Friday, November 12, 2010

Radical Feminism vs. the Sex Industry Pt. 1: The Realities

photo found here

As most of you know, radical feminists who stand against exploitation often get a lot of grief from anti-feminist groups like MRAs and others as well as so-called ‘sex-positive feminists.’ Radical feminists are often attacked and called “anti-sex” or “prudes” or “feminazis” because we take a stance that examines the roots of women's oppression. These roots lie inside institutions of oppression like religion, capitalism, white supremacy and patriarchy. Many liberal folks consider the sex industry and other such corrupt and exploitative industries to be “engines of free speech” and endlessly protect the rights of exploiters.

I shall address common misconceptions and questions regarding the sex industry as I have received a lot of grief from various anti-radical feminists and pro-exploitation groups. This desire for clarification came after I received comments (ones that I did not publish) about how “awesome” and “empowering” pornography is for both men and women. Other comments were using “choice” as a way to defend the mega-exploiters in the sex industry.

The points that I will be looking at are from my own thoughts as well as inspiration from prominent anti-exploitative radical feminist activists and writers like Robert Jensen, Andrea Dworkin and Sheila Jeffreys. I also have gained inspiration from many other radical feminist bloggers who have taken on the task of rebutting common pro-sex industry/pro-exploitation arguments like One Angry girl, A Radical Pro Feminist and Twisty.

I will make several posts, all part of an on-going series that I would like to work on. This first post will examine the realities of the pornography industry, including important statistics.

The purpose of this is series is to raise awareness and educate others on the harms of the business of sexual exploitation and slavery. I want to look at the porn industry and the resulting pornification of society.


Many people wonder why I am so concerned with the sex industry; the industry that markets off the bodies and sexualities of mostly women. I acknowledge that the sex industry affects men too, but the numbers of women affected are dramatically higher.

These groups and individuals claim that the sex industry should not be an area of concern for feminists and that there are far more important things to focus on.

My answer as to why I care is simple: I believe in equality. Equality in every aspect of our lives is something I fight for every day. The sex industry treats men and women as non-equals; men are seen as dominant, in the public and the private. The sex industry markets off masculinity. As a radical feminist, I care about the private just as much as the public. The sex industry and sexuality in general are considered private matters by many non-feminist groups and anti-feminist groups. These people believe that since these topics are considered “private” they should not be available for feminist critique.

The private, radical feminists argue, is directly related to the public. Women are traditionally expected to remain in the home or the private sphere while men take on roles outside of the home, in the public sphere. Radical feminists want the private to be made public. We offer critiques for both spheres in order to liberate women as a class.

So, what are we trying to liberate women from? Women and men are equal, aren’t they? They argue that the so-called ‘sexual revolution’ of the 1960s gave women ‘sexual agency’ and thus women have been liberated. I'll get to the 'sexual revolution' aka 'the time when dudes accessed women's bodies as much as they wanted via pornography magazines'

We are trying to liberate women from patriarchy, the system of male supremacy that continues to stand in the way of women’s emancipation. Patriarchy is male supremacy. Male supremacy creates and sustains institutions of oppression such as the sex industry. The sex industry is based on the principles of woman-hating, the construct of masculinity and capitalism. This industry needs to be critiqued, it needs to be challenged. The status quo maintains this industry based around myths of “free speech” and men defend the industry based on the same principles. The term free speech in America seems to translate into “white dudes saying what they want and writing their ‘speech’ using the bodies of women and children”. Women are unable to exercise such ‘freedoms’ in society, simply because they are women. This free speech is defended by liberal white males and anti-feminist groups because it allows them to exploit and use women as sexual accessories, mere décor to aid them in their masturbation.

Free speech has traditionally been used to uphold white male supremacy in America, defending such lunatics as Larry Flynt, creator of Hustler Magazine. Flynt has been protected over and over again by so-called “freedom” fighters in the USA while radical activists such as Nikki Craft are censored to the point of absurdity (I shall cover this in another post).

So, who has the freedom? It sure as hell isn’t the women of the world, who are disproportionately affected by rape, battering, HIV/AIDS, poverty and war atrocities. Freedom lies in the hands of white men and freedom of women is a lie. Women are not free when they are forced to live in poverty. Women are not free when they are being penetrated by two men, bleeding and crying in pain on video tape for other men to watch. Women are not free when they are raped in war, assaulted on the street and killed for staining family ‘honour

But, what if a woman uses the pornography and/or bodies of women for masturbation, what if a woman gets off on women being harmed?

I can nearly hear someone shouting that in my ear.

All I can say is this: women hurt women, too. The majority of pornography users, however, are men. Why? Pornography is an affirmation of masculinity, dominance and control for male viewers. Pornography embraces power struggles and inequality. Yes, this is still relevant within critiques of non-mainstream and non-heterosexual pornography. I'll get there, too.

Pornography allows capitalism and patriarchy to market, package and sell a sexuality to men. This sexuality is immersed in gender roles, power struggles, sadomaschism and lies about women. They sell a sexuality that is anti-egalitarian and pro-male supremacy, this marketed sexuality leaks into mainstream media and marketing and affects society as a whole.

So, let us take a look into the statistics regarding pornography as a global capital business:

Every second - $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography.

Every 39 minutes: a new pornographic video is being created in the United States.

The internet is the preferred route for pornography users, according to statistics. Video sales and rentals made up $3.62 billion dollars in 2006. Internet pornography, usually where you can find “hardcore” or “gonzo” pornography took in $2.84 billion dollars in the US. Magazine popularity has decreased substantially.

In 2006

13,982,729 searches were conducted using the search term “teen sex”

13,484,769 searches were conducted using the search term “free sex”

12% of total websites are pornography websites

In 2006, statistics show that 420 million pornography pages were online. 100,000 pages contained child pornography.

The first age of exposure to pornography is 11 years old.

The largest age group to access pornography is between 35 - 49

40 million US adults regularly visit online pornography sites

2006 male and female statistics of logging onto pornography websites: 72% male - 28% female

In the United States 405 million videos were sold or rented in 1992. That number rose to 957 million in 2006.

statistics found here

Now we know the size of this industry, an important factor in any critique or analysis. What sustains an industry this size? Capitalism sustains an industry that blatantly exploits human beings for the sexual gratification of other human beings.

Many will tell me that “all work is exploitative, so why is the sex industry any different?”

The answer to this question is multi-faceted, but I will attempt to make it simple. All work is essentially exploitative because the work is usually underpaid and undervalued, especially if you are a woman. Also, many workers experience a lot of on-the-job problems regarding wages, harassment, poor working conditions and so on. The list can go on forever.

The sex industry is a different kind of exploitative work and to be honest; calling it work does not sit well with me. So, how is it different? I will list the aspects of this industry that separates it from other work.

1) This is one of the only 'jobs' where women can start with higher wages than their male counterparts.

*keep in mind that this is not always the case; some women earn little in pornography

2) Since the job allows women to earn more than they usually would illustrates just how intertwined this job is within patriarchy. The idea that ‘we’ll only pay women well if they are sexually servicing men and performing their gendered role as a submissive woman’ is what separates this ‘work’ from others.

3) This is a job where you can contract HIV/AIDS and various other STIs on any given day because of being told to have unprotected sex with various different people. The condom usage rate in pornography is incredibly low, a mere 17% actually. Condoms are not “sexy” according to dude viewers, so they are usually kept out of mainstream pornography leading to illness and death.

4) Women are used and disposed of in this industry much faster than others. If a woman hits a certain age the porn industry deems her “too old”. Before this, the bodies of women in pornography usually go through alterations such as breast implants, labiaplasty and other forms of misogynistic mutilation.

There are a million other reasons that I could list that separate the sex industry from other industry jobs, but I can’t take that kind of time and space on my blog. Feel free to leave any more reasons on my comment section.

I hope my next post will be a bit more organized in terms of what I talk about. I hope to speak about the specific issues within pornography such as racism, sexism and the effects on society at large.

If you would like to add anything, please let me know!!

24 comments:

  1. I read your blog sometimes and I consider myself to be a radical/socialist/pro-sex feminist. I don't agree with everything you say because I find it to be too limiting in terms of creating conversation among feminists. (also I realize that you don't like/allow anonymous comments but I simply don't have any accounts/profiles listed under 'comment as,' or whatever it is). Anyway, I don't feel like your blog always promotes discussion, which is so essential to feminism. If anyone disagrees with you, you dismiss their points and say they have "logical fallacies". I don't think that's very "feminist", but I digress.

    All of that being said though, I like your post. I feel like for once I could relate to/understand your anti-pornography stance. But I that think putting down other types of feminism like pro-sex feminism is harmful. Pro-sex feminism is a theory of feminism, and does not translate to "pro-pornography." Pro-sex feminism encourages women to be sexually free and open and if they wish to consume pornography as a form of sexual expression, that is their choice (although of course pro-sex feminism sees the problem in pornography and seeks to create other less harmful ways to express for women to express their sexuality). We don't see pornography by any means as an ideal expression of sexuality and also see the male/white supremacy embedded in it. Pro-sex feminism seeks to create spaces free of oppression, but also recognizing that the limited spaces in which women exist are harmful and that women have to exist in these spaces, which is why they use outlets like pornography. It's like lesbians finding representation in girl-on-girl pornography - there simply is nowhere else to go to find representation. What it really comes to is the belief that women cannot achieve equality until we/they are sexually free.

    I just wanted to point that out - I think it is important to recognize all types of feminism as valid, because one is not "right" over the other. Feminism is sisterhood, isn't it?

    -kayla

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Kayla,

    I'm sorry you don't feel that my blog is open for discussion. I personally am not offended by those who disagree with me, it's more those who disagree but only say things like "Hey, i like porn!" which to me isn't really saying much of anything in terms of discussion.

    I think you and I have confusing ideas of "sex positive" feminism. I'm refering to the group of women who identify as "pro-sex" or "sex positive" and they define that as being pro-pornography, pro-prostitution. Of course all feminists are pro-sex, being anti porn is being pro-sex, in that we believe in humanity and not a commercialized sexuality.

    I suppose I can use the term loosely, forgetting that not everyone knows what I mean, or the specific group. It's nothing against being "pro sex" but more of being "pro sex industry" that I was referring to. The embracing of patriarchal values is a major idea in "pro sex" feminism, or sex positivism. I recommend reading some of Sheila Jeffreys work on sex politics, it puts the whole "sex poz and sex neg" stereotypes into light.

    As a radical feminist, I'm arguing that a "free sexuality" is one free of patriarchy and male supremacy. A "free" sexuality would be one not created by and under the influence of male dominance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ps. this post an amazing radical pro-feminist wrote illustrates the importance of nothing being above critique

    http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-does-pro-sex-mean-and-what-can-one.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the link, Owl Eyes.

    If any pro-porn dudes come by here wanting to "get into it" in some pseudo-intellectual, "let's just debate this a bit" way, give a holler. I'll come by if you wish to not waste your breath, er, typing, on 'em.

    It truly astounds me how anyone can look at pornography currently out there and conclude it is "pro-sex"! This idea that radical feminists were and are "anti-sex" while pimps and pornographers are unquestionably "pro-sex" is one of the greatest acts of logical phallusy I've yet to witness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think you should differentiate between sex-positive feminism and pro-sex industry because there is a huge difference. You are giving sex-positive feminists a bad name when you throw around terms too loosely. All feminists are sex positive because our belief is that women should be free of sexual oppression and work towards a health sexual expression. I just question the way in which you write "so-called sex positive feminists" - to me that doesn't sound you mean "pro- sex industry" at all but are trying to draw a line between your type of feminism and "their" type of feminism. It is one thing to say "pro-sex", but another to say "sex-positive feminism" which is a real theory of feminism that doesn't agree with the exploitation of women.

    And thanks, I've read Sheila Jeffreys and I dislike her because I find her to be extremely transphobic. but that's another story.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why do sex positive feminists spend the majority of their time working against radical feminists and in favor of pornography and prostitution then?

    Not all feminists are created equal, not all political positions are either. Keep on drawing distinctions Boner Killer because the difference is essential. Some women want to radically alter the state of things and yet hold on to their positions of power under patriarchy. No dice.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't know how I could make "sex poz" any more clear. I mean, "sex positivism" is actually the label these 'feminists' give themselves, and they like you said Bolshevik, work towards defending and protecting exploiters.

    "Sex Positivism" is fare more complex than simply "pro sex", Mikayla. Also, Jeffrey's work is essential, because she questioned why when critiquing trans politics, does not make her a "transphobe" merely a radical feminist who is asking questions. To disregard such essential radical feminist writers is obscene.

    ReplyDelete
  8. But, what if a woman uses the pornography and/or bodies of women for masturbation, what if a woman gets off on women being harmed?' This claim is commonly levied at radical feminists who oppose pornography all its forms including so-called lesbian porn but which in fact is imitating male domination and male power. Just because one or more women are inflicting sexual pain on another woman does not make it 'feminist' but it certainly reinforces male supremacist thinking.

    So viewing porn is upholding male supremacist ideologies wherein it is acceptable for one human being primarily male, to inflict sadistic pain and sexualised torture on another human being (primarily female) and then have the gall to call such filmed violence 'fantasy' or 'erotica.'

    The problem is pseudo feminists - those who consider pornography to be 'transgressive/radical' have hijacked the term pro-sex and made the claim that any radical feminist who opposes male supremacist/patriarchal sex are automatically 'anti-sex.'

    Quoting a well known anti-porn feminist activist - I hate McDonalds food because it is not healthy so does this mean I hate all food?? Of course not - merely the types of food which are harmful. So too it is with human sexuality or rather specifically male supremacist sexuality which claims pornography = real sex rather than pornography is filmed male sexual violence against women and girls.

    I do not want to be equal with men if this means adhering to and reinforcing male supremacist notions wherein one or more groups are considered to be superior and the other groups are inferior. Instead I want an end to the male supremacist/patriarchal system and an egalitarian society - it won't happen in my life time but that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out and challenge male supremacy and its brothers, pornography, prostitution and the sex industry.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just thought this post may be of interest about my personal views on Freedom of Speech for many women and girls in or exited from the sex trade. It is very angry, but I think makes important points. http://rmott62.wordpress.com/2010/11/13/freedom-of-speech-for-who/

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Jennifer

    "Just because one or more women are inflicting sexual pain on another woman does not make it 'feminist' but it certainly reinforces male supremacist thinking."
    THIS! Exactly is what i am talking about. right on the nose. So many people attempt to justify lesbian pornography, I mean, lesbian pornography still exists in an industry built around woman hating, and like you said it uses power struggles found in hetero porn.

    And yes, The bloody "anti-sex" crap is ridiculous. I also love that Mcdonalds scenario, it's so true!!

    @Rmott
    I checked it out. I didn't think it was overly angry, and i totally don't blame you for being angry! No one cares to question freedom of speech, like who is it for? who created it? they'd rather just live in delusion at the expense of women.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Mikayla,

    This may be a three-parter!

    First, I want to welcome you to come over to my blog and comment on my last couple of posts on this subject.

    I think I get what you're saying about not wanting to turn over the term "pro-sex" to the people who are pro-systems of prostitution and pro-pornography industry. So this makes sense to me:

    "I think you should differentiate between sex-positive feminism and pro-sex industry because there is a huge difference. You are giving sex-positive feminists a bad name when you throw around terms too loosely. All feminists are sex positive because our belief is that women should be free of sexual oppression and work towards a health sexual expression."

    I'd like to support that kind of clarity and also note where I see Owl Eyes coming from in using the language the way she does. This may simply be a regional difference, or just differences of experience. Speaking for myself, a North American for the last twenty-plus years, the terms "anti-sex" and "pro-sex" have been used in very specific ways by various groups. They've already been profoundly appropriated, in other words--that's my experience anyway. So much so that I'd hesitate to say I'm "pro-sex" because it is now so very tainted by pro-sexxxism industry folks.

    The pornographers and pimps got a jump-start on declaring themselves "pro-sex" or "sex-positive" while painting Right-wing conservatives and radical feminists, through the 1980s, as "sex-negative" and "anti-sex". This was always a tool of gross man-ipulation. It was always intended to try and get the public to see "Radical Feminists" as equally threatening as Right-wing Preachers. How anyone comes to see socially marginalised and stigmatised feminist activists with no institutional power as equal to white allegedly het men who are leaders in their communities is a bit odd to me.

    I recommend looking at Wikipedia's discussion of "pro-sex" and "sex-positive" in the context of what's been termed "the sex wars" among feminists--a way of languaging reality that conveniently disappears the fact that men are the only ones armed and dangerous and waging any wars against anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  12. From Wikipedia:
    Sex-positive feminism, also known as pro-sex feminism, sex-radical feminism, sexually liberal feminism, and sometimes as fun-feminism,[1] is a movement that began in the early 1980s. Some became involved in the sex-positive feminist movement in response to efforts by anti-pornography feminists, such as Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan and Dorchen Leidholdt, to put pornography at the center of a feminist explanation of women's oppression (McElroy, 1995). This period of intense debate and acrimony between sex-positive and anti-pornography feminists during the early 1980s is often referred to as the "Feminist Sex Wars". Other less academic sex-positive feminists became involved not in opposition to other feminists but in direct response to what they saw as patriarchal control of sexuality. Authors who have advocated sex-positive feminism include Camille Paglia, Ellen Willis, Susie Bright, Patrick Califia, Gayle Rubin, Carol Queen, Avedon Carol, Tristan Taormino, and Betty Dodson, who could be regarded as the grandmother of the movement.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Also, though, even in general usage, "pro-sex" tends to be used in very ahistorical, apolitical ways. I detail this in a most I did on the subject. It tends to present "sex" in the most banal ways, in superficial ways. Sex, in my own experience and in that of many, many women I know and some men too, is many things: terrifying, enthralling, amazing, joyful, violating, powerful, disempowering, grief-inducing, shaming, triggering, compulsive, compulsory, and addictive. Given all that, what does it mean to say we are "pro-sex"? Are we pro-sex when sex is not empowering and when it is terrifying? When it is triggering? This notion that we must come down on the side of saying "sex is good" is something Andrea Dworkin deals with brilliantly in the opening of her chapter in Intercourse titled "Communion". I'd welcome discussion here or at my blog on that chapter. From that chapter:

    "The paring down of the vocabulary of human affect to fuck-related expletives suggests that one destroys the complexity of human response by destroying the language that communicates its existence. 'Sex-negative' is the current secular reductio ad absurdum used to dismiss or discredit ideas, particularly political critiques, that might lead to detumescence. Critiques of rape, pornography, and prostitution are 'sex-negative' without qualification or examination, perhaps because so many men use these ignoble routes of access and domination to get laid, and without them the number of fucks would so significantly decrease that men might nearly be chaste. There is an awful poverty here, in this time and place: of language, of words that express real states of being; of search, of questions; of meaning, of emotional empathy; of imagination. And so, we are inarticulate about sex, even though we talk about it all the time to say how much we like it--nearly as much, one might infer, as jogging. Nothing is one's own, nothing, certainly not oneself, because the imagination is atrophied, like some limb, hanging dumb and useless, and the dull repetition of programmed tape loops has replaced it." (page 61)

    ReplyDelete
  14. So when you write:
    It is one thing to say "pro-sex", but another to say "sex-positive feminism" which is a real theory of feminism that doesn't agree with the exploitation of women.

    I'd say that these terms are very loaded, socially and politically. I hear you asking Owl Eyes to not regard the terms in the historical period in which they exist. To not acknowledge how, in fact, they are already used, and have been, for decades. I'm not sure that's possible to do. To me it'd be like saying, "please don't use 'pro-white' as only a negative term, because some of us who are white are not advocating for white supremacy." I'd say that in the current climate, it simply isn't possible to extract the terms "sex-positive" and "pro-sex" from the history that binds them to pro-male supremacy activities and anti-feminist activism.

    Regarding this:
    And thanks, I've read Sheila Jeffreys and I dislike her because I find her to be extremely transphobic. but that's another story.

    I find that to be troubling. Not that you find her to be extremely transphobic, but that you would dismiss her writing on a very important subject--queer politics--because you find her to be transphobic. What about all the other chapters, in which she addresses the way queer culture is pro-gay/gay-dominant and anti-lesbian/lesbian-subordinate? What about her critique of gay public sex making less and less space safe for women? She addresses so many important things in that book and in her others.

    When Audre Lorde critiqued Mary Daly as being racist in neglecting to visibilise women of color's herstory in a positive way, only referring to women of color in a context of atrocities, Audre wasn't telling people "I won't read Daly because she's a racist." She continued to read Mary Daly's work. She was engaging with another radical feminist, attempting to build alliance across difference. What happened to that ethic/that practice, in feminism? Why do you think it is that Sheila simply "not engaged with" because many readers find her to be transphobic? I find most white radical feminists to be racist to some degrees, but that doesn't mean I don't or won't read them. I found aspects of what Jeffreys was saying in UQP to be a bit gay-blaming, taking the focus off of the het men who set the values and practices. But I wouldn't dismiss her work as "homophobic" just because that might be the case.

    Most women of color who are radical feminist who I know don't "not read" white radical feminist writings. They simply read them with a critical eye. And they critique the racist elements of the books they read. So why not engage with the richness of what Sheila writes about? It sounds like you're wanting to just dismiss her as a valid theorist because you take issue with some of what she says. Is that the case? What happened to reading all the writings and critiquing what we don't like, and also acknowledging what is valuable, which is exactly what Audre Lorde did in her open letter to Mary Daly?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I like your points Julian, you've put it into a little more persecptive to me. My comment about Sheila Jeffreys was more of me pointing out the fact that Owl Eyes name drops books when she doesn't want to make the argument herself, assuming that the person she is speaking to has not read them/is not as educated as her. I just find that to be troublesome.

    Also, side note to one of the above comments: there is a huge distinction between lesbian pornography and girl-on-girl pornography. Lesbian pornography is a very small percentage of porn, but what we're generally speaking of is girl-on-girl pornography which is marketed for men. I also think it is important to make that distinction. As a lesbian, I do not align with girl-on-girl pornography, nor would I like to be associated with it. I know it is sort of arbitrary, but semantics matter, as we can see.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mikayla,

    I don't appreciate the amount of condescending comments you have left me. I was not merely "name dropping" but simply suggesting you read more of Jeffreys' work because it is thought-provoking and powerful. As Julian said, you cannot disregard all of her work because you disagree with one component of it.

    Will you elaborate on how you feel lesbian porn is somehow free from patriarchy? Most 'lesbian' porn is based around power struggles set up by male supremacy. All porn manufactures and distorts sexuality, it all upholds capitalist 'values' and promotes anti-egalitarianism and harsh gender roles. And yes, i'm speaking of lesbian porn, not 'girl on girl' hetero-sexist porn.

    It feels though, as nothing i say is satisfactory for you, you continue to come here and speak to me like i'm some sort of idiot. How am I more educated because i received a Jeffreys book for Christmas last year? You have this idea that I think i'm more educated, yet you have no idea who i am or how i live my life? How can you make such assumptions?

    If you use this space to attack me or make assumptions about my experiences, then I will not continue to publish your comments.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sorry for offending you, I just feel that it can be oppressive to suggest someone's thoughts would align with yours if only they read a particular book or author. I am glad for suggestions, but feminist literature is very difficult to get a hold of if you don't have the money for it and is not widely available to everyone, unless you have access to a university library.

    And I never said lesbian porn was free of patriarchy, in fact I said nothing at all about my opinion on lesbian porn, just that it's important to differentiate between the two because there are subtle or sometimes major differences (for example, lesbian pornography usually allows for more of a variety of gender expression and makes more room for trans people, different body types, etc). Of course it exists in an oppressive social construct so it can never be free of oppression or patriarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Can I just add that I think it's odd how hated radical feminists are, but there's this whole group of pro-trans and sex-industry-apologists who are trying to claim the name? And so we who were there in the 70s get trashed as "Old Skool"? Much of Jeffreys' stuff is on Google; I read "The Industrial Vagina" and at least one other, that way first. Miss some, yes, but not so much. And Jeffreys is awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Also, I'm pretty sure you aren't reading this thread anymore Mikayla but I just want to register that I am "pro-sex" by most of your definition, but I don't understand how sexual expression has anything to do with pornography (unless you're making pornography of yourself, not watching or using it). There's no reason to support the liberation of one oppressed group to the detriment of others, and I think it's short-sighted, but something I have seen before.

    In the vegan community (something I am very glad I abstain from now), PETA is a really hot subject because of a) their New Welfarist stance and b) because of the ways they use women and contemporary beauty standards to try to get donations. (I don't believe it has anything to do with trying to turn people vegetarian or vegan.) You may have missed it, but they've gotten into the habit of using... well, basically pin-up porn to promote their organization. A lot of people have been pissed off, hurt and offended by this (especially, especially fat vegan). Their response has basically been, Shut up and suck it up it's for the animals.

    You can imagine my response, being anti-porn and, well, anti-objectification in general.

    My point is that porn perpetuates fucked-up beliefs about sex, as well as a sexually repressive culture (because it seems the more we talk about porn, the less we talk about actual sex), and that's not useful or good when you're trying to construct a culture in which sex can be open, free and liberated for everyone. (Or just, you know, being social and intimate with people without having to be sexual.)

    >>

    ReplyDelete
  20. Porn doesn't create a new culture; it just keeps reinforcing the old hegemony, old stereotypes, old repression, and so on. That's part of my point here: porn wrecks sex. Not only are people who use porn frequently worse lovers in general, less sensitive both to the desires and quirks of their partners and themselves, but they're obsessed with sex. You may be familiar with the way regular use of technology changes the way we perceive and process stimuli, much like how salt changes the way we perceive flavor. (Specifically by making it so that unsalted food is bland and boring; you trained your tastebuds to only care about flavor when salt is present.) Porn is much like that. The more you imbibe, the higher your tolerance goes, and the more concerned and preoccupied about sex you become, to the point that you become obsessed. (And, as someone who's experienced obsession, I can tell you that it's inextricable from repression.)

    I don't own the label of "pro-sex" because, to me, you use it to mean nothing but "pro-porn and pro-prostitution." Maybe this is because it's the largest difference in our views; I think of birth control and abortion as basic rights along the lines of shelter, but I doubt that it can be limited to that. Pornography gives people an extremely restrictive view of what sex is, which is why I can't own it. Sex needs to be more than a focus in our lives; sex needs to be normal, just a part of our lives, like sleeping or taking a shower. Only when sex becomes an ordinary part of life, something we don't obsess about, something we don't seek out on the internet to get off, something we don't have preconceptions about, can sex actually become nonjudgmental. You sleep, you shower, it's just... unremarkable. There's no expectation there about how or why or if you have sex; there's no demanding to know. There's no assertion that anyone has a right to know, or pass judgment, on you for your sex life. No one assumes that you're anything more than friends with your friends and roommates, because... well, why does it matter? Why is it your business unless someone's unhappy about their sex life?

    The problem with what's going on with "pro-sex" nowadays, that I see it, is that it's not making sex free: it's making sex mandatory. A specific definition of it, too. I want to make sex so normal and comfortable it's invisible: it's your business; as long as you don't stink or you aren't bouncing off the walls, no one cares.

    I'm pretty sure Owl Eyes has picked up on the "sex is mandatory now!" bit and is just as concerned as I am, though maybe filtered with a few less issues.

    (My roommate/best friend and I are alwaaaays assumed to be lovers. No matter what. We can't kiss each other on the cheek, hug, snuggle, say "I love you", or be friendly in any way without being suspected of having a secret relationship. And just... I'm gynosexual. Zie's a gender-variant FTM. Zie is not a girl, and we have been living together for years without the slightest amount of sexual attraction for each other. Why does friendly automatically = sexually active, dammit?)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Owl Eyes,
    Thank you so much for this post. As a young woman, it's surprisingly difficult to criticize pornography with other young women, even self-described feminists, without being told off for being "sex-negative", "conservative", or a "prude" for infringing on other women's "sexual liberation."

    But the porno culture is anything but sexually liberating. If anything, I found that it turned me off from sexuality - I was terrified of having sex because the images of sex I saw were all degrading, sadistic, focussed on female performance and male pleasure. All I wanted was to have sex with someone who treated me like a human being.

    It's an unfortunate position because anti-porn feminism doesn't get a lot of press. We're caught between the right-wing Christian "don't have sex, or you're dirty!" and the liberal sex-poz "you MUST have sex, and kinky sex, or you're a vanilla prude" camps, without much space to discover our own, authentic, human sexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Boner Killer, Boner Killer, how I love thee. Yours was the first blog worth reading that I found after Googling "critique of sex positivism", so I'm linking to you in a blog post I made today. Cheers!

    Also, I really like saying "Boner Killer".

    ReplyDelete
  23. i understand what you say regarding the institution of pornography and other sex work being rooted. in patriarchy, but like other institutions the creative power and consuming power is changing.
    if after gender egalitarianism is achieved (hypothetically) and some women still decide to do sex work outside of the patriarchal paradigm, what do you think the radical feminist stance would be then? also, what would your personal stance be?

    ReplyDelete

Total Pageviews