Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - May 9 2006 : 8:45AM
This has just elevated the conversation to a new level. which leads to the next question: What role does porn play in this transition? Is it part of the counter revolution in trying to prevent the changes in feminity, maculinity and sexuality that radical feminists would like to bring about? Or is there a way to make porn that will facilitate the revolution so to speak?
--In my opinion most of porn as art, commodity, fantasy or otherwise is part of the counter revolution. It doesn't have to be that way. What would radical feminist porn (if that's not an oxymoron) look like?
Edited by - alexander portnoy on 5/9/2006 8:46:20 AM
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - May 9 2006 : 9:16AM
This is an anti-politics of the kind that is rampant in the United States and it's not even historically accurate especially outside of the US context. Go tell the US founding fathers and their minutemen that they were not radicals. Or the Jacobins in France, the Bolshevicks in Russia. Presently, look at Chavez (Venezuela) and Morales (Boliva) in South America, they rose to power on the platform of radical change. In all of these instances and many others not listed, the label radical was embraced by movement leaders and helped bring down the powerful, not the other way around.
Alexander Portnoy wrote:If you're a Dworkin-esque feminist, it IS an oxymoron -- but not if you're a feminist of Taormino's stripe.
Although I can't speak for Taormino, I think she'd say (and I agree) that feminist porn wouldn't look like any one particular thing. Like men, women are incredibly diverse sexually. And my belief is that sexual response comes from a much deeper place than the realm of the political.
Kami,
The porn you direct -- does it reflect what turns you on or what you think guys want to buy?
Do you enjoy any kinds of rough sex (if you don't mind saying)? My all-time favorite scene of yours is the one with Heather Gables and Mark Wood in 1 Whore Plus 1 More. It was very energetic and raw. What "place" did that performance come from?
Edited by - bob on 5/9/2006 12:17:39 PM
[Link]
jamesnadt Deactivated User
cambridge, ma 152 Posts 2/06
Posted - May 9 2006 : 12:15PM
about 50 women take home above a middle-class salary playing tennis, coaching, travel, giving 10% to the wta, etc. aren't cheap. past 50, you're playing qualifier tourney's for $25 per-diems and winning-purses equal to travel and lodging.
Alexander Portnoy wrote:Many men may fantasize about it (I do, for one), but that doesn't mean that many women don't also fantasize about it and/or play out those fantasies in a safe context.
The e-Publishers are the forerunners of women's erotica right now. I think you all might be interested in browsing a couple sites devoted to this stuff. Pay attention to the submission guidelines (no pun intended.) DON'T pay attention to the horrible "covers." These are E-books, afterall.
I'm not saying that this stuff appeals to all women. There are many who think this type of "smut" is ruining the Romance genre. To them, I say, "Loosen up."
It's interesting that many of the things we see in porn (even gonzo porn) are present in erotic/romance fiction. Many women have embraced this explicit material, while they'll still turn their noses up at the concept of watching porn.
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - May 9 2006 : 3:19PM
I would never advocate restricting or proscribing anyone's sexual practices. In fact by way of confession I'm quite turned on by playful male submission even if it gets a little rough--like when Savanna Samson slaps Mario Rossi in the finale of NDMJ. But, the Marxist-Feminist in me can't simply seperate the fantasy dreamworld of porn we download or pop in our DVD players from the coercive and dehumanizing business practices that are the norm in its workplace.
I'm all for any kind of porn as long as its made under just and humane conditions that preserves the dignity, autonomy, health and well-being of its workers. I believe that indeed erotica can be made under these conditions. Now there's a radical proposition:)
Alexander Portnoy wrote:Try to follow your own advice and see if you can explain (without cliches) this personal taste of yours:You may find that you can't explain it in terms of your social values -- or, indeed, adequately explain it at all.By contrast, I'm a "classical liberal" feminist.
As such, I don't think one needs to deny that there's a relationship between video content and the male-dominated ownership/production structure of the adult video business in order to confidently maintain that sexual fantasies (and the desire enjoy them through audio-visual and literary media) aren't reducible to mechanical Marxist takes on human psychology.
Somewhere around here is a post in which I explained my gut feeling about why porn is so rough today. It was one of the first discussions I participated in, and of course I was verbose. I'll see if I can find that.
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - May 9 2006 : 5:21PM
First let me apologize if anything I had written was taken as a personal affront in certainly was not intended as such. And I regret that my post was greeted in kind.
Don't know what else to say, boys watch porn girls read romance novels. From each according to his/her perversions, to each according to his/her gratifications.
Edited by - alexander portnoy on 5/9/2006 5:22:34 PM
Alexander Portnoy wrote:I didn't take your posted question as a personal affront (it was addressed to realtip, not me); nor did I intend to affront you. However, I am questioning your theories and poking at your methodology.Yes, and some women watch porn and some men read erotic fiction.Now we're getting somewhere!
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - May 9 2006 : 5:35PM
Like someone here once told me on another thread, "Porn wasn't meant to be over-analyzed." This is a true statement with which I definitely agree. I think this conversation is starting to make way too serious an issue of porn.
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - May 10 2006 : 9:41AM
This statement was I thought a rather clever attempt at humor.
By way of a postscript(or not), let me briefly explain my methodology. I was trying to synthesize the two perspectives broadly speaking lib. fem vs. rad. fem that we had been kicking back and forth. First Kami threw out a proposition. I developed that proposition into a theory--thesis. Subsequent posts challenged this thesis making some very valid points--antithesis. Then I tried to and was evidently unsuccessful in resolving the differences between these two different perspectives--synthesis.
No Harm, No foul. I've learned a lot from this thread and I'm very impressed by the level of discourse and candor. I don't think its possible to overanalyze these issues which in one way or another effects how each one us construct his/herself as sexual beings.
As you can tell I am conflicted about my own use of porn. And outlets like ADT give us a chance to work through these issues. I guess if I were to write a book about it would be titled: "Dr. StrangePervert: Or. How I learned To Stop Worrying and Love Cum Drenched Sluts 2.":)
Edited by - alexander portnoy on 5/10/2006 9:43:29 AM
It's funny, because the people working in porn don't seem to take it too seriously, just check out the people posting on this board or most BTS...
I live in the 'normal' world and because of this I usually only hear porn in bad contexts, which subconsiously makes me question my affection for porn, you know 'maybe they're right?'. San Fernando Valley seems like a completely diffirent world to me, like a refuge, like Denmark's legendary (but unfortunately dying) Christiania.
Yes they are. The anti-porn feminist believes that because we all live under patriarchy, all sexual fantasies are contaminated by the idea that women are inferior to men.
The pro-porn "radical" feminists love to rub one out to a video as much as the next person.
Really, there is no such species as "radical feminists". As this threads suggests, it's more of a red herring than a useful generalization at this point in our socio-cultural development.
I think there's some semantic confusion here over the differences among radical feminists, sex-positive feminists and sex radicals. The latter two groups are generally porn friendly. The former, as Sheldon says, regard pornography and all other forms of sex work as exploitation of women by patriarchal capitalism and favor its total abolition.
I wouldn't underestimate the seriousness of radical feminist opposition to pornography and most other forms of sexual behavior that we might be inclined to regard as normal and harmless, as the radical feminist position on penetrative heterosexual intercourse overall is that it is violative under all but the most rarified circumstances and that any kind of sex men like is pretty much autmatically to be regarded as degrading to women unless proven otherwise. Ur-radical feminist Catherine MacKinnon says flatly that "pornography is the ideology and rape is the action."
Though most radical feminists identifiy as leftists on other political issues, they have never hesitated to make common cause with the religious right when it comes to porn, going all the way back to the Meese Commission hearings at which MacKinnon was a featured speaker.
More recently, anti-porn feminist Pamela Paul, author of the book Pornified, turned the same trick for Republican Senator Sam Brownback's hearings on so-called "porn addiction." Likewise, another leading anti-porn radical feminist, Gail Dines, recently appeared on MSNBC, not noted for its liberal bias overall, to condemn host Rita Cosby for allowing porn industry participants to discuss their work on her show. Dines also participated in the counter-forum held to protest Larry Flynt's appearance at Harvard. One can only wonder how much airtime Dines would get from major TV networks if she wanted to talk about her views on the Iraq war instead of porn.
This unholy alliance between right and left authoritarians provides a certain measure of intellectual cover to the whacked out extremism of Brownback et al while making First Amendment liberals feel guilty about supporting sexual freedom of expresssion. It would be a mistake to underestimate the threat to such freedoms posed by an anti-porn feminist movement resurgent as it tends to be when right-wing parties are in power.
If you need further clarfication of the differences among these factions, I'd suggested googling the term "radical feminism" and seeing what comes up. I don't think you'll find many links supportive of "a good rub-off" to anyone's favorite porn.
Edited by - ernestgreene2000 on 5/19/2006 6:50:47 PM
ernestgreene2000 wrote:My point exactly. But I don't think the semantic confusion is solved by implying that there are three distinct categories of belief that can be labeled as you do.
Do you think, for instance, that sex-positive feminism isn't "radical"? (In the best possible sense of the word?)
And aren't self-described sex radicals, by and large, also feminists?
How would you characterize Tristan Taormino or Joan Kelly?
As sex positive feminists or sex radicals but definitely not as radical feminists. To say that one is both radical and feminist is not necessarily to identify oneself with the very narow and particular stripe of opinion that has claimed title to radical feminism for itself.
This is not a hot-house distinction. Self-described radical feminists despise Tristan, Annie Sprinkle, Carol Queen and Nina Hartley as traitors to the cause and servants of the patriarchy.
A little research should clear up this confusion in a big hurry.
Wrong. I get you point completely. I understand the differnce between radical and "radical." I consider sex radicals far more radical than self-identified radical feminists, whose views are essentially retread Victorian conservatism.
However, confusing the two is like confusing the Socialist Workers Party with the National Socialist White Peoples' Party. The word "socialist" appears in both names, but they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
I may not consider this worth "arguing" over either, but after having to deal with radical feminists at close quarters on many occasions, I think it's important for those who support the idea of freedom of sexual expression to recognize that they face a dangerous foe in this faction.
They are indeed "radical" in the same sense that George Bush is "radical" - outside the mainstream of public opinion with a determined agenda to force unpopular policies on unwilling citizens.
[Link]
jamesnadt Deactivated User
cambridge, ma 152 Posts 2/06
Posted - May 19 2006 : 10:31PM
are you seriously disagreeing with the flak larry flynt got for his comments at harvard? they were vile and hardly "sex-positive". of course, doesn't most of your household income come from keeping your wife in front of cameras? isn't that just the patriarchy repeating itself? just curious. i've seen you flub as many facts as you get right, and you have all day to get them right instead of write the same book as alan mcdonnell just did sans fanfare.
I see Larry Flynt as a lot like Howard Stern. Stern says all kinds of "shocking", "offensive" things because that's what he's known for. He's famous for being a "shock jock" and were it not for that, he'd probably be a janitor somewhere. Same goes for Flynt (IMHO). He's famous for being not only the Hustler guy, but also for taking on the powers that be and saying whatever it takes to get people's attention. Maybe he means it and maybe he doesn't but I'm always going to be anti anti-porn because that's where my interests lie. I have no stock in "morality" or whatever the issue of the day is with the anti-porn lobby. It all boils down to them wanting to get rid of porn any way they can anyway so it doesn't really matter what their excuse of the day is. It's all equally irrelevant to me...as long as it's all coming from the same people (and it generally does...not to generalize or anything).
Give it a rest. You have no clue how our household income is derived and I'm not interested in your opinion of Larry Flynt, or anything else for that matter.
Why don't you go back to selling worthless junk bonds to pensioners or something else that falls within your area of expertise?
[Link]
jamesnadt Deactivated User
cambridge, ma 152 Posts 2/06
Posted - May 19 2006 : 11:07PM
i've apologized(or tried to) to everyone involved in that thread. that doesn't mean i've got a history of mental-illness, vacillitating between deep-sixing the industry and embracing it when i can, or suitcase-pimping under the guise of sex-positivism. distort some more facts assuming people won't look them up man. just do it, they're ALL BENEATH you and believe everything you say.
Call me a suitcase pimp and mental case all day long if it makes you feel more manly in some way.
Like I said, your opinion comes in just about dead last among my concerns.
[Link]
jamesnadt Deactivated User
cambridge, ma 152 Posts 2/06
Posted - May 19 2006 : 11:12PM
i mostly agree about him being like howard stern.
HOWEVER. LFP was the second-largest bunch of pornographers according to a 20 hex hoover's survey.
that means the guy saying OUTLANDISH things about women is IN CHARGE of marketing them.
that disturbs me. if he feels that way and can back it up through his control of the marketplace, you're talking about something quite potent and detestable.
[Link]
jamesnadt Deactivated User
cambridge, ma 152 Posts 2/06
Posted - May 19 2006 : 11:15PM
that's fine, it's true. is it not? decade of severe clinical depression thrown in with a "tell-all" novel that can only be described as vicious, ANTI-PORNOGRAPHIC BACKLASH(i've looked at it mr. levine) makes you mentally-ill. the fact that you've shopped yourself for directing contracts and can't get any other than turning out your wife makes you a suitcase pimp, does it not? BEAUTIFUL Edited by - jamesnadt on 5/19/2006 11:18:42 PM
"hey, why not lie about some more employee-safety-data.
get it right, it's 2-0. me. not you, you had to admit you're wrong and now you won't admit it because it HURTS."
You're real proud about that employee safety data, aren't you? Guess you've probably heard the one about blind squirrels.
You clearly didn't read Coming Attractions very carefully, as it not a tell-all novel, or a novel of any kind. It's a collection of interviews to which I contributed and helped edit. I invite anyone who thinks it's "vicious, ANTI-PORNOGRAPHIC BACKLASH" to actually read it for themselves.
And as I said, what you know about me, my life and my work amounts to zip.
I know how much you like hurting people, but you're wasting your time on me. I've had much worse from much better.
Little Puck Interview
Posted - May 9 2006 : 8:45AM
