I saw an author, Gail Dines, on (Australian) ABC's Lateline last night. She was there to discuss/sell her book, "Pornland'. The page for the book on her site is - http://gaildines.com/pornland/pornland-about-the-book/ She made the valid comment that things had changed since the Playboy and Penthouse years. That is, if you grew up during the 70s and early 80s you might have thought of pornography as Playboy and Penthouse - hardcore material was rare. So sure, these days there's far more hardcore and it's far more accessible. But she went on to describe how much hardcore porn has changed in the last twenty years. She claimed that nowadays gonzo porn is the most popular by far. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't argue hard against that. But the next thing she said suggested some bias. She claimed gonzo porn is porn where the girl has a penis forced down her throat until she gags and vomits, where women are hit and have their hair pulled, and generally are violently assaulted. I think that stuff has happened in some gonzo, and some producers still try to do it sometimes. But looking at the best-seller charts on porn DVD sites it's clear that those titles are not mainstream gonzo. There's a lot of gonzo and most of it doesn't rely on cock-choking and slapping. Same with the tubesites - that stuff is not their highest rating material, not that I ever check them out. She went on to acknowledge the market for feature porn and female-produced porn, but they weren't the focus of her argument. What she's really on about is that porn is affecting young people badly. She complains that Jenna Jameson is seen as a star worth emulating, now followed by Sasha Grey. She believes that commonly boys are watching the cock-choking porn from age 11, thus leading to unhealthy boy/girl relationships in teenage years. If any boy watched loops of Khan Tusion and Max Hardcore every day from age 11 I don't doubt they'd be headcases. But they don't. And, not to put too fine a point on it, how healthy were boy/girl relationships before popularisation of porn? They weren't ideal in my childhood. I knew girls who were date-raped, one by four guys, boys who were so embarrassed and depressed they attempted suicide, and plenty of general mind-fuckedness from teenage romance. I know some adults 30 years later who still haven't recovered from their teenage relationships. So anyway, there's the latest "Porn is taking us to hell in a handbasket!" publication for you.
Just another bare bum in the shiower 1739 Posts 12/04
Posted - Oct 7 2010 : 6:36AM
Some very broad generalizations she is making there that don't stand up to scrutiny. I was a kid in the 70s and 80s and had no problem accessing hardcore porn other than penthouse or playboy. It was all around and you knew it was around. The popularity of "Deep Throat" didn't mean that teenage girls were being forced to deep throat in the 70s, either. The vast bulk of porn produced today is quite vanilla and the same stuff that has been around for decades. If Max Hardcore type porn was at all popular and making record profits and topping video rentals she might have a point. But look at the porn actually being sold - bloody Batman XXX and Avatar XXX!!! Porn reflects society - it doesn't influence society to the degree these anti-porn crusaders would have us believe. Young girls are fucking themselves silly just because they can - they have greater freedom than ever before, more money than ever before, more options than ever before. If they want rough sex, they can always find some guy to give them rough sex. If they want cuddly, non-penetrative sex, then they have Justin Bieber or vampires.
I saw an interview with Stan Lee where he discussed how comic books at one time were under fire for corrupting kids. Then movies, tv shows, and video games have all taken their turn. I certainly don't think kids should have access to porn, but the argument that a certain type of media destroys the judgement of everyone that views it never holds water. Also, for her to describe gonzo that way demonstrates that she is truly ill informed. Look, if you want to find examples of bad things happening to women in porn, you can certainly find them. But that sure doesn't represent the whole.
Her main argument is that there's an inevitable slippery slope from softcore to harder and harder porn. People start with something like Playboy, moving to hardcore when the thrill wears off, until they eventually end up addicted to the most abusive and extreme pornography. According to her, many people will then move on to raping women and molesting children in real life. To support her claims she holds up stuff like Max Hardcore as representative of modern mainstream porn, acts as if there was nothing harder than Hustler magazine before the 1990s, and ignores the continuing popularity of nude photography sites like Met-Art and Femjoy, porn features and parodies, or anything else that doesn't fit her theory. She's come out with a lot of other wild claims, including stating that every single woman in porn is raped on set, and that it's common for women to be mutilated during filming, their bodies so damaged they never recover. I'm pretty sure I also remember her claiming that women in porn have so many tattoos because their pimps brand them with marks of ownership. She's pretty well known for her anti-porn roadshow, travelling around colleges showing porn to students, preaching about how evil it is, and then taking home $5000 for each lecture. It's funny how you get some conservatives/feminists campaigning against optional college sex education workshops, but because she's against porn, Dines can get away with showing clips and stills from the most extreme porn, in required lectures for women's studies students. She was featured in this Penn & Teller Bullshit! episode.
I guess we just have to accept that people like this exist...there's a profit to be made after all. I don't mind a debate about the good and bad of porn, that's a fair discussion. We have to base it off of accurate information though, distorting and just flat out lying does't get us anywhere. Edited by - Mutley72 on 10/8/2010 1:17:22 PM
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Oct 8 2010 : 10:45AM
That says it. Dines, like all anti porners, and all anti anything-ers for that matter, comes to her subject having already made up her mind about it. She latches on to what seems to prove her bias, dismisses or ignores what disproves it, and simply insists that everything else supports her point, whether it does or not. What's new with Dines is the absence of the stridency and hysteria of her predecessors, that kind of "anyone who makes or watches porn should be boiled in oil" hostility. She's a kinder gentler porn hater. Otherwise, the old truths apply. Dines, dealing with material that is repugnant or at least uncomfortable for her, hasn't bothered to really inform herself about it. Hence her misidentification of Gonzo and her implications that lowlifes like Max Hardcore represent the total product. I have a theory that these anti porners are so at pains to condemn porn sometimes because, when they look at it, all set to see something disgusting and evil, they instead get turned on, and their inevitable overstatement of porn's effects is their denial of it's unexpected power to turn them into actual enjoyers of porn. Indeed I think Wendy Chapkis reported some anti porn feminists actually admitting that watching the stuff turned them on.
I keep trying to get addicted to porn. So far, I haven't managed to find myself naked in the fetal position in a dark corner somewhere begging for a DVD.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Oct 9 2010 : 5:52AM
There are legit criticisms of porn but people like Dines are not interested in improving pornography and that's why their arguments are based on half-truths and distortions. The left critics of porn can never come right out and say it but the implication is always some kind of legal repression being required.
she must have only studied the parody porn from porn valley, lol. i haven't watched an american scene in years, and haven't seen any vomit, spit, or scat. :)
Dines has made it clear that legal sanctions against porn are exactly what she wants. She delivered a speech to members of Congress, alongside Shelley Lubben, Donna Rice Hughes and Patrick Trueman (the former DOJ obscenity prosecutor), campaigning for stricter obscenity laws to crack down on pornography. She's also called for a revival of the anti-porn legislation Dworkin/MacKinnon unsuccessfully campaigned for in the 1980s, which would criminalise all pornography. Something she is vague about is what she actually classes as porn. She concentrates on the most extreme stuff and treats it as if it's typical, but she also rants about porn creeping into advertising and the mainstream media. For example, she's singled out health and fitness magazines as an example of disguised porn available on the high street, and claimed that the "fuck me look" seen in advertising and music videos entices men to rape women. To me it doesn't sound like even the most softcore photography would be acceptable to her. The thing that gets me is that she's highly respected as an expert on pornography, with numerous awards and articles published in academic journals, when to me it looks like most of her arguments are no more based in reality than the moralising from Bible bashers.
It's easy to claim you're an expert on a subject which is taboo. Who is going to admit sufficient knowledge to contradict you? Besides, there's an obvious choir out there, so it isn't like she has to do any heavy lifting (which is a good thing, because her reasoning is complete and utter crap).
I haven't read this text, but I've read some other stuff by her from a while back. What bothers me is not so much that she and others like her are calling out porn for this&that (all media forms and everything in general could use some calling out), it's that they isolate porn as somehow a cause/originator, demonize all people who disagree, and stomp on any open dialogue. I have had first/second hand experience of Dines and someone else doing this in a feminist/women's studies sphere. It was depressing, not because I felt dismissed/misunderstood, but because I honestly agree with some of the stuff they say and yet do not get the same kind of open ears in return. There's just no space for discourse or growth, which in my eyes is antithetical to feminism, and education/activism in general. Edited by - Gore Gore Girl on 10/9/2010 6:47:15 PM
^ These women are convinced of their theories, why should they be open to what you have to say? You only have a valid contribution to make so long as it agrees with their received wisdom.
^ True, though there is a thin line between persuasion and education. One of my rules (that I sometimes break) is to limit the degree to which you go into the classroom with an agenda or "right" answer. I'm well Mr. d! I have some good news I may email you about. :)
The problem with the people who attack porn in this manner rarely get challanged with the truth unless it's by people actually working in porn. I'm sure a majority of people exposed to what she claims know it's exaggerated and not completely true but to defend it you end up looking like a pervert or you're pro-porn. The people against porn love hearing this because they already believe porn is evil and vile. Porn has been been and probablt always will be an easy subject to attack and lies because most people are too embarrased to defend it. She would probably never have a real debate with a pornstar or someone in the business because they'd expose her exaggerations and lies.
I like Gore Gore Girl's points. There ARE some fair criticisms to be made, but there just isn't a dialogue. And until there is, nothing changes. By closing their ears, the people arguing against porn make sure that the silent majority of us that consume porn, aren't listening to them in return.
I know you can't get her to change her stance but she knows much of what she's saying isn't true and it would be nice if someone with crediblity called her on it. If she wants to be anti-porn that fine but don't spread lies about the industry and the people who watch it.
^ One of the things we humans should always bear in mind is that the world that we know is entirely constructed by our brains. Sure, there's something out there, but it seems pretty clear that our brains construct a reality out of that something, rather than faithfully report the reality. Or, to put it in more common terms, we see what we expect to see. Thus, I wouldn't say that Dines is lying through her teeth so much as seeing everything through the filter of her beliefs.
Her argument regarding the effect of sexual images relies on a pretty twisted view of men in general, not just porn viewers. According to her lectures, men can be triggered to go out and rape random women just because they've heard Madonna talking about sex, or seen models pouting on the cover of a magazine:To me it's similar to the misogynistic old idea that sluts are asking for it, only with a feminist media studies twist. Edited by - Dave_K99 on 10/10/2010 5:18:24 PM
I agree with that in many cases but I don't really think it applies here. I'm sure she hates porn and think it's harmful for various reasons. That part I get and don't have a problem with. However, if she really did any research at all it would be obvious some or most of the horrible things she's claiming are far from the norm. She knows that the case yet she's presenting her findings/research as the terrible things she claims are common and run of the mill and purposely ignores the much more common occurances which aren't nearly as gruesome and terrifying and wouldn't help her agenda. A person who says such things out of ignorance would apply more to what you said. An informed person who is aware of the whole truth but only choses to talk about the exceptions as if they were the rule to further their agenda is a different thing.
^ My attempts to list companies/directors/genres/specific films that do not represent the "abusive/degrading porn" standard in online discussion/classrooms/other academic spaces have routinely been met with the argument that my suggestions are exceptions that prove the rule. Or, more bluntly, they say "So what?" and "Who cares?" To them I'm just listing individual examples, while they are discussing a pervasive trend. I always say that porn is the only genre in academic study where the lowest common denominator is allowed (encouraged) to speak for the whole.
Gonzo porn really what most people put out right now but it's still #3 in terms of overall sales. First there is the celebrity sex tape and then second is the parody. As many die hard fans as girls like Tori Black has, a gonzo movie like Tori Black is Filthy will do well but won't come remotely close to the numbers of a movie like Kendra Exposed or BatFxxx or Superman XXX. It's just not going to happen. Now in terms of gonzo movies only there are really two kinds - it took me awhile to understand it but well basically there are the Florida type people. I don't want to call them the lesser but well, if the shoe fits. :P Basically they all get in a van, go pick up some chick on the side of the road or at a mini golf course, have sex with her and maybe her friend, then laugh as they dump the chick out on the side of the road. I don't really know of any Florida based company that doesn't make this kind of trash. These boys club female degradation type movies gained some in popularity in the early 2000s but have since dropped DRASTICALLY in sales figures. In fact, I won't mention what title but I know recently one title was released by some "porn geeks" we shall call them and they sold only 333 copies. TOTAL! Not the opening month, TOTAL!!!!!!!!!! The more popular mainstream gonzo, as someone in this thread so eloquently put it, are the titles like Tori Black Dirty Whore, which is a movie with no real attempt at acting, but instead is just a theme where 5 to 7 scenes are all independent but somehow related. Like all the scenes feature Tori Black or maybe like all the girls have brown hair or big tits or big asses. The market however is already becoming flooded with these higher quality gonzo movies, so although they sell much better than the trash that the Miami type people are putting out. In the end though the best money is still made by D listers like Kendra, or Heidi Montag or the girls next door twin, whatever her name is, putting out sex scenes. Then a well marketed parody. As far as the big budget movies are done, they just flat out aren't being done anymore by anyone expect Bluebird films and well I have NO clue how in the heck they are making their money back on them. There is just quite honestly no way they are. You don't create a porno with a cast of 60 performers, that each earned their full rate mind you, then throw in lavish costumes, sets, period cars, etc. and now marketing as well and expect to ever see a return. I heard the guy spent over $1 million to make and market that movie. He won't ever see a tiny percentage of that money in return. So I can't really explain why he keeps making those big budget films. It has to be just a hobby or something of some crazy rich guy because no way is he doing it to make money.
I've looked around ADT and I can't find any acknowledgement that ADT is quoted in Pornland. Y'all knew this, right? Pages 68 and 69 discuss the details of the longstanding "Unexpected Leak" ADT thread. Just google "unexpected leak anal" and a Googlebooks snippet from Pornland is one of the first results. Similarly to other old-school prudism, this website is referred to as "the Adult DVD talk" -- kinda like those old people who say "the gay" or "the sex".
It is funny that out of all the porn forums it's ADT that's held up as proof that watching porn turns men into sick raving misogynists. I can think of worse dens of scum and villainy on the internet. In my experience you see at least as much casual misogyny on the average technology geek forum, but I'm not sure anyone would argue that computers and gadgets make people hate women. From the sound of it Gail Dines and Shelley Lubben did pretty badly in a recent Cambridge Union porn debate. Here's an account of the debate from "sexademic" Jessi Fischer:It's nice to hear that someone actually challenged Dines' claims; from what I've seen she usually just lectures and won't take on any difficult questions.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 20 2012 : 10:52AM
I have "bumped" this topic (I THINK that's the term) only for what I think should be the final dismissal of this woman and everything she says. I have just looked at this book for the first time. I learned from this forum that I was "quoted" in it, and I admit that my sole less than obsessive curiosity about it was to see what the woman quoted of mine. I of course expected something that was lifted out of context to appear as if I agreed with or provided some evidence of her contentions about the unremitting evils of porn. That's not what I found, but what I did find didn't surprise me either. As far as I can recall in NONE of my posts did I say what she attributes to me. Searching this board has also failed to turn up anything LIKE what Ms. Dines quotes from me, either verbatim or even by implication. Finally, I have never EVER used the phrase "As we shall see" here, or anywhere else. All of which only verifies that Ms. Dines' view of porn is an ill-informed, prejudiced, cynical pandering for pay to an audience that already agreed with her. Now, in addition to being an irrelevant piece of propaganda, you may also presume it to lack any integrity or respect for truth.
Thanks for bumping this interesting thread, Duefuss. I happen to be reading a rather dated book right now called Defending Pornography (Strossen) which argues against the laws Mackinnon and Dworkin were pushing hard back in the 80s and 90s (still are, in an evolved form). Note Gore Gore Girl's comment: "There's just no space for discourse or growth, which in my eyes is antithetical to feminism, and education/activism in general." Last night I was reading a passage in which Strosser noted Catherine MacKinnon's complete unwillingness to debate the issue of pornography with another woman. She will debate a male, but apparently the idea that a woman -- especially one who identifies herself as a feminist -- simply publicly disagreeing with her procensorship stance would somehow undercut the supposed universality of her argument. (MacKinnon defends her refusal by calling such debates "a pimp strategy to hide behind feminist women.") Perhaps more on this later when I finish the book.
Bumping this as Dines's Stop Porn Culture conference is coming up, and to post a couple of links in connection to the planned protests. The first, Porn, Women's Rights, and the Left, by Jerry Barnett. It's published in Counterpunch, home to many of Dines's pieces including the one where she said kink.com violated the UN Convention Against Torture (no joke), so this is pretty interesting. Also, see UK Pornstars Fight Back! by Renee Richards and A Critical Look at Stop Porn Culture (by a Lesbian Woman) both of which critique SPC and the conference.
Guh!!!! Don't get me started on Fail Dines. She's a pathetic little woman who seemingly hates the heterosexual male. She claims not to care what we do in our bedrooms, but the second that means turning on a DVD, Video Tape or computer & watching consenting adults have sex, it's the end of the fucking world. She refuses to debate Tristan Taormino or Nina Hartley or any pro-porn industry women. She regularly insults females & practically the entire male gender. Gail is the biggest sexist misandropic I've seen. She basically treats all men as walking hard-ons who will rape anything remotely wet or warm. Her organization never ever mentions female on female violence in pornography (I've seen some pretty brutal strap-on scenes, humiliation, and even scat fetish - look at 2 girls, 1 cup) male on male rape, or even female on male pegging porn. It seems unless it has no plot line, and male on female penetration Dines' doesn't mention it. She regularly asks female students if they shave their public hair (if a male teacher asked that it'd be grounds for sexual harassment) which is quite frankly none of her fucking business. She has even quoted members of this site in her speaking engagements, MIS-quoting & cherry picking I might add. Overall Dines is a poor excuse as an academic and doesn't have a single clue as to what the fuck she is talking about (and if she does, she's a liar).
I agree with you on that there point. There is nothing more frustrating than that moment when you realize that a conversation is going nowhere. The fact that they are not at all receptive is ridiculous. A real conversation has to have open ears from both humans involved in the discussion.
I agree with stopping trafficking (everything from coffee bean slaves to sex slaves), I agree that children should not be exposed to pornography, and any company caught actually abusing workers should definitely be punished to full extent of the law. As for her claims of rape, abuse & pedophilia. I'm not buying into that. I don't think our society is the way it is because of porn. I think porn is the way it is due to our society. Products are usually created based on desire, interest & demand. There definitely are some kinks & types of porn that I definitely think 'What the fuck? Why would anyone like that?' (scat, rape fantasy, incest fantasy to name a few) But what other people watch isn't my business, especially since it's ACTING. Same when it comes to actual 'reality'. There are some things in my personal sex life that some people would probably be disturbed by it and I feel the same way about others... but as long as everyone is consenting to all the things involved & of legal age, it shouldn't be anybody's business.
Acknowledging the diversity of pornography undermines her core argument, so she either ignores it or explains how it simply reinforces her argument somehow (see her ridiculously ignorant arguments about feminist porn). I bought and read PORNLAND, and look no further than the first chapter for evidence of her fraudulent work. I loaned the book out so I have to work from memory, but she makes claims about the first hits a youngster might find if he were to google "porn" and it is all of the DP and gag factor variety. Flick to the very back and you will find an accompanying footnote disclaiming that she excluded all gay porn from her discussion of these google searches because that is not her field. How convenient. What else got excluded? How, then, can she claim that these are the things a youngster finds on these internet searches? (Moreover, who google searches "porn"??) Presumably that means she excluded other genres and subgenres that were not her field? Or, perhaps "not my field" means simply "does not conform to the preconceived argument I want to make."
