Porn And Feminism

Stumbled across this:
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20091011_the_victims_of_pornography/

makes me want to swear off porn altogether. I'm not a heavy consumer of it and I always tell myself I have "red lines" about certain kinds of degrading content, but this makes me feel like the whole industry enterprise is fucked up beyond help, and like a lot of rationalizations are illusions ("they do it by choice" "they get paid well" "it's just a show" etc.). I do think there's a question raised in there that needs further exploration about why so many men gravitate toward this sort of thing (I don't want to say "like" because it seems sort of compulsive for a lot of them). I mean everyone is capable of the impulses to dominate, humiliate, hurt, etc., and obviously there are some ways of expressing these impulses that are healthier than others. But it seems like this kind of porn just stokes those desires until they engulf other ones.

But it seems like this kind of porn just stokes those desires until they engulf other ones.

Is this kind of porn only popular in the US (and thus more tied to our culture)?

no, it's not.

Some porn is horrific. Don't watch horrific porn. That's ... kind of it?

basically.

One of the peculiarities of human sexuality is the degree to which it can become bound up with completely arbitrary elements, such as fetish objects like shoes, leather or rubber, or startrekman's amatory inclilnation to tailpipes. In milder forms, this expresses itself as attachments to breasts, butts, legs, beards or feet (see: Tarantino, Quentin).

Once this idea thoroughly sinks in, that almost anything or any act can become sexual to somebody, then porn that seems crazy-strange or even horrific becomes more understandable. Not a big comfort, but it helps.

Is this kind of porn only popular in the US (and thus more tied to our culture)?

There is a website (http://www.pornmd.com/sex-search) that breaks down porn-related searches by US states and countries around the world, which allows you to make vague observations about global tastes. Basically, far more people are looking for gay porn in places where homosexuality is less tolerated, and beyond that what the world wants is anal teens/milfs.

or startrekman's amatory inclilnation to tailpipes.

hey man that wasn't the startrekman!!

No, he was into Jeffries Tubes.

On May 8, 2013, the editors of the Feminist Porn Book will hold The Feminist Porn Mini Con at the Pollock Theater and the Annenberg Conference Room on UCSB’s campus. The Feminist Porn Book: The Politics of Producing Pleasure (The Feminist Press, 2013) is a co-edited volume produced by three UC Santa Barbara professors—Mireille Miller-Young, Constance Penley, and Celine Parreñas Shimizu, and author/filmmaker Tristan Taormino. As faculty at UCSB, Miller-Young, Penley, and Parreñas Shimizu have created, through their research and teaching, one of the most important hubs for the study of adult entertainment media industries in the world.

This is the FIRST Feminist Porn Conference hosted in the United States!

In conjunction with Professor Penley’s Film and Media Studies 150 course, and the IHC’s New Sexualities Research Focus Group, we intend to present two panels consisting of scholars and industry workers who are contributing authors to the book, and which will include interactive discussion periods for attendees. In addition, our contributing editor, Tristan Taormino, will present an educational talk on the history of women’s interventions in modern pornography. Conference is free and open to all 18 years old or over. *Warning: We will screen explicit and sensitive images.

The event is sponsored and endorsed by:
The Interdisciplinary Humanities New Sexualities RFG, Asian American Studies, Film and Media Studies, Hull Chair of Feminist Studies, the Multicultural Center, the SAGE Sara Miller McCune Dean of Social Sciences, the Carsey-Wolf Center, KUFF, Women, Gender, and Sexual Equity, Womyn's Commission, Queer Commission, The Student Commission on Racial Equality (SCORE), Take Back the Night, Human Rights Board, AS Office of the Student Advocate, PRIDE.

The Feminist Porn Conference will greatly benefit the UCSB community. Intellectual exchange facilitates the critical thinking and growth that is at the center of higher education. Bringing renowned scholars, artists, and activists to UCSB encourages this dialogue. With controversial issues like pornography, we believe it crucial to sustain an open dialogue on our campus. The three UCSB professors who are editors and authors of this book all teach courses on pornography and sex work and have been involved (in Professor Penley’s case, since 1993) in the education of our students about the vital need to apply serious study and critique to all forms of popular culture, no matter how taboo.

When: Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Where: Pollock Theater and Annenberg Conference Room, (3-5 PM @ the State Street Room in the 1st floor of the UCEN)
Time: 12pm-9pm

REGISTER FOR THE CONFERENCE HERE: http://tinyurl.com/fempornregform and Join our Facebook Event page: http://tiny.cc/fempornucsb

Our list of Speakers include:
• Tristan Taormino—Filmmaker, Author, Sex Educator, Contributing Editor of The Feminist Porn Book
• Mireille Miller-Young, Associate Professor, Feminist Studies, UCSB
• Celine Parreñas Shimizu—Professor, Asian American Studies, UCSB
• Constance Penley—Professor, Film and Media Studies, UCSB
• Dylan Ryan—Performer
• Jiz Lee—Performer
• Sinnamon Love--Performer
• April Flores and Carlos Batts—Performer and Director team

Agenda
12:00-2:00 pm: The Feminist Porn Book Keynote Panel Pollock Theater What is feminist pornography? The editors and authors of The Feminist Porn Book discuss the new movement of feminist pornography production. Speakers include Tristan Taormino, Jiz Lee, Dylan Ryan, Sinnamon Love, April Flores and Carlos Batts and UCSB professors Constance Penley, Celine Parreñas Shimizu, Mireille Miller-Young.

3:00-5:00 pm: Sex Ed! Education and Activism Workshop State Street Room, UCEN Take part in a ground-breaking, interactive dialogue facilitated by UCSB student orgs and sex industry professionals as they take on sex education and sexual activism.

7:00- 9:00 pm: The Feminist Porn Show with Tristan Taormino Pollock Theater Join us for a special evening showcasing feminist porn, a genre of adult film and a growing movement. Tristan Taormino will share a brief history and definition of feminist porn, then screen a special compilation curated by her, which includes clips from the work of feminist porn pioneers and newcomers including Candida Royalle, Annie Sprinkle, Nina Hartley, Petra Joy, Erika Lust, Shine Louise Houston, Madison Young, Courtney Trouble, and more. The screening will be followed by a facilitated discussion, where we'll explore some of the current issues surrounding feminist porn.

If you have any questions regarding the conference, please contact any of the student organizers at:


--
The above message was sent as a student announcement.
Replies to this address will not be read or responded to.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v201/sevenxviii/ThereISfeministpornyouknow.jpg

Some porn is horrific. Don't watch horrific porn. That's ... kind of it?

― Andrew Farrell, Friday, May 3, 2013 1:06 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

basically.

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, May 3, 2013 1:14 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't really agree with this anymore -- so much of the relatively more and less horrific porn is created by the same studios, stars, etc. The whole system is gross. I guess you could argue for only watching porn from COMPANIES that don't do the horrific stuff, but that's not usually the most obviously, easily available porn.

Are the companies turning us into horrific porn watchers or are they simply tapping into need?

Because really, I find it very easy to avoid horrific porn. And there's a shit ton of porn coming from amateurs with no affiliation to the big exploitative companies. You could probably make an argument that the barriers to entry have fallen a lot in porn, at least from a production standpoint.

"porn coming from amateurs" -- and how exactly are you verifying this?

"well the camera is all grainy"

"Are the companies turning us into horrific porn watchers or are they simply tapping into need?"

The classic libertarian question!

Anyway, I don't know for sure, but I think the idea that people just have static "needs" that can't be stoked or increased is rather ridiculous.

"porn coming from amateurs" -- and how exactly are you verifying this?

I guess it depends on what you think porn is, but I know it when I see it. But you can Google things like "rise of amateur porn" and see results like: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15631011

"Are the companies turning us into horrific porn watchers or are they simply tapping into need?"

I ask that more for how to prevent or even regulate horrific porn. The barrier to entry and distribution stands at basically nothing. All it takes is one horrific person and they can make horrific, legal porn with their iPhone and then post it on the Internet, and a google search can find it.

Maybe part of it is that people intuitively know that their wildest imaginations are probably visually available somewhere on the internet, and thus they seek it out?

don otm

not arguing for banning porn

or horrific porn (beyond what is already illegal)

tapping into need?

Desire can be increased indefinitely, while need has natural limits. Porn relates far more to desires than needs.

I don't really understand how big porn companies are staying in business tbh. internet ads I guess.

Perhaps there is a kind of expertise available to those big porn companies that gives them a slight edge?

I guess to be clear though, I'm not saying that I think porn is some kind of gateway drug thing where people go from nude shots to hardcore to gonzo to child porn. But there's a less clear line where you go from, like, regular hardcore porn to "hmm, maybe that hurts, but IDK she seems ok," and this is particularly damaging for teenagers who see this before ever even having sex or having any concept of these sorts of things. Like a 16 year old can see stuff -- not even what you might call 'horrific" porn but just what now passes as regular hardcore porn, and not realize that what he's seeing is actually massively awful and unpleasant for the actress, who is doing a great job acting like she likes it because she is being paid (and in some cases also coerced) to do so.

Desire can be increased indefinitely

That's an interesting concept Aimless.

Do you think porn is some kind of gateway drug?

fapping into need

sometimes i wonder if generations before internet porn even knew what turned them on

also, Rule 34

sometimes i wonder if generations before internet porn even knew what turned them on

― the white queen and her caustic judgments (difficult listening hour), Friday, May 3, 2013 3:25 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well actually, I think anyone who is honest with themselves and watches porn can think of things they never would have thought of as turn ons if not for porn

"porn coming from amateurs" -- and how exactly are you verifying this?

― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Friday, May 3, 2013 3:00 PM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark

USDA Organic label iirc; cage-free pasture-raised porn.

it's more the trained expectation that your desires will be hyperspecifically fulfilled that i fear than a distortion of the desires themselves

good post

altho that just skips over the whole cutting-edge-of-dehumanization trend that seems to be contemporary porn's version of the loudness war. dunno what to say about that besides ~capitalism~

a generation that grew up listening to dan savage

I don't know if this is what you're getting at with the dan savage comment, but I think part of the problem is that "sex-positivity", which is perfectly legit in itself, winds up giving cover to a lot of things that are not actually all that sex-positive.

sex-positivity is great and all but it's another one of those Revolutions that's cheerfully absorbed by the existing system with pretty much zero disruption, so everyone wakes up at two in the afternoon the day after like wait why are we still being exploited

^ p much what this book is about http://i.imgur.com/fynjm4o.jpg

so even if the capitalistic momentum is gone, we're still left with horrific porn

I'm fascinated that there are stories about "women porn directors" that turned out to be fronts for the same old porn dudes. People are so hungry for an approval stamp/guilt assuager.

I think part of it might be that even beyond porn, the most known sex columnists don't discuss sex in human everyday terms but they come across as more or less playing a game of sexual one upping or they're very "amanda palmer ted talk" about their exploits or they discuss more extreme uncommon experiences that make for flashier copy but don't reflect most people's experiences or for that matter realistic possibilities. Tristan t and Dan savage kind of among them.

i don't listen to dan savage anymore but back when i did i always got the feeling that he believed the prime directive of any relationship, marriage included, was the permanent long-term satisfaction of both (or more!) parties' sexual desires, everything else be damned

Just rambling there slightly off topic. But also porn turning into some kind of savage unpleasant genre (in terms of tone and often action) really is off putting too.

I've read savage columns where people described happy seeming marriages but one party wasn't into sex as much anymore and he was like "dump them" or close to it.

i phrased that poorly: i mean that BDSM in the psychoanalytic sense merely enacts a performance of the "real" (and thus a kind of suture of it) rather than a real threat of it.

― ryan, Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:38 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

this is true too though

the enjoyment of it, the enjoyment produced by the thrill of coming up against a limit point at which self-identity and control are truly on the verge of being lost, would seem to predicate that you honestly feel not in control of the situation, or that the "punishment" actually hurt--but in so many of these cases, even if the pain or loss of control is in some sense real, it's still a highly controlled situation. it's hard to see how that could lead to the desired effect.

well, we know that the things we see in horror movies aren't real. still get a thrill from the fear tho. generally speaking, the satisfaction of sexual fantasies doesn't necessarily depend on the belief that the fantasy-state is literally attained (or even attainable). sometimes a diaper, or a "schoolgirl" dress, or a pair of handcuffs will be enough.

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/05/the-ethics-of-extreme-porn-is-some-sex-wrong-even-among-consenting-adults/275898/

That pretty much exactly nails my feelings on it.

more musing: it's funny how much this discussion seems parallel to a book im currently reading on aesthetic theory after adorno--that is, the fate of art after the "end of tradition" in which all forms and materials become available. what's left, argues the author, is the reproduction of art's difference from other forms of communication. so postmodern art reproduces the distinct art/non-art within art.

if you applied that logic here you'd probably say something like "extreme porn" reproduces the pleasure/pain distinction on the side of pleasure ("sexual" pleasure) as a way of making it new, interesting, vital, etc. this isn't to make a moral judgment on it one way or the other though.

idk, it is interesting that this article has touched off such a big discussion in the 'thoughtful' christian man zone of the blogosfeer. none of these guys seems willing to go down two different avenues tho (imo): first, what exactly do they mean by 'degradation' how does that map precisely onto bdsm acts in sex; second, apart from consent making 'degradation' ok (or not), how do they account for the desire itself? ie the desire some have to be dominating, to be rough, and of others, to be dominated, to be roughed up. do they think that desire like this precedes 'christian' attempts to keep humans pointed toward the light -- or is it the opposite, that people would be a lot more loving had not the internet put bdsm acts in front of them? this would seem to be a crucial question for that worldview but none of them go near it (if it even matters if they did...)

makes me think of the old cliche: if everything is sexual or "pornified" (as some might argue about our society) then nothing is. likewise, in a strictly puritan society i can imagine everything has the potential for a sexual charge. (thinking about Victorians getting hot and bothered at the sight of an ankle).

or really (to bring the "fuck you jesus" discussion back) how their wish to see everyone behave is maybe sort of a little bit related to the desire to sexually dominate someone? there's a reason doms dress like nazis, right? crucial insight from bdsm people seems to be that questions of possession and power are inextricable from any kind of sex -- and these commentators are reacting by saying a religious or traditional worldview insists on the radical equality of men and women in sexual matters, which, you know, bullshit!

questions of possession and power are inextricable from any kind of sex

but not really

cosign, "this is what's actually true of sex for all people" is permanently a bad look

yep

+1

there's a reason doms dress like nazis, right?

brb need to rewatch The Night Porter for important thread research

the thing about BDSM i could never get my head around is that the enjoyment of it, the enjoyment produced by the thrill of coming up against a limit point at which self-identity and control are truly on the verge of being lost, would seem to predicate that you honestly feel not in control of the situation, or that the "punishment" actually hurt--but in so many of these cases, even if the pain or loss of control is in some sense real, it's still a highly controlled situation. it's hard to see how that could lead to the desired effect.

on the other hand, i think a lot of sexual fantasies for many people are most exciting as fantasy. if they became real they'd be weird or scary somehow. and perhaps what BDSM allows is simply a more fully realized fantasy than a taste of the "real," so to speak. put another way, it's just as much a performance as traditional sexual relationships.

― ryan, Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:37 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

i dunno if sex and desire can be ascribed such willfulness, seems like what turns the crank for some people is just this thing that turns the crank - oftentimes inexplicable, of course rationalizable after the fact, but those rationales don't work for everyone or even for other members of the same scene

speaking as a vanilla straight white dude btw

hmmmm

now is not the time for motorboating

speaking as a vanilla straight white dude btw

― 乒乓

wtf... i thought 乒乓 was dayo

lol DJP

im white btw

dayo is white

乒乓, i think i agree. part of the difficulty of talking about something like this is that it's too easy to slip between doing a kind of ethnography of the BDSM "scene," or an analysis of BDSM as a kind of social communication, and then the individual psychology of particular members (which can include as many reasons for their involvement as there individuals). and im not sure you can really square any of these analyses with any of the others.

is this thread unreadable should I try

i think the consent question is interesting because, even if we can question all day what it means to "consent" to something, for BDSM it seems like part of the game is to give consent to have things like control, determination, gratification (momentarily) taken away from you. like a form of autoimmunity! consent shading into non-consent, or at least pushing at the limit of what consent can, well, consent to.

the whole point strikes me identifying consent as a paradox, but one safely within a normal societal standard (even a legalistic one) of consent.

except until you consent to have somebody else cut off your penis, sauté it in butter, feed it to you, then kill you and hang you up in their meat locker

haha, yes exactly.

don't knock it till you've tried it

eh sorry to sound normative there, dudes, i was presenting what i take to be (vaguely) the 'bdsm theoretical' position on what desire is or how it works. and it's not like i have any particular thinker in mind. the point is the christian men who started this part of the discussion apparently have NO concept of what desire is or how it works, which leads into why consent is so crucial, imo.

questions of possession and power are inextricable from any kind of sex

but not really

― i gave ten pounds and all i got was a lousy * (darraghmac), Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:05 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well, in the most banal sense everything is implicated in everything else. so they have a point, insofar as the notion "the personal is political" has any meaning at all

but stuff like this fails to make distinctions between personal activities that are like, deeply implicated in power imbalances and those where it's not a huge factor

more generalizations at 11

they also miss that the importance of power imbalance, play and transaction in human sexual relations is subjective and mostly a product of interest level. if you're obsessed with such things, then of course they seem not only crucial but omnipresent. if, otoh, you're not at all interested, they become a trivial detail.

That Atlantic essay is must-read. Between the Witt and this, it's kind of remarkable that this subject is being discussed and debated to this degree of civility and intelligence. Who found have guessed that extreme BDSM would be the getaway to some pretty heady and heavy philosophical juggling?

the Marquis de Sade?

Nah, that dude was a chump.

S&M is not a relationship between he (or she) who suffers and he (or she) who inflicts suffering, but between the master and the one on whom he exercises his mastery.
http://trikster.net/blog/wp-content/2010/09/michel-foucault-300x300.jpg

Obv needed quotes there. Full quote from noted BDSM practioner Michel Foucault:

S&M is not a relationship between he (or she) who suffers and he (or she) who inflicts suffering, but between the master and the one on whom he exercises his mastery. What interests the practitioner of S&M is that the relationship is at the same time regulated and open. It resembles a chess game in the sense that one can win and the other lose. The master can lose in the S&M game if he finds he is unable to respond to the needs and trials of his victim. Conversely, the servant can lose if he fails to meet or can’t stand meeting the challenge thrown at him by the master. This mixture of rules and openness has the effect of intensifying sexual relations by introducing a perpetual novelty, which the simple consummation of the act lacks.

that sounds really stressful

Don't ask me - I'm nowhere near finding vanilla sex boring and pretty much avoid drama whenever possible. But I can appreciate that if sex is a big enough part of someone's life, a bit a novelty would be welcome.

My novelties of late have come in the form of beans.

where do you put them

Stews, mostly.

oh some kinda masterchef game cool

My understanding (2nd hand and perhaps dated) is that there's a strong disproportion in the BDSM community between willing servants and rare (good) masters.

There are vaguely similar dynamics of control and instinctive acquiescence in social dancing, and on that subject I can say good leaders are a good deal rarer than good followers - in part this is because the form prohibits dominant/games playing women from taking the leader role.

http://pedapostmoderna.tumblr.com/post/52042207690/dirty-coursebooks-by-pavel-fuksa-and-karolina-gal-cz

lol this graphic

http://25.media.tumblr.com/693f3aaaf571909f29380cc532d80467/tumblr_mnrai5tCzI1qzamioo4_250.jpg

curious as to what folks think about something like MakeLoveNotPorn.tv regarding this threads subjects

NSFW ^^ sorry forgot to flag it

haha somehow I don't think that being NSFW should be a surprise

well, lest the "NotPorn" part mislead anybody

MakeLoveNotPorn.AmishStyle.tv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWpHRrXa9c8

well, lest the "NotPorn" part mislead anybody

― ⚓ (elmo argonaut), Thursday, June 6, 2013 3:08 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't care _what_ kind of porn it is!

i haven't really looked into it closely but i thought it might be an interesting evolution on the amateur / exhibitionist / participatory aspects of internet porn, but with a mission of content from "real people" that's focused on consent & context? sure seems pretty ambitious tho