used to describe any movie that breaks the fourth wall. This can be done in any number of ways--interviews, narration that the performers or crew act on, lack of editing, etc. These movies usually have no plot, even if they are scripted. In any case, gonzo porn is presented as being reality, with camera trying to make the viewer feel as though he or she is there.

Just thought I'd pick some nits.

Knot If you want to argue that the term "rape fantasy", while technically accurate should be avoided and actively cast down for political reasons, I can definately see and even agree with the point.

But that doesn't seem to be what many people here are saying, and that's where I still find myself baffled. It seems as if they are denying that people actually have those sorts of fantasies, and that's simply factually incorrect.

On topic, I've often wondered if it'd be possible to establish a "non-abusive porn" label. To qualify a company would have to pay decent wages, meet criteria regarding treatment of actors, the labeling agency would maintain a complaints line for actors to report violations of the code, etc. I honestly don't see it working (mainly because it's been an abject failure as far as anti-sweatshop labels go) but its an interesting thought.

I am a sex-positive feminist man and I have to say that there is no more than approximately 20% of all porn that is out there that does not degrade women in any way form or fashion. Playboy, oddly enough, is the only big name that is part of that 20%.

The rest of the 80% of porn is the type that the Dworkinites are talking about. And of the 80% that is misogynist, nearly all of that porn is on video. Just a little fyi. And hardcore porn is misogynist porn and what Betty Boondoogle refers to as rape, fyi.

I haven't bought any porn since December 2005. I quit reading books in July 2006. I haven't been able to read what I want to, because what I want to read ends up being censored by some group of people who oppose the material on religious grounds or because they lump that material as degrading to a certain group.

Catch-all response post:

sotonohito -
"I honestly do not get where you are going, or what your point is, with your rejection of the term "rape fantasy"."

I read the whole post but it's so pathetic there's little point in repeating myself again. I've explained it multiple times now. You're clearly refusing to get it.

"while technically accurate should be avoided and actively cast down for political reasons, I can definately see and even agree with the point.
But that doesn't seem to be what many people here are saying"

Incorrect. I, and others, talked about exactly this.

"It seems as if they are denying that people actually have those sorts of fantasies, and that's simply factually incorrect."

Incorrect. It was stated – many MANY times by myself and others – that no one is saying no one has rape-simulation fantasies (who ever coined that – well done)
_____________

"BUT, whenever I have happened to be on their computer, I have found extremely degrading pornography."

It goes back to something Ginmar has said quite a few times. Liberal men are still men raised in a patriarchy. Patriarchy wants us to believe that there's a class of women that's acceptable to abuse. Those "immoral dirty wantom sluts who sell it for money", etc. So, equality-minded liberal men tell themselves porn is "just a fantasy" and the actresses "get paid lots of money" to convince themselves they're doing nothing wrong while watching misogynistic porn. But all they're really doing – aside from being colossal hypocrites – is treating a group of women as the group that it's acceptable to abuse.

____

Kevin E. Cleary

" and I must say I disagree with the idea that viewing pornography leads to the commission of violent sex crimes. and I must say I disagree with the idea that viewing pornography leads to the commission of violent sex crimes."

And who, praytell, said that it does?

__________

kissmypineapple

"I meant, I don't care if a man or woman who gets off to the image of a woman being brutalized never actually brutalizes a woman. He/She might as well have. And for that, he/she is a misogynist to the bone."

By viewing, by paying for it, by getting off on it they are perpetuating the market for it. They may not personally brutalize anyone, but they're GUARENTEEING that more women will be brutalized.

So while I can appreciate the predictament the poster above demonstrates with the "they just can't find non-degrading free porn" thing. I have to say, cry me a river. You could just stop looking at free internet porn and thereby stop being part of the problem altogether.

Funny how that occurs to them. Its like addiction.
______________

ShifterCat – " a lot of porn actors have blogs, or at least webpages wherein they answer fan mail. Google the names."

I find one problem with this suggestion.

Someone who makes their living from being in porn is hardly a non-baised source. It's possible (and possibly likely) they are telling the total truth. It's also somewhat possible that they say whatever they're told to say, or whatever they think is acceptable to say, so as not to be blacklisted (as it were) from continuing to work. Nopornnorthhampton has a piece on exactly this.

Like the suicide girls, for example. They also have blogs. Blogs that are edited for content by the company that owns the label. Again, hardly non-biased.

Oh man. I have wanted to stay away from this thread, and the thread from the last time the book was mentioned. But I find I need to respond to a few things.
Various studies have showed that around 90% of sex workers (talking about all kinds of sex workers here) were sexually assaulted prior to the age of 18.

F****************ck this. As a sex worker and sex work activist for 13 years, I am INCREDIBLY sick of this bullshit argument. Really, Ninapendamaishi? Show me that study. I'd love to see it. The reality is that in the general population, 1 in 4 women are thought to have been assaulted at some point in their lives. In my experience, and I have met a lot of hookers over the years, that number, which is disturbingly high already, does not tend to be any higher in the sex industry. But I don't expect you to accept my empirical statistics anymore than I accept your overinflated, unsourced statistics. Suffice to say, maybe you people should think about the misogyny, classism (is that a term anyone on tis site is familiar with?), and racism inherent in implying that women who work in the sex trade are nearly universally there because they are damaged and unable to make decisions for themselves. We are infants who need your help! Oh please oh please save us! This argument is oversimplistic, it ignores the complex and contradictory experiences of sex workers and lumps us all uselessly into a victim category. It obscures the reality of the dangerous working conditions and coercion that actually DO occur in the sex trade, keeping them from ever really being dealt with. If you really want to see conditions in the industry improve and less women there who don't want to be, why don't you start by addressing the sexism that makes the sex industry one of the only places where a woman with no formal education can make enough money to support herself well, in fact can make more than a man. Why don't you look into the welfare cuts, the lack of state-funded childcare or drug rehab programs?

Secondly, for MANY sex workers, the sex we have at work IS fiction. It doesn't matter that penetration technically occurred, my personal definition of sex does not mean a mechanical act. That doesn't mean that the act didn't occur, or that there aren't implications and consequences of that act, but I don't consider the sex I've had for money to be sex the way the sex I've had for pleasure is. It's something else, a performance, something more complicated- and needs to be addressed as such.

Additionally, I am a woman who has rape fantasies. I also enjoy porn occasionally. Betty and many others here, I simply don't fit into your definitions. Does any of this mean that I want to be raped for real, or that I am submissive in my regular life? Absolutely not. I am driven, aggressive, and know what I want. I demand that I be treated with respect, and do not accept mysogynist treatment. This kind of personality is not mutually exclusive with having rape fantasies.

I would suggest that people look into the writings of Samuel Delaney. He is a genius on many subjects, but one issue he writes about is being a black man who has (and actively acts out) fantasies of being dominated by white power men using racial epithets. He talks eloquently about the uselessness of pathologizing fantasy.

Additionally, I am a woman who has rape fantasies...Betty and many others here, I simply don't fit into your definitions.

To what "definitions" are you referring? "Betty and many others here" have VERY CLEARLY stated their opposition to the term "rape fantasy", nowhere did they "define" what a woman is/isn't. Did you read the comments before going off about this? NO ONE is condemning your fantasies or saying they aren't real or valid. The term "rape fantasy" is the problem here. It's erroneous at best, at worst it contributes to the fallacy that there is no rape because if women fantasize about it they clearly want it in real life. Your fantasy is a simulation of rape that you have consented to and are in control of, which precludes it from being "rape." (please read the above comments as they are much more clear and articulate).

We are only saying the term used to describe said fantasies is flawed and potentially destructive to rape victims. What is so fucking hard to understand here? Have your fantasies (hey, I have them too) but let's call something more appropriate and less damaging to (past and future) actual rape victims. Like say "rape-simulation fantasy."

Tina, did you really just use the term "hookers?" Seriously?? You want respect so badly, why don't you go first? Hooker is a derogatory term. And just because you don't view some of the sex you have as sex, doesn't mean that it isn't absolutely real for other sex workers. It's wonderful if you've never had a negative moment in your career, but we already addressed that upthread when someone referenced Jenna Jamison. Just b/c you haven't doesn't mean there aren't other women who are abused by the porn industry every damn day, and I'm not going to stop fighting misogynist sources of porn just because some sex workers have been lucky enough to fall into a bucket of butter.

yes, shelby, I did read the comments, and I disagree with them. I disagree with the need to change the language. I feel that we don't need to change language just because there are people who can't distinguish between fantasy and reality- who don't know that the term fantasy does not mean that a person wants something to happen. I think we are doing a disservice to the lexicon of sex, fantasy, rape, and sexism by NOT pushing the point that fantasy and desired reality are different. Moreover, I don't think that adding 'simulation' is going to change the point of view of someone who is bent on thinking that all women really want to be raped.

And kissmypineapple, I AM a hooker and I am able to use the word to describe myself if I prefer it. I use many words- sex worker, hooker, whore, etc, and I don't have to answer to you or anyone else about what you may or may not find derogatory. There are MANY 'sex workers' who prefer the term hooker, or ho, or whatever- and feel that sex worker is too academic and doesn't describe their experience. You may have heard of the terms reclamation or reappropriation- it's why there is a feminist cultural criticism magazine called Bitch.

It is incredibly rude of you to assume that I have 'never had a negative moment' in my 'career'. Nothing in my post stated that. I have had many negative moments in my career. I simply said that for myself and many women, we don't consider the act to be the same as sex- I was responding to earlier threads saying that what happened isn't fictional. I am trying to say that it's more complicated than fictional or nonfictional. I also said, if you read my posts, that just because it I define it some other way besides as 'sex' doesn't mean that there aren't implications and consequences of the act- meaning a whole slew of emotional and physical consequences.

I am not a person who thinks that the sex industry is a particularly empowering or enjoyable profession. It's ultimately just a job, and I have never really liked most of the jobs I've had (BTW, where were any of you when I needed saving from my degrading minimum wage fast food job?). I simply think A) sex work CAN be empowering and enjoyable, even if it isn't for me, and B)that there are economic realities making it one of the only well-paying options for women, and rather than pathologizing them or trying to save them we need to address why it's the only option for many people, and how we can make the industry safer and more positive for the people who work in it.

I think you should maybe ask yourself why a sex worker trying to address her own experiences in a way that is complicated and neither fully positive nor fully negative incites such virulence and an inability to understand that seems almost deliberate.

kissmypineapple [TypeKey Profile Page], I wasn't trying to say that you didn't believe that happens in real life. I was trying to agree with you (if you're watching porn and enjoying these women being degraded, it's a problem), but also pointing out that above and beyond that, in real life men actually do sometimes watch porn and then directly go to their girlfriends and expect that from them. This was the quote I was thinking of, if anyone's interested:

(TRIGGER WARNING)

She had a boyfriend. She was twenty-one. One night he went to a stag party and watched pornography films. He called her up to ask if he could have sex with her. She felt obligated to make him happy. "I also felt that the refusal would be indicative of sexual quote unquote hang-ups on my part and that I was not quote unquote liberal enough. When he arrived, he informed me that the other men at the party were envious that he had a girlfriend to fuck. They wanted to fuck too after watching the pornography. He informed me of this as he was taking his coat off." He had her perform oral sex on him: "I did not do this of my own volition. He put his genitals in my face and he said 'take it all.'" He fucked her. The whole encounter took about five minutes. Then he dressed and went back to the party. "I felt ashamed and numb and I also felt very used."

I've posted part one of a three-part response to Jensen's wonderful book here:

http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/11/30/facing-what-we-dont-want-to-face-part-one-of-a-three-part-post-on-pornography-men-and-robert-jensens-getting-off/

To excerpt myself:

The fact that some pornography is produced by and for women, the fact that some explicit material features sexual activity that is truly mutual, doesn’t mitigate the harm done by the industry as a whole. Many defenders of porn cry “But not all porn is like that�, and they point to obscure websites or specialty magazines that occupy a small niche within a much larger, thoroughly misogynistic industry. But it makes no sense — and does women no service — to deny the deleterious impact of mainstream porn on our collective humanity merely because a few tiny sectors of the “adult entertainment industry� produce material that is genuinely egalitarian and redemptive.

"Porn is media which is used primarially as a masturbation aid, and in which a person loses almost all interest following orgasm"

A person? Which person? How many persons? A person watching in a theater as a part of an audience? A person watching at home with a lover? By themself?

You'll be quoting Potter Stewart next.

I think a big mistake here is in assuming that typical male interest is what drives porn production. There are two problems with this. First, it is easy to get porn for free. So the segment of people actually paying for porn is not representative of most guys. Secondly, only a certain highly unrepresentative group of men or women are going to get into porn as producers or actors/actresses. This means that the market for porn is probably pretty inefficient. The porn that gets produced is driven quite a bit by what is going on in the heads of porn producers, not their customers.

All of this means that a lot of men view porn in spite of the negative themes there, not because of it. Obviously, I can't speak for all men, but I really doubt my attitude to women has been much affected by the 'pornification' of our culture. Sometimes I think that it has impacted my sexual needs in the sense that I want to have more casual sex with different partners than I would have otherwise, but this is not an unusual desire in men in human history. I am pretty confident that it has impacted my beauty ideals. The most obvious example being that my perspective of what constitutes large or normal sized breasts has been permanently skewed. But I don't think porn has played the dominant role in either of these cases.

Why don't you look into the welfare cuts, the lack of state-funded childcare or drug rehab programs?

We do. Those have been areas of major feminist activism over the years.

This is an extremely complex issue for which I could write pages and pages on.

Let me first say there are many great comments here. I would just like to add that while there's no doubt there is alot of bad porn out there, I've noticed these discussions tend to focus entirely on the absolute worst/extreme forms.

I am a feminist, and I enjoy certain kinds of porn. I don't think that is a contradiction. I've watched a fair bit over the years and I personally think the percentage of "good" porn is higher then many here give credit.

Also we haven't even really discussed gay porn, lesbian porn, or animated porn, for which I assume most of that material is much better then what we're discussing here. There's also a big infusion of amateur porn out there these days, which is generally alot better, b/c it's real people, with real flaws, having real sex.

I think we can all agree that porn will never go away. It will never be made illegal, and it certainly won't stop on it's own. That's why as feminists especially, we need to help promote and support the good kind, while at the same time condemming the bad porn. And we need men and women working from within the industry itself to help improve the situation. If we continue to do these things, as we have started to, over time the amount of horrible porn out there should decrease and the amount of "good" porn that we feel ok about will increase. I think that's the only thing we can do.

so, over a hundred comments, and i dont expect anyone to really read this but... i just have to say this.

i am in constant chronic pain. i have trouble walking. my boyfriend and i can rarely have sex because of this problem - and when we can, if it starts to hurt me, he LOSES his erection. he can't get past hurting me, let alone get off on it. i'm just saying - while i'm sure that there are things in this book that are common, in this one case, i'm not convinced that most (or even many) men actually get off on inflicting pain. some do, i'm sure, but many? most?

here's an excerpt of the book that i find to be indicative of the core problems of pornstituters. here, jensen is quoting a "veteran of the pornography industry":
I'd like to really show what I believe the men want to see: violence against women. I firmly believe that we serve a purpose by showing that. The most violent we can get is the cum shot in the face. Men get off behind that, because they get even with the women they can't have. We try to inundate the world with orgasms in the face. (pg 69-70)
the most serious problems our culture faces in the mirror that is pornography is the intent of violence against women. regardless of what 'type' of porn is consumed, this is the underlying concept that pornographer$ are u$ing.

That also says something really disturbing about the way men view their own sexuality, avril. It seems like they really do consider their own sexual pleasure to be hostile, an expression of hatred rather then of pleasure or happiness or affection.

Denelian, my experiences with my boyfriends have been similar. I do think there are plenty of men out there who are horrified at the thought of hurting the women they're with. But maybe I've just been lucky.

porn does not equal sex.

Jensen touches on one factor ("they get even with the women they can't have"), namely that porn is (to the men who use it) a substitute good, a simulacrum of the sex women won't have with them. And we can put the emphasis on "won't have", if it's a type of encounter hard to obtain in vanilla society, or "with them" for marginal men who are so far down the socio-economic dominance/socialization ladder that women can't relate to them because of their social pathologies, incapacity to fulfill the traditional masculine sex role, or telegraphed signals of desperation.

Part of the recent debate in the UK about a disabled man who went public with his desire to hire a prostitute (he needed support staff to carry it off physically) was about whether certain kinds of men should be allowed to have sex at all. I'm very interested in where Jensen comes down on the issue, because I have the impression that he's invested in a kind of voluntary celibacy like Stoltenberg and I doubt many straight men want to define their sexuality according to his parameters, particularly when he's so hostile to masculinity.

I think people here need to READ THE BOOK before rushing to judgment.

And I gotta say, it's really sad to see so many people (feminists?) trying to justify their porn use. So many arguments, so many justifications. You are using someone else's body to get off. You don't know that person, you don't know what their life has been life, you don't know why they are there. You don't know if they are in pain or not. You don't know how many STD's they have. You don't know if their asshole has fallen out from being fucked in the ass so many times. AND, the worst part-you don't even care! It's all about you and your pleasure. That is disgusting. Hey, watch porn all you want, just don't kid yourself about it. Porn uses and abuses women. It sells women's bodies. That's the bottom line. Do you really want your sexual expression mixed up with an industry that constantly puts out more and more sick stuff? Do you really want your arousal to be linked to violence?

I find it really sad and depressing that so many people, feminists included, want so desperately to cling to their porn, and keep their blinders on regarding the impact porn actually has on our world.

And thank you Avril, for pointing out what others in this thread cannot seem to understand: PORN IS NOT SEX. SEX IS NOT PORN.

God, it's not that complicated!!!!

Can I also just say a big UGH to the men who come on here telling us what kind of porn they like. Nasty.

This topic has made for a very thought provoking read. Posters here have been so real.

Thank you, Thomas, for the legal perspective. How do such abusers in the industry and their accomplices stay out of prison, with victims going public, and so much evidence including recorded faces and names, literally sitting on the shelves?

and um, thank you for sharing your experience in BDSM.

Skoropeya: There are ways to find out what unbrainwashed women can decide for themselves what they like in sex: find out from women who were raised in very progressive cultures like in the Netherlands or northern Europe, where entire societies experience more gender equality, by law and in practice. The people in those societies pay high taxes to enjoy the social benefits, but by most measures, live peacefully and quite well.

CarmelizedMe: thank you for that Dworkin essay link. I had to stop reading halfway through the accounts of abuse on the second page because it sickened me. The explicit link Dworkin made between slavery of Africans and abuse of women including sex workers made it so clear. So now I need to ask: The alleged favorable treatment of Thomas Jefferson's slaves (or any other "kindly treated" slaves) does not justify the practice of slavery. It was finally abolished in the US. People today can understand and accept that decision.

So how can porn, even "good porn" "sex positive porn" or porn by women be tolerated any more than slavery of African-Americans? We don't point to Thomas Jefferson or the New Testament to demonstrate proper models of slavery. It was all abolished in the US, and we are still living with its effects today.

Tina and others in the industry: Wow. Thank you for your comments.

So am I to understand that if there were real alternatives for people in the industry so they could choose to leave, and proper safeguards in place inside, then what would remain, as unpalatable as it may be, would be acceptable to most people?

Pardon me for bringing this up, but this kind of reminds me of the abortion debate: some call for zero tolerance or restrictions, while others call for it being an individual choice with as few restrictions as possible. Some say there are women who are not fully qualified to make choices, others say women do not need saving, don't patronize me, F*** off or create alternatives. It is difficult for such diametrically opposed sides to find common ground. "Don't like porn? Don't watch porn." is no solution for those who link pornography to misogyny in society, and cannot accept that misogyny. Where can they find common ground? [Note once more that I am pro-choice on the abortion issue, and am not judging those who make those choices. It's just an analogy.]

I also have seen pornography which appeals to me. My own favorite and most often viewed porn, if one will call it that - is suggestive or nude photos of Japanese women, not the pay site "Japanese" models targeted for a US audience, not the gynecological posed variety, and with no partners involved. You know, "cute" Japanese girls or women for the domestic market. I don't know if you could consider this a fetish, because I am Asian myself.

My favorite model, who incidentally never poses nude, AFAIK does not do love scenes, and is portrayed as asexual as is customary among Japanese female idols:

http://www.nepheline.net/idol/Ogura_Yuko/Ogura_Yuko_02.jpg

She's 24, BTW. Personally, I have also noted the effects of my being exposed to Japanese media portrayals of women, and living in a 99% Japanese society for over a decade: I came to favor cute, feminine, young, petite, Japanese women and portrayals of deference and submission. This happened despite me loudly objecting to much of what I saw.

I'm still trying to think of any strictly adult oriented material that would not be considered degrading or in some way promoting objectification of women. No, not even pictorials or humor in Playboy magazine seem safe.

Betty, knot: No rape fantasy. I get it. I hate that term myself, because of that word rape, and never use it in speech. Maybe the concept simply needs to be called a sex fantasy, and the scenario spelled out if it needs to be more explicit, while also making clear that it would be unacceptable behavior in real life. I've got my family to think about before I would ever allow Yuko Ogura and her twin sister to simply barge into my house, push me down and lustily use me on the floor with their school uniforms still on.

I don't call myself feminist, but I am also glad that I do not feel the need to be stereotypically masculine. I gave up on that when I was a slow developing teenager. Too bad others continue to consider more neutral qualities "gay" or undesirable in a man.

Thank you, buggle. Yours is one of the boldest comments I've seen. I agree. I am unable to reconcile these conflicting feelings within myself. I have the freedom to look at this stuff, yet it is not something I want my family to see over my shoulder or go flipping through in the closet. It is not what I want my children to do when they grow up, nor how I want my wife to be with anyone else. People would certainly consider it and my thoughts nasty. BTW, why are only the men's declared tastes in porn nasty?