One of these quotes is not like the other:
From Ampersand:
Miller’s study is based on interviews with 61 girls from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds with a known history of intimate partner violence living in the poorest neighborhoods in Boston. The analysis included 53 girls between the ages of 15 and 20 who reported being sexually active and involved in relationships that included recurring patterns of physical, sexual or emotional abuse from a male partner. Twenty-six percent of these girls reported that their partners were actively trying to get them pregnant by manipulating condom use, sabotaging birth control use and making explicit statements about wanting them to become pregnant.
“We were floored by what these girls told us,” Miller recalled. “You think of forced sex as an aspect of abusive relationships, but this takes that abuse a step further to reproductive control of a young woman’s body.”
From the transcript of my 3rd podcast, detailing out one of the many, many strikes against basic reproductive rights made by the Bush administration:
The big news this week is that the Democratic-controlled Congress voted to overturn the global gag rule, which was a ban on any U.S. funding going to family planning organizations that offer abortion services or advice on obtaining those services. Contrary to a lot of anti-choice propaganda, the overturn would not mean that the U.S. would be paying for abortions directly, just working with groups that offer abortion as one of their non-U.S.-funded options. Ronald Reagan instituted the gag rule in 1984, but President Clinton overturned it right away when he came to office. And Bush reinstated it right away when he came into office, which put a serious hurt on the health of the entire world population.
The good news is that Congress overturned the global gag rule, but the bad news is that Bush, who’s beholden to extremist anti-choicers, vetoed the legislation pretty much immediately.
It would be true if “Thelma and Louise” were really, as it has always been considered (except by its makers), a timeless meditation upon sexual politics and women’s general position in American society.
But it isn’t; “Thelma and Louise” is primarily a movie about sexual violence…..
Yet in 1991 it was altogether understandable that a movie about sexual violence would be turned into a fable about women’s general social and political progress. It made perfect sense then to conflate sexual violence – in all its verbal, psychic, physical and political forms — with sexual politics. That year, the William Kennedy Smith rape case went to trial, belittling and publicly humiliating the victim; Anita Hill confronted Clarence Thomas and emerged besmirched while he reigned victorious; and Roe v. Wade seemed destined for extinction……
And yet it was, truly, transformative; the world of “Thelma and Louise,” I think it’s fair now to say, is not the one that we inhabit psychologically or physically today.
Emphasis mine. (Via.)
Now listen: I have had bad days before. I have been fired from jobs, I have been dumped by girlfriends, I have totaled cars. I have had days where I have received three — count ‘em, three — tickets for speeding or moving violations between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. But I have never had a day as bad as a woman named “Cloey” had the day they shot the video that appeared on that page — that is to say, I have never had a day where someone wrote the word “Cockwhore” on my forehead with lipstick, tried to shove their entire fist down my throat and then “choke-fucked” me with their penis until I barfed on their testicles. Never, ever had a day like that. Nor have I ever had a day like the blonde woman in the movie that was pictured below it: I never had a day where someone hung a toilet seat around my neck, spit in my mouth and slapped my face as he tried to shove the head of his cock through the back of my skull.
Bad days I have had. But not that bad.
“Jesus. Fucking. Christ,” said my wife.
We sat like that, side by side, proclaiming disbelief as I scrolled further down the page, the subject headings for the forum entries sounding like the police blotter from a place Snake Plisskin might have escaped:
GIRL SLAPPED!
CHICK STUFFING BASBEALL BATS INTO HER CUNT!
HARD ANAL, THROATFUCKING AND PUKING (A LOT!)
PERFECT SLUT EXTREMELY HARD TREATED — MUST SEE!
This was the description of that last one the poster had included with his screen caps:
“This scene has everything: blowjob, gagging, ass-to-mouth, rimming, assfuck, streched holes — there is nothing left!”…..
This was not some “extreme sex” forum. That forum existed at the bottom of the page — “Paid Members ONLY” — though I can’t imagine what sort of headings might be found there.
No, this was the regular forum. This was the mainstream. This was porn, 2007.
Warner mentions that rape is down 75% since the 90s, a statistic I’ve used to declare that feminism is effective and we should keep at it. Every time I’ve mentioned that, I’ve hopped up and down and hoped that that statistic is true and not just evidence that young women now expect rape to be part of their adult sex lives and simply aren’t reporting it. That rape is down 75% isn’t evidence that we’re in a society that’s past the time when violence against women is widespread enough to be a captivating symbol of women’s oppression—rape is so common that it can fall 75% and still be common as dirt, and rape supporters feel validated by the Duke rape case train wreck. Nor is the fact that anti-choicers have the power of the government now and are less likely to bomb abortion clinics a signal to change the immediacy of violence against women as a symbol—the horrible situation with the new Planned Parenthood in Aurora, IL signals that the anti-choice movement is ready to return to old school tactics at the drop of a hat.
In other words, while I appreciate Warner’s optimism, that we’ve won the battle and made consent a real issue (which hopefully is why the rape rate has dropped—men are much more aware now that raping someone is in fact rape), the war must go on. And the daily violence against women in homes and streets is still the front line in the oppression of women as a class, even if you do have politicians and justices working harder than ever to accomplish the same ends through pushing papers around without getting a speck of dirt or blood under their own fingernails.
52 Responses to “Don’t mistake winning a battle for winning the war”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The more you win the culture war, the more extreme the opposition to said war is going to get. This is really a hard-fast rule, to be honest especially for things that mostly occur in private.
But yes, the increasing violence of this stuff is very disconcerning. It doesn’t mean that the war is being lost, just that we’re cornering the snake.
The Nerve piece is quite good. Very disturbing, but very good. This struck me as a weird coincidence:
I know I’m supposed to be okay with this. I know I shouldn’t judge. I know that I’m showing my age or my prudishness or my conservatism or my narrow-mindedness. But I’m thinking about those porn protesters back on the corner of Forty-Sixth and Sixth, sometime in 1985, and I’m beginning to wonder if porno in 2007 isn’t proving them right; it’s difficult to present a credible defense against charges of hatred and misogyny when the star witness has the word “cunt” written on her forehead and a guy named Max Hardcore is urinating in her mouth.
I was just over at Reclusive Leftist talking about some of those same protesters and how their warnings have turned out to be true. Particularly the warning about porn growing more violent and degrading as people became more desensitized. Violet has a great post over there, BTW.
The Warner article just reads like yet another “post feminist” piece denying sexism even exists. I registered my displeasure with the Times for posting it. I doubt my post will make it through their censors.
Oh, sorry, the Reclusive Leftist post is here:
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=685
Gayle:I actually don’t really like blaming things on targetted desensitization. We assume, people see porn, they get bored o it, and need more. I strongly disagree with that.
The problem is blanket dehumanization. Because we know that it goes a bit more than just desensitization. If it was just that, then while for example, porn might get more extreme, it would be more or less isolated. It’s not.
To be honest, my theory is that the “Reagan Revolution” and the switch from a manafacturing to a service economy has created a large class of frustrated middle-managers who see their fellow worker…fellow human beings as nothing more than resources to be consumed and discarded.
My follow-up to that theory is that class is the modern Republican party.
Setting aside the violent porn story for a moment (God, though, is that upsetting sounding), I’m a little fascinated by this study of young men forcing girlfriends to get pregnant. I know this will sound more than a little naive, but I’m really somewhat surprised at the extent of this (at least in the study), given that we’ve got a lot of anecdotal evidence suggesting that young men walk away from their parental responsibilities, don’t bond with their kids, etc. Again, it’s naive to ask… but why would these men be so violently focused on getting partners pregnant? It seems to me that until we start to unpack what’s driving some of that, we can’t entirely protect these women. I know my guess would be some proof of virility, or control, or some such… but part of me says we don’t really know that, we just think it. Does anyone know of a study that gets at this…?
I’ll be the first to say how ironic this post is with those stupid “John Q” ads running in your sidebar. Google ads suck sometimes.
Actually, that was how the popular press defanged the actual message of the movie. The real message of the movie was that sexual assault victims would never, ever be able to get anything resembling justice for the crimes against them, and the only option was to kill yourself rather than let The Man put you in jail. Yes, there were fun scenes of women retaliating against asshole men (ie blowing up the truck), but they realized that their “progress” was ultimately futile because they had the entire patriarchy stacked against them.
Oh, and as is so very common when films comment on oppression in a powerful way, all of the white men in the media spent a lot of time covering their testicles and insisting that Thelma and Louise would lead to a huge amount of anti-male violence by pissed-off women. Of course, these were the same idiots who were convinced that Do The Right Thing would lead to nationwide riots because OMG black people would finally realize they were being treated badly and would retaliate!
Earth to scared white guys: women and minorities are already perfectly aware that they’re being oppressed. The fact that you were clueless about it until you saw the movie and finally realize that they might have a reason to be pissed off at you doesn’t mean that they were as clueless as you. Dumbass.
The thing that bothers me on the porn thing is that “harder” is defined as “more degrading to women”, the implication being the degradation is the main selling point of porn—and not the potential of arousal in general, which can in theory be achieved without misogyny. After all, if something is being sold as more than the competition, odds are you’re going to highlight the thing that consumers want. Which puts the people who outright deny all of feminist porn critics’ claims in a weird position. To say that porn isn’t about misogyny is to counter the direct claims of porn makers who advertise their porn as more better degradation of women than the next.
Yes, there’s alt porn. But the “alt” part also reaffirms the main point, which is mainstream porn is about degrading women.
As for your point, weboy, a lot of DV studies drive home the fact that abusers are very good at what they do. They know how to get women in submission to them; pregnancy is a very useful tool. Once a woman has a child with a man, getting him out of her life is exponentially harder. He has a legal right to the child that’s hard to terminate and therefore a legal right to access to the mother. Which is presumably why the abusers are intent on it. That and children become a great tool to threaten women with—if you disobey me, I’ll hurt the children is a poignant threat and often used.
Mnem, apparently the original cut of the movie showed the car landing safely and driving off. It seems the original intention was to end more optimistically, to suggest that women can escape through rejecting the patriarchy. Test audiences rightfully rejected that ending; you can no more escape the world than drive off a cliff like that and survive.
There’s also this strange ‘respect’ issue going on between men, where the guys like to prove they are fertile–not shooting blanks. Having a kid is also “proof” that they aren’t gay.
Actually taking care of the child….totally different issue. And as my BIL said at the time: “it’s not gonna cramp MY style”.
Gayle,
That was a great comment. How sad it is that the point of view in porn (callous misogynistic bigotry) is allowed to pass without any opposition for fear that we’d be called “judgmental.” Mind you, misogynists have no problem being extremely “judgmental” of women (and girls) by glorifying their rabid hatred of females utilizing sex as the ultimate weapon. And yet the public commonly mistakes the weapon as the cause, when it is bigotry–raw hate. Opponents of this overt incitement of hate are charged as “anti-sex” using the same ploy as Jerry Falwell who after infusing bigotry into religion, slurred opponents of his homophobia as “anti-God.”
The “consent” of female porn stars does not change the effect: male consumers feverishly enjoy anti-female abuse and violence. Besides, actual consent by the women (a highly dubious claim considering the circumstances anyway), let alone their satisfaction, would ruin the experience since the whole point is enjoying her absolute terror. Even a comatose woman wouldn’t suffice: male arousal is now conditioned to depend on female pain and suffering.
If people were watching blacks or gays being repeatedly brutalized and enjoying such images as “entertainment” there would be no hesitation in the outrage, but whenever women (or girls) are involved, then all of a sudden it’s not to be opposed. The incorporation of sexuality does not justify or cancel the effect. Ironically enough, “freedom of speech” is a right apparently only misogynists are entitled to.
Miller, I think you underestimate the amount of violent gay porn that floats under the radar; I suspect that the reason gay men don’t have the same issue is that BDSM is supposed to be “well defined” and that there’s an equality between male sexual partners that doesn’t exist when we are talking about men and women, particularly the image of a woman being abused. My point isn’t that some of the violence in BDSM porn isn’t disturbing - it is, very much so - but that it is excused. I’d be happier if there was more generalized outrage, and not a “this only happens to women” sort of discussion around it.
Miller, it’s worth noting that pretty much all porn with black actors in it trades in racist hate. Black men with white women is a common trope in porn and it’s all contextualized as if you were watching an animal fuck a woman—hate against black people and against women. So racism is in fact considered above criticism so long as it is in porn.
I think the best way to describe the problem with porn is it contextualizes masculinity in a certain way, and one thing that’s certain about masculinity in porn is that it is a hateful thing, rejects love and tenderness in sex and that masculine sexuality can only be expressed in a context of loathing. The way that it defines men—as hateful beings that relish their power over others—is more central to the problem than how it defines women, I think. But I dunno about gay porn—a random search of gay porn on the internet has led me to something horrible and hateful once maybe and the vast majority of the time with women it’s like “let’s rape this bitch”.
Thanks Amanda - as I said, it was a somewhat naive question on my part, and I do know that we have some pretty extensive data on DV. I think what struck me in Miller’s study is that it started with studying pregnancy among these poor women and backed into DV - if you get my drift… yes, abusive men want to control their women. But this sounds, somewhat, like a discovery that would help to get ahead of DV to some degree - how do we spot the young man trying to force his partner into pregnancy? Because it seems, again, like you can spot a lot of young men trying very hard to flee just such a role… i.e., the prospective abuser should look like an outlier, shouldn’t he, among young men who don’t want to be dads, or support their kids, or control their partners in quite that way…? Or is that still naive?
Amanda, a lot of violent gay porn is out there… if you’re looking for it.
Ms Marcotte:
I think you are overstating the misogyny of porn in general. It doesn’t always show maleness as ‘hateful’, or in a context of ‘loathing’. Also, sex between a white woman and a black man, or the other way around, is not really shown as animal on human sex.
Porn does sometimes show these things as brutal, or controlling. Still, controlling sex isn’t always hate sex.
I fully admit that porn seems to be going in that direction. Perhaps the distinction between sex that’s agressive, and ‘hate’ sex, is getting less meaningful. I just think that that’s an overstatement.
weboy, i might be wrong, but i think she meant that she only stumbled across violent gay porn once when doing a random search. Which makes sense, considering you said “[it’s] out there [but only] if you’re looking for it”. Porn with violence against women takes up a larger share of the whole “porn market”. I know from my own searches, it’s difficult to find porn that doesn’t call women whores or bitches, and usually humiliate them in some way. And I’m not looking for that kind of porn, just basic vanilla stuff, dammit.
know from my own searches, it’s difficult to find porn that doesn’t call women whores or bitches, and usually humiliate them in some way. And I’m not looking for that kind of porn, just basic vanilla stuff, dammit.
Yeah, that pisses me off too. I’m just looking for something fun, but instead I get stuff that raises my hackles and leaves me with a bad feeling.
Interestingly, 80s porn seems considerably less nasty on the women. What the hell changed in the past 25 years?
I had a female friend in high school whose boyfriend (who was in and out of jail) repeatedly tried to impregnate her. He wanted to create a situation in which she was bound to him with a child, because in his mind that meant she could never leave him.
I was setting aside the porn questions for the earlier item on pregnant women and violence, but just to speak to porn for a moment - I think one thing to keep in mind is that there’s just more porn out there in our society than there has ever been. Is porn overall more violent than it has been up to now? I don’t know; I have the opposite problem of Amanda in that I don’t watch a lot of straight porn, it all seems odd to me.
But my impression is that there’s a lot of perfectly ordinary, vanilla stuff that doesn’t involve the kind of disgusting abuse described in the Nerve piece (which brings us right back round to the “all porn is rape” type of discussions, but nevermind that), and that the vast amount of straight porn isn’t as violent as what’s in that piece. As I say, that impression, mostly anecdotal, could be mistaken.
Because there is a lot of societal discomfort discussing this - and a full throated defense of self expression that tends to fight against regulation of porn - I think what you wind up having to see is porn policing itself. That, too, I think has become harder as outlets and opportunities have exploded exponentially with the web. It’s harder to stop kiddie porn, it’s harder to stop violent porn… and it’s turning out that there’s an audience for, well, almost anything.
I’m not trying to defend every or anything that’s out there in pornography; this stuff sickens me, and indeed, as I said a moment ago, there’s a strain of gay porn that I find really, really disturbing as well. I think Amanda is right that at least in some porn, you have a definition of masculinity that’s disturbing and uncomfortable and in some ways, very hateful to any sexual partner, male, female or other. While I don’t like to be some sort of Republican bluenose or antiporn hardliner, the increasing pornification of the culture really, really bothers me, the commercialization, commodification and casual acceptance of sex for sale is a problem, not an improvement. I just have no damn idea what to do about it. But thanks Amanda, for the link and a reminder of just how bad it is out there.
PS Janna, you’re sort of restating my point incorrectly - my point is that violent gay porn is out there, if you know where to look. I think “but only” implies that it’s somehow appropriately hidden from view. Just because it’s hard to find (for some, who may not be as conversant in gay culture) doesn’t mean it’s that hard to find.
I think you are overstating the misogyny of porn in general.
No, she wasn’t. Most mainstream porn has some really demeaning shit, and it’s getting worse. There was once a time when most porn scenes didn’t finish with a man ejaculating in a woman’s mouth and face. Now, it is standard. The verbal abuse is commonplace as well.
If you don’t notice this, you are being willfully blind or you simply don’t care.
Also, sex between a white woman and a black man, or the other way around, is not really shown as animal on human sex.
You’re kidding right? Why are those scenes always advertised as “white slut goes to the ghetto and is fucked by 5 black thugs”?. C’mon!
Perhaps the distinction between sex that’s agressive, and ‘hate’ sex, is getting less meaningful. I just think that that’s an overstatement.
Declaring modern porn abusive and demeaning is no overstatement. It’s out there and it’s getting meaner and more popular. Ask yourself: is this how most women like sex? Do you think most women enjoy being slapped around and deepthroated until they vomit? Do most women tolerate having their faces ejaculated on? I don’t deny that some women do, but the woman’s shock in the article that Amanda quoted is likely how most women react when watching these scenes.
Amanda, are you equating pro-life (or, fine, “anti-choice”) politics with violence against women? I’m not sure if I’m reading that into your post or not.
Well, Petey, anti-choice positions ARE violence against women.
They deny women the control of their own bodies and personhood. Once you’re not a real human, you don’t really count, and any abuse can be justified.
Seriously. Just because a woman has the right to an abortion doesn’t mean she will if it’s not the best decision for her. But take away that right, and you force women to be walking incubators, willing or not.
Look at the first part of this post–men are intimidating and tricking their partners into pregnancy. It’s a control mechanism that has no respect for either the woman or any child that might result.
Amanda, a lot of violent gay porn is out there… if you’re looking for it.
If you look for it. But if you look for non-violent straight porn, you have to look hard for it. See what I’m saying? The norm in straight porn in misogynist violence; stuff that doesn’t convey the message that a sexual women deserves to be abused is what you have to dig for.
Is porn overall more violent than it has been up to now? I don’t know; I have the opposite problem of Amanda in that I don’t watch a lot of straight porn, it all seems odd to me.
I don’t actually watch that much porn. I probably would, except that it’s difficult to find something that doesn’t immediately put me off my lunch with the violence towards women and the overall hate. It’s Pavlovian—you go looking to get turned on, you get turned off and a queasy feeling (do men hate me that much?), so you’re not going to ruin a good mood like that again. Gay porn is a much better bet, actually.
But my impression is that there’s a lot of perfectly ordinary, vanilla stuff that doesn’t involve the kind of disgusting abuse described in the Nerve piece (which brings us right back round to the “all porn is rape” type of discussions, but nevermind that), and that the vast amount of straight porn isn’t as violent as what’s in that piece.
Except that it is. Read the whole piece, that’s his point. He and his wife were looking for the elusive “vast majority vanilla” and kept hitting their heads against the reality, which is that the vast majority of porn is basically about who can abuse “sluts” the most.
I don’t like the term “vanilla” as an opposite of “misogynist” anyway. That implies that the metric to measure how hot or kinky something is is to measure how much hatred is expressed towards women. It implies that male sexual arousal is based on hate, which I hope isn’t true for at least some men. I’m even under the impression that some men, when faced with open hatred for women, get increasing turned off, not turned on.
I can’t say that violence against women is a new thing in porn—the one thing that put me off the Auslander piece is that he describes John Holmes as one of the actors of a more innocent time. Holmes was actually a big part (fictionalized in the movie “Boogie Nights”) of this move to make porn movies with “plots” like real movies. Of course, the plots they came up with were all about teams of bad women who needed to be punished through raping and killing, especially if they were lesbians. One Holmes movie I saw had a guy fucking a woman while he drowned her to death in a bowl of soup.
Now, there was a period after that when most porn you saw was actually the giddy fun Auslander describes. The “plots” were pool boys and sneaking around at work. Not so much anymore. If something is made for money, odds are that it’s about how much the actors can torture some woman. There’s still a lot of alternatives out there, of course, but again, their alternative status marks them as separate from mainstream porn that peddles in misogyny.
Petey, I define forcing women to give birth against their will to be violence, yes. Forcing a woman to have sex against her will is undeniably violence, so why would forced childbirth not be?
You’re kidding right? Why are those scenes always advertised as “white slut goes to the ghetto and is fucked by 5 black thugs”?. C’mon!
As I said, BeaTricks, not animal-on-human sex. The white ’slut’ (demeaning word for woman) goes to the ‘ghetto’ (scary/exciting, black area) and is fucked by 5 black ‘thugs’ (word for criminal, sounds like something from rap music).
I don’t see any words that suggest animals. I see words that are demeaning to women, and to blacks (calling blacks criminals, etc.). But, my point is that this mostly fits in with people’s fantasies about dangerous, yet exciting, sex that’s “edgy” or even “forbidden”, in a scary area of town, instead of barnyard sex or something. It doesn’t say that the blacks are animals- though I admit it basically does say they are criminals.
About mainstream porn, I totally do admit that much of it is quite demeaning to women. To the point that, watching it leaves me, a man in my 30s, with a bad feeling in my gut. And yes, the mouth ejaculation thing is wierd, and I don’t get why its popular.
Maybe part of this is that I don’t go for the ‘new’ porn as much, beacuse it tends to put me off my lunch, and therefore I am not viewing the same porn that others are.
I know of at least a couple of cases where abusers who coerced or pressured a woman into getting pregnant escalated their violence (or became physically violent for the first time) as she got closer to her delivery. No surprise I’m sure to most of you (pregnancy being one of the worst times for abuse), but it underlines that the child is just, to his mind, another potential weapon against her.
Okay, atheist has successfully split a hair, but in the course, has completely proven my point, that this porn is despicable and racist. You won the tree and lost the forest, dude. Well done. I’m not even sure what you were arguing against, if you concede what we’re saying was true, that most of what you’ll find in terms of mainstream porn is basically hate speech.
Couldn’t read all of this …very ugly and longish too.
But emblematic of that:
-Woman is always the target of so much evil.-
Darfur has always been a place to harvest slaves,
tends to black ~ black and is still arable.
There is a mix of politics-of-oil wealth, ritual genital mutilation;
even the brutal xenophobia of racial/ethnic ‘cleansing’
in this rancid stew as well…
But woman is always the real and intended victim.
They mostly JUST kill the guys horribly…
but for the girls there are ’special’ consequences…
Of being. Of being…then. Of being…there. At..all.
Worth the read tho.
Here — just a small clip.:
From The Sunday Times
September 23, 2007
Curse of the Janjaweed
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2489206.ece
“The first man went off in pursuit of other women, while the second tore off her tobe, a large veil that covers the head and body, and screamed at her:
“Unclean slave! I will give you a pale-skinned baby.” Then he thrust himself upon her so violently, she bled: “Slave woman!
Your children will be Arabs, and they will inherit this land.”
Where does all the girl-on-girl porn (and there is a lot of it) fall in to the debate on porn? I know, for instance, that Jenna Jameson refused to do porn with other men once she got married. Most of her movies that she now produces, from what I understand, focus on (probably straight) women having sex with other women. It doesn’t seem very extreme (if by ‘extreme’, we mean ‘violent’). In fact, much porn out there is of the straight women having sex with other women variety… is it exempt?
JLP —
This is why the “male gaze” originated in film theory.
If the shoe fits…Indeed. There is non-vanilla porn which manages to be raunchy and aggressive without being hateful and degrading - some of Tristan Taormino’s work, for example. She has produced videos with kink without any of the “dur hur hurrr, look what we can make the stupid slut do for a few bucks!” vibe.
And yes, I’d absolutely oppose the notion that male sexual arousal is based on hate. I find porn interesting because I love sex, not because I hate women, and the overtly hateful stuff just creeps me out. I think the serious degradation trend in porn came about to a large degree from producers seeing Max Hardcore prove there was a market for this crap in the mid-to-late 90s, at which point it was suddenly everywhere. Since it wasn’t always quite like this, I can only hope that it’s a phase and that this material will become old and tired to most (if probably never all, sadly) of the porn-consuming public.
JenLovesPonies, in my reletively limited experience lesbian porn geared towards stright people tends to still use a lot of misogynist languge and is definately very phallocentric, but it is far les likely for one partner to outright torture the other. Maybe that accounts for its popularity amoung “vanilla” straight people. If you search for girl on girl porn (to masturbate to, with or without BC or a hand mirror) you stand a much better chance of not horrific abuse.
But — what if there actually isn’t really a market for non-degrading, non-misogynistic, egalitarian porn? I mean, is porn really necessary?
I don’t think that I would watch/purchase porn even if it were completely and utterly non-degrading (except perhaps as a sociological curiosity). Why? Because there’s something just weird to me about watching video of other people going at it so that I can get myself off — there’s something inherently objectifying and troubling about it.
And I think most people who take an egalitarian stance on gender relations — including people on this board who wish there was more woman-friendly porn out there — almost inevitably prefer real human contact and the complexity of real people over the interactions of people in porn, however artfully done.
So maybe you guys would buy some porn — to supplement your sexual life, not as the chief component of it. Meanwhile, the people who get off on the degradation and humiliation of women — I think for them, porn forms the main component of their sexual lives, because there aren’t really so many women out there that will let you torture them. So they probably buy TONS of porn.
Even if there were equal numbers of people who want “happy” porn and people who want degrading porn, the market share of the latter would be disproportionately larger.
In fact, much porn out there is of the straight women having sex with other women variety…
Not nearly as much as you’d like to think. It’s more of a niche fetish (if it is genuine honest-to-god woman-on-woman). Most w-on-w porn actually involves one or more men, who are either watching and masturbating on the performers or are somehow involved in the sex act itself.
The biggest reality check of my life was when I moved into my new apartment and discovered that the previous tenant (who owned a small movie store) had been subscribed to the AVN catalog. This magazine, which has been arriving promptly in my mailbox every quarter, is in short a comprehensive breakdown of the current trends is pornography, both in “regular” porn and in the “underground” or “alternative” outfits that many people are so fond of crowing about.
I’ve noted that, consistently, the movies that get the most print space and are noted to be the most popular are, in this order:
1. “Extreme hardcore” movies, sometimes described as “Gonzo” or “POV,” which involve (at the bare minimum): gagging, choking, “facials” and/or some form of humiliation. I won’t go into detail about what the most popular of these videos includes; we’ll just say that they go beyond the bare minimum.
2. “First timers” or “barely legal” movies. Some of these movies feature actresses that are just starting out in the industry or have just turned 18, and sadly these are the least egregious of this genre. The really horrible movies feature actresses of unknown age who, while probably legal, genuinely look to be between the ages of 12-16. Many of these actresses are dressed in clothing appropriate for 10-year-olds; some have braces. Yes, braces.
Not much experience with porn, but it goes back a ways — over 30 years, and it would seem that one basic element in pornography may have always been to deliberately demean women.
Was taken to a “porn theater” in the early ’70s and ran out at a scene in which naked women were spanked with ping pong paddles.
Later saw Deep Throat and The Devil in Miss Jones in the theaters when they were fashionable, and although I don’t remember any particularly demeaning scenes (other than the basic “clitoris in her throat” premise) my next unlucky experience in the late ’70s, was to walk out of another that involved urination on the woman.
Enough to turn me off porn for decades, although as a journalist I was once taken to lunch in the ’80s salmon with truffles!) by a woman porn producer (who claimed her porns were woman-oriented — didn’t trust that idea enough to actually watch one.
Since have rented a total of three porn videos. Maybe not enough to justify a theory, but here goes: when having sex was considered demeaning enough to debase a woman, porn was more vanilla. The sexual revolution that began to mess with the equation (women + sex = shameful) must have been frustrating to men who feel the need to demean women for being gatekeepers to the vagina.
Hence, as sex becomes socially less shameful for women, those with the need to see them debased upped the ante.
Which doesn’t take into account the legendary — or mythical — old blue movie woman-and-donkey combination. Although if it did exist, would have been considerably more rare than the violent and debasing porn now apparently ubiquitous online or at the video store.
I’m not a huge consumer of porn films, and I tend to prefer my porn in written form–usually erotic novels, etc. However, most of the stuff that I’ve seen (Vivid and such from the Playboy channel generally–I think they mostly market to the straight, vanilla couple stuff, like the husband and myself) tends not to be overtly hateful. There is some of the standard cultural misogyny that you’d find in any product these days, but I’ve almost never seen any of the actual violence, ejaculating on the woman, etc. it tends to be more of the fun, stupid plot variety. But, on the few occasions we’ve ordered from one of the other channels, it’s been pretty bad. Bad enough that I wasted the few dollars we paid to order it, because I just couldn’t stomach it–and I’m sure that what I’ve seen and couldn’t watch isn’t even close to being the worst stuff out there, it’s probably considered more tame than most.
I had an abuser who spent six months pressuring me into marriage (I had the sense not to comply.)
But marriages easily go poof these days, a child is a way to torture and control a woman for decades on end.
There are also restrictions on marriage for teenagers, depending on the state, a teenager may need a parent’s permission to marry. No such requirement to become pregnant.
The care of the baby falls to the woman, the abuser can dodge support and responsibility (especially as a teenager) and only use baby as a prop for control.
Judy Brown — the problem with Deep Throat isn’t necessarily what goes on in the movie. It’s the living hell the actress was in in real life over the making of it. Linda Lovelace (can’t remember real name) has since written about it, and it is instructive concerning the porn industry, even the corners where the product isn’t mind shatteringly violent and dehumanizing.
I’m well aware of Linda Lovelace’s life story — both as someone who lived through that period, a journalist interested in the biographies of those in the news, and a bespoke feminist for nearly 40 years.
I was talking about the content of film Deep Throat, which, if memory serves, contained scenes no more demeaning to the character she portrayed than the average vanilla porn film.
You’re teaching your grandma how to suck eggs, honey!
I’m glad you know it; some folks don’t, and sight Deep Throat as women friendly, or an example of a successful porn that didn’t have to be violent. So, if I don’t need to inform you, there are probably plenty readers who could use the info.
But is not the reality just as important as the film product in talks about porn? After all, the whole point of discussions like this on porn is the real harm it does to women (and to men, obviously, though in different ways). It’s not evil by itself, and it doesn’t exist in a vacuum — it is both symptomatic of and contributing to a violent women hating culture.
I’ve also personally known some involved with the porn industry, and yes, from what I’ve heard, the actresses are horribly demeaned on set, no matter the fluff biographies they may later compose with a ghost writer.
For instance, one woman who was a makeup artist for porn films, but couldn’t take it after a certain point.
She’d have to refresh makeup after every scene because the actresses had cried off — and those who weren’t sobbing on set, were on drugs, so that they’d blow whatever they were paid in order to get through that scene.
I’ve been on the planet over a half century, worked as a journalist, live in Los Angeles, and have heard a lot of stories, and have read more than enough on feminist topics.
So I’m also aware that sex workers were, in high numbers, sexually abused as children. That debasement and betrayal of trust is being played out again in their porn work, and it’s unsettling to realize that debasement porn is becoming the norm.
As I said in a comment that apparently hasn’t been posted: I’ve also known some of those involved in making porn, and the stories they bring back from the set aren’t pretty.
Including a makeup artist who finally quit, because it was too disturbing to refresh makeup after every shot after it had been cried off by the actresses.
Except for the actresses who had already blown their day’s pay on well, blow, in order to make it through.
Statistically, most sex workers had been sexually abused as children. It’s unsettling that basic betrayal and debasement is not only being reenacted, but that debasement porn is becoming the norm.
Queen of Spades- thats very interesting about the AVN catalogue! It is entirely possible that my perception of pornography is different than what is actually out there, and I had no idea it was actually tracked anywhere, though in retrospect, that makes a certain sense. I don’t know how I feel about “barely legal” type porn, though I can see where the appeal could come from- in the kinky community, there is certainly a lot of age play, including a seemingly large section of men who dress up in diapers. I don’t think there is a huge amount of porn made about that though.
Bah-wah?- I agree, which is why I mentioned it. I have seen some very straight lesbian porn for men, but I have never seen anything abusive in them (though I bet its out there, and I know there is female dom-female sub porn out there). It seems like the “lesbian” porn is marketed towards couples as less threatning to the relationship.
Ok, I am probably going to regret this — 20 years ago I vowed to avoid the porn debate after I lost a some good friends over disagreements we had after attending the ‘84 anti-porn ordinance hearings in Indianapolis:
Amanda, what is your point in this post: is it to raise cultural awareness of the fact that porn has become more blatantly misogynistic? or is it a call for political action - an enforcement of obscenity laws or a the creation of a newer version of the Minneapolis Civil-Right Ordinance?
The former. I have no idea what the latter would even be. I think raising awareness is in itself an action—as the dramatic reduction in rape shows, simply making people aware and unable to hide their heads in the sand can have a dramatic impact. Empowering women not to feel like there’s something wrong with them if they are uncomfortable with a boyfriend who gets off to violent porn is a good step. Helping men face up to certain things they’d prefer not to think about will help.
I heard a caller on Dan Savage’s show the other day about to break my heart. She made sure to swear up and down that she’s as pro-porn as they come, etc. And she and her boyfriend have it on every time they do it, and that’s fine, she swears, she’s not a controlling bitch and did she mention that she’s not a controlling bitch? But what bothers her—and really, she hates to have such a horribly feminine sex-hating reaction—was that he doesn’t look at her when they’re fucking, but seems to regard her as similiar to his hand when he’s masturbating, just a slightly different feeling. She’s not a controlling bitch, though! And she feels terrible about even bringing it up, and she’s sure she’s wrong to be bothered…
Dan thankfully told her that if she’s not cool with being a masturbation aid, she can reject that. But it was sad she felt so disempowered that she didn’t feel she had a right to have sexual experiences with her boyfriend that involved her actually being a part of the sex.
Setting aside the violent porn story for a moment (God, though, is that upsetting sounding), I’m a little fascinated by this study of young men forcing girlfriends to get pregnant. I know this will sound more than a little naive, but I’m really somewhat surprised at the extent of this (at least in the study), given that we’ve got a lot of anecdotal evidence suggesting that young men walk away from their parental responsibilities, don’t bond with their kids, etc. Again, it’s naive to ask… but why would these men be so violently focused on getting partners pregnant?
You might want to examine your assumptions about “girlfriends” and “partners” here - they may not be how said manipulators see the women in question.
Interestingly, 80s porn seems considerably less nasty on the women. What the hell changed in the past 25 years?
Men had to compete with women on an increasingly level playing field, in the workplace and financially. Many found, horror of horrors, they couldn’t.
“Bitches gotta pay”…
I just want to interject a tangent based on Queen of Spades comment:
The hatred that I feel for the pornographers who first decided that a jackass with a camera harassing actresses pretending to be random people on the street “Gonzo” is nearly unrivaled. I actually spent years pursuing a journalism career out of respect for Hunter Thompson’s body of work (before eventually deciding that I like procrastinating too much to get started in the business enough to goof off as he did). The hateful, utterly fake nature of it runs so contrary to what Gonzo was supposed to mean that I want to beat someone with a pool cue.
Fake cock fake cock, it won’t get you knocked
Up with an unwanted ball and chain
Down tied to a deadweight
Fake cock fake cock, switch today!
Good cock good love is still the best
But a fake cock is better
When real cock comes complete with a real DICK!
I for one, blame the Queen of the Wands, they’ve put the mood of rhyme in me since their vagina dentata song!
…on the note of rights, it’s really bull that the little men in the southern states of America managed to get sex toys banned. I guess the zucchini sale will go up!