Advertisement
I've been reading Pornified, by Pamela Paul and wanted to diverge from our standard DVD reviews and write about this book.
Pamela Paul (www.pamelapaul.com) Pisses me off. She is like that woman on the PTA board who wants to keep after school sports segregated. She is a journalist for publications such as RedBook,Marie Clare and Ladie's home Joural - all those magazines we gleefully pass over in favour of People and Us while at the denstists or salon. Her pervious books are about Marriage and trying to make a marriage work in this modern world. So of course, she is just the perfect little spitfire for this project.
Her main thrust of the book is what she terms "censure not censor." She raises an irate fist at the adult entertainment industry, describing porn as an addiction that is destroying America. She calls the pro-porn movement and Free Speech coalition hypocrites for championing the first amendment and then stifling the voice of the anti-porn protestors. Pamela needs to take a page from Voltaire, who famously proclaimed " I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Granted, I am a more pro-porn female then many and have a slightly biased view of the industry because I work in it - but I still feel most of her arguments are vague and watery at best, particularly her arguments about what she terms Pro-Porn Feminists.
Thats us, right? She lists of the reasons that Pro-Porn fems aren't really feminists at all, and why they don't really get the dark truth about porn: They only view the soft stuff, the Candida Royalle collections, the womens erotica shelf. They are brainwashed by the patriarchy and the media to think that the only way the can be cool or PC to accept Porn and act into it. Or they are slutty to begin with - women who will do anything for a buck.
While I think Pamela Paul needs to masturbate more, I am intrigued by her arguments and reactions. I think Pronified is an intesting perspective, if a bit nearsited. What are your opinions and thoughts about being Pro-Porn Feminists?
Pamela Paul (www.pamelapaul.com) Pisses me off. She is like that woman on the PTA board who wants to keep after school sports segregated. She is a journalist for publications such as RedBook,Marie Clare and Ladie's home Joural - all those magazines we gleefully pass over in favour of People and Us while at the denstists or salon. Her pervious books are about Marriage and trying to make a marriage work in this modern world. So of course, she is just the perfect little spitfire for this project.
Her main thrust of the book is what she terms "censure not censor." She raises an irate fist at the adult entertainment industry, describing porn as an addiction that is destroying America. She calls the pro-porn movement and Free Speech coalition hypocrites for championing the first amendment and then stifling the voice of the anti-porn protestors. Pamela needs to take a page from Voltaire, who famously proclaimed " I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Granted, I am a more pro-porn female then many and have a slightly biased view of the industry because I work in it - but I still feel most of her arguments are vague and watery at best, particularly her arguments about what she terms Pro-Porn Feminists.
Thats us, right? She lists of the reasons that Pro-Porn fems aren't really feminists at all, and why they don't really get the dark truth about porn: They only view the soft stuff, the Candida Royalle collections, the womens erotica shelf. They are brainwashed by the patriarchy and the media to think that the only way the can be cool or PC to accept Porn and act into it. Or they are slutty to begin with - women who will do anything for a buck.
While I think Pamela Paul needs to masturbate more, I am intrigued by her arguments and reactions. I think Pronified is an intesting perspective, if a bit nearsited. What are your opinions and thoughts about being Pro-Porn Feminists?
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Pornified
Mon, January 30, 2006 - 2:31 PMRight fucken on! Well said. If this country wasn't so hung up on its psuedo Puritanical roots - sex would be viewed as the natural, normal course of things and no one would be freaking out. The 'dark side' of porn is that there isn't one...it just freaks out the chicks who thind their men are cheaters. I think prostitution should be legal too. If I want to sell my body for sex than it is my right to do so - ok, I'm done...for now.
-
Re: Pornified
Wed, February 1, 2006 - 5:25 PMI consider myself a pro-porn feminist, and by damn, it pisses me off when people suggest I've been brainwashed or fooled.
I know perfectly well what I'm doing. I make porn that I like. I also make porn with a very strong pro-woman slant. I don't do it to please men. I do it to please myself, and my female surfers.
And I've had pro-porn people suggest that because I occasionally like hetero romancy stuff that my sexuality has been shaped by patriarchy as well and that I'm really oppressing women because that's what I offer. Apparently I'm perpetuating the oppressive patriarchal paradigm of sexuality. In a way, it's the same argument, that somehow I've been duped and should know better.
What really bugs me is that anti-porn feminists insist on seeing everything in black and white, and they also want to portray "porn" as this amorphous scary monster that's essentially all the same - sexist, offensive and oppressive.
I want them to understand that, as a feminist you can enjoy sexually explicit material, AND you can also speak out against the sexism that exists in a lot of porn.
Because yes, there's some seriously awful, nasty, obnoxious porn out there. Take for example those horrible "reality" sites like Bangbus whose main aim is to show humilation or degredation, and sex is just the method. A lot of them raise issues because they depict a lack of consent. They certainly don't depict the women with any respect. I personally find those sites horribly offensive and sexist. I don't think they encourage men to think of women (or sex) in a positive way.
Nonetheless, I will not advocate banning that kind of thing. It's fine to speak out against it, or to have an open discussion as to whether this kind of porn is just fantasy or a more sinister thing, but it's not up to me to censor. There's a difference between trying to dissuade people through discussion and simply banning something.
And, again, just because that kind of porn exists doesn't mean that all porn is like that. Porn can be uplifting, pleasurable and intimate, just as it can be "addictive", divisive and offensive.
I want the feminists to get a little more sophisticated in their stance on porn. And to stop treating other women like they're fools if they don't follow the company line. It doesn't have to be either/or. Admitting that porn can be good does not detract from the argument that some porn is bad, or vice versa.
Why aren't the anti-porn feminists out there analysing why it is that men are attracted to reality-humiliation sites? Too often feminist discussion revolves around making sweeping statements about men and their motivations - in the same way they make sweeping statements about porn.
Oh... I forgot to say... that bit about "They are slutty to begin with..." LOL Yeah right. Here I am, married, monogomous, working at home making a great living from offering decent erotic content and I'm somehow a slut. I've sold my soul when I should be nice and virtuous and reading Cosmo and going on a diet or something.
There's a book called "The New Victorians" in which the author suggests that feminism's attitude has become similar to puritan Victorian values in which women were pure, virtuous and not the slightest bit interested in sex. And if they are, it has to be missionary position.
That's what that "slut" thing sounds like to me.
OK, enough ranting. I should put this in my blog... -
-
Re: Pornified
Wed, February 1, 2006 - 5:38 PMMischief:
From Pamela Paul's site:
Has pornography affected your life or the life of someone you know? Would you like to share your story? Please email your own experience and perspective to pamela@pamelapaul.com.
I'm tempted to tell her that porn has been great for me. :)
-
Unsu...
Re: Pornified
Wed, February 15, 2006 - 9:19 AM<< A lot of them raise issues because they depict a lack of consent. They certainly don't depict the women with any respect. I personally find those sites horribly offensive and sexist. I don't think they encourage men to think of women (or sex) in a positive way. Nonetheless, I will not advocate banning that kind of thing. It's fine to speak out against it, or to have an open discussion as to whether this kind of porn is just fantasy or a more sinister thing, but it's not up to me to censor. There's a difference between trying to dissuade people through discussion and simply banning something. >>
MsNaughty, you are really articulate!
(My comments below are very hetero-oriented, I'm aware of that...)
I think that degradation of women will always be central to a lot of porn, because men are so frustrated that they can't get all the sex they want from women. And they are frustrated that so many women use sex to manipulate them. So they like porn that degrades women; they feel powerless, women seem to be at fault, and disrespecting women in their porn is retaliatory.
And for some men (and even some women), this is the hottest porn there is. I doubt I'm the only one here that's had fantasies involving degradation. In reality, I don't want to be degraded, and I don't want to watch porn that degrades women. But it's not illegal to degrade women. Who am I to say that this porn is bad?
I think the way to combat the degradation in porn is not to criticize it or slap the hands of those who seek it. The way to combat it is to address the cause: that the average hetero woman does not want as much sex as the average hetero man. There is a power differential, and men demonstrate their frustration by overpowering and degrading women in their porn.
To fix this, we need to get the average hetero woman more sexualized. Then porn that degrades women will become less compelling to the men that seek it now.
-
-
Re: Pornified
Wed, February 15, 2006 - 12:40 PM"To fix this, we need to get the average hetero woman more sexualized. Then porn that degrades women will become less compelling to the men that seek it now. "
Harriet, you have a very compelling analysis, but I disagree with your conclusion wholeheartedly. I would argue that everyone (both men and women and people like me) could use with more sex-positivity in their lives, that is being able to speak openly and honestly about their sexual desires without degrading anyone or feeling degraded in the process. Plus it has this weird underlying tone that all men want from women is sex... maybe what they are really frustrated with is the gender roles that force females to behave like "women" and males to behave like "men". Or more specifically, the frustration that most females relate to sex differently than most males. But sex is also a different socio-cultural experience for "girls" vs. "boys", so that is to be expected. "Girls" are told from the day that they come out of the crib that sex is something they should be afraid of. That's a heavy load to bear. "Boys" are told from the day they leave the crib that sex is like a competitve sport. No wonder the gendered playing field is totally fucked up.
The main problem that I see with your argument is that it is blaming the victim. What you are in essence saying is that men who watch porn and objectify women do so because the so-called 'average hetero woman' isn't sexual enough. Per this argument, then the better solution would be for more men to embrace their bisexuality and get each other off. -
-
Re: Pornified
Wed, February 15, 2006 - 8:25 PMAlthaea-I agree with your response, but would also add the caveat that sex is not only a different social experience for men and women, but it is a different physical experience. Our brains respond differently to sex(especially long-term monogamous sex) than men's do. -
-
Re: Pornified
Wed, February 15, 2006 - 9:00 PM"Our brains respond differently to sex(especially long-term monogamous sex) than men's do."
I find it hard to believe that anyone would claim to understand anything about how my brain responds to sex. Those studies do not involve queers, much less gender revolutionaries such as myself. Additionally, things like feelings and social conditioning all take place in the brain, therefore if one can generalize that females are taught to relate to sex differently than males, then it is no giant leap of faith to document the brainscans reflecting that difference. -
-
Re: Pornified
Wed, February 15, 2006 - 10:15 PMI agree that the studies are skewed towards heterosexual couples; I think that in order to fully understand all aspects of human sexuality, we must broaden the fields of inquiry. The fact remains that there are differences, biological differences between men and women.
There is certainly a range for those differences, especially for those people who identify as "queer". It is, however, a fact that the balance of hormones are vastly different in my body than they are in those of the men that I have sex with. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Pornified
Thu, February 16, 2006 - 6:12 AMI kinda agree with Megan....
They need to broaden the scope of the studies. Believe it or not...women that identify as "queer" sometimes sleep with men (I know so UN PC with my dyke friends). I think everyone has female/male energies and there are women out there that have more male energy than female energy.
We could talk about how our brains work, I know certain parts of the brain develop earlier in girls than boys...but I also think that nurture has something to do with it. If men/women grow with parents that teach them to respect women, no violence in the household, etc,, those are factors that can't be ignored either.
-
Re: Pornified
Fri, February 17, 2006 - 7:04 PM"It is, however, a fact that the balance of hormones are vastly different in my body than they are in those of the men that I have sex with."
Well, it is also probably a fact that the balance of hormones in my biologically female body are significantly different than yours. (It also pretty well known that women who are particularly athletic and/or butch produce more testosterone than the average biogirl.) But that doesn't mean shit about my experience of sexuality. I am more than the sum of hormones or the size of my clit. If it was just about hormones then there wouldn't be any trannies in the world, or conversely, a nice fat shot of testosterone would allow me to experience sexuality as a male. (In other words I think that is a vast oversimplification that doesn't begin to do justice to the complexity of our sexuality) And the biological differences don't begin to explain the variations in experience of sexuality within a particular gender or even between the genders. -
-
Re: Pornified
Sat, February 18, 2006 - 10:52 AMyou are absolutely right, our bodies do not provide all of the answers that we want/need...
but I think to completely dismiss science as being unable to provide us with quantifiable answers is unwise. we are, indeed "more" than our hormones, our genes, our brains, and that more is yet to be defined. I'm not saying that I think somebody in a lab coat will be shouting "eureka!" anytime soon, but continuing to study what makes us tick sexually is only going to give us a greater understanding of our sexuality as humans.
-
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Parity Porn
Fri, February 17, 2006 - 9:32 PMMistress Althea, thank you for challenging my comments. I read your blog and think you are articulate.
<< I would argue that everyone (both men and women and people like me) could use with more sex-positivity in their lives >>
You say we need more "sex-positivity", and I doubt anyone here would disagree. But I'm saying that we need more sexual parity, that to reduce the degradation of women in straight porn, we need more compatibility between the average male's sex drive and the average female's sex drive (sorry, I continue to focus on the hetero situation here). If the average straight woman wanted more sex with the average straight man, the power differential would lessen, and the men would not be so angry.
When I say we need more parity between men and women's sex drives, you might argue that parity could also be achieved by reducing men's sex drive. But who really wants this? Does anyone in this tribe want to see our society become less sexualized?
<< "Girls" are told from the day that they come out of the crib that sex is something they should be afraid of. That's a heavy load to bear.>>
I'm 45, grew up in the South, a virgin till my 20's, yet no one ever made me think sex was dangerous. Yes, I understood it could cause pregnancy, STDs, and entanglements, but these are the same lessons taught to boys. So I disagree that our culture imprints on girls a greater fear of sex than on boys. I would argue that most teenage girls today are not afraid of sex.
<< "Boys" are told from the day they leave the crib that sex is like a competitve sport.>>
Most of the men I know want to have sex because they enjoy it. Not because they're trying to rack up notches on the bedpost that they can brag about later.
<< The main problem that I see with your argument is that it is blaming the victim. >>
Is it really blaming women to say that our society would be better off if women were more sexualized? I'm not blaming women; I'm blaming our culture. I'm blaming Conan O'Brien for degrading Paris Hilton for sleeping around. O'Brien has never mocked a man for sleeping around. So I'm blaming both men and women who discriminate against sexually assertive women.
<< men who watch porn and objectify women >>
You know, I hate to discomfort you all with TMI, but sometimes in my fantasies, I am objectified. I would imagine other women experience this in their fantasies as well. Isn't there something hot about being seen only as a sex object? At least in fantasy? So I guess I don't have a problem with objectification in porn.
But I do have a problem with degradation. It would be nice to figure out how to reduce the desire for degrading porn. Mistress, I like your idea about getting men to be more comfortable with their bi-sexuality, but the amount of consciousness-raising needed to achieve that makes it seem far away. Though maybe if we could simultaneously work on sex-ing up hetero women while getting hetero men more into bisexuality, we'd really accomplish something : ) -
-
Re: Parity Porn
Mon, February 20, 2006 - 5:03 AM>> men are so frustrated that they can't get all the sex they want from women. And they are frustrated that so many women use sex to manipulate them.
So on the one hand, men are frustrated because women don't like sex, but on the other hand, men are frustrated when women appear to like sex because they think the women are getting something else out of it?
This to me sounds exactly like women are to blame for frustrating men, and therefore you say the women should adapt by becoming more sexualized... (although you claim most girls are not afraid of sex). But is there a rule that men should be kept free from frustration? And doesn't porn provide an outlet for exactly that? What would you have a woman to do? She can't like sex too much for fear of being seen as manipulative and degraded for sleeping around (Conan's joke). But if she doesn't like sex enough, that gives a man justification for wanting to degrade her (hence degradation porn)?
I once dated a guy who couldn't believe that I enjoyed sex as much as he did and so therefore I must be manipulating him in some way. In fact, it was his own fear of being controlled by something stronger than his own will -- his sex drive, not my hidden agenda. He felt that he needed to dominate in order to overcome his own weaknesses. No amount of sexualization on my part could compensate for or cure that.
Porn is whatever sexual fantasy turns you on and gets you off, and personally I don't have a problem with fantasies that degrade women, or men for that matter, but I do have a problem with "authorities" telling anyone what we should and should not fantasize about. I agree that if sex were not the taboo that mainstream society makes it out to be we'd all be better off, but by the same token, I would resist being told that I need to be more sexualized just as I would resist being told that I should be more feminine or more motherly. -
-
Unsu...
What would Camille Paglia say?
Tue, February 21, 2006 - 8:38 PMhi carolyna,
Thanks for your comments.
<< on the one hand, men are frustrated because women don't like sex >>
Yes
<< on the other hand, men are frustrated when women appear to like sex because they think the women are getting something else out of it? >>
In my experience, men are frustrated when women do *not* like sex, but instead, use sex to get what they want. I'm saying if women liked sex more, if they really WANTED to have sex, they would not be able to use it as a manipulative tool, because they would not want to forego the pleasure of sex for punitive reasons.
<< I once dated a guy who couldn't believe that I enjoyed sex as much as he did and so therefore I must be manipulating him in some way. >>
Well, maybe I'm lucky, or just inexperienced, but the men I've had relationships with were much happier when I was clearly enjoying the sex, as opposed to just putting out for the sake of the relationship. I wouldn't spend time with a guy that was suspicious of my sexual enjoyment. That's fucked up.
<< He felt that he needed to dominate in order to overcome his own weaknesses. >>
He (or you) are suggesting that the person who enjoys the sex the most is the dominant one? That he *had* to enjoy the sex more than you did to stoke his ego? Again, that's fucked up.
<< I do have a problem with "authorities" telling anyone what we should and should not fantasize about. I agree that if sex were not the taboo that mainstream society makes it out to be we'd all be better off, but by the same token, I would resist being told that I need to be more sexualized... >>
Well, I am certainly not an authority. I don't know of many "authorities" that would advocate working to increase women's sexuality. My feeling is that the consciousness-raising needed to support increasing women's sexuality must be directed at both men and women. It is not women's "fault". It is our culture's fault.
I didn't expect you guys to protest that increasing women's sexuality was blaming the victim. Your comments have broadened my perspective. But I still think my ideas have merit, because I think it's okay to say "hey, wouldn't things be better, for men and for women, if women's sexuality wasn't so squelched by our culture."
Definitely an interesting discussion.
harriet -
-
Re: What would Camille Paglia say?
Tue, February 21, 2006 - 10:23 PMI think that the main issue I have with your argument is super simple:
As a culture, it'd be keen if we broadened our ideas of what is "okay". if we were ALL more comfortable with our sexuality, and none of us felt any sort of shame or doubt about any of it.
that'd be men, women, trans men and women, hetero, homo, whathaveyou.
NOT JUST WOMEN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Pornified
Wed, February 8, 2006 - 12:34 PM"Or they are slutty to begin with - women who will do anything for a buck. "
this concept really annoys me when it comes from the ignoramuses. they somehow assume anyone can do porn and it's super easy. it's not. it takes a certain kind of person to make porn. it's alot of work and takes a particular set of talents.
