Math Magazine and 'good' porn.

And I didn't "bring it up", I responded to someone else's comment!

Because the debate seems to have been discussing two things - feminist or ethical content and feminist or ethical manufacture, and whether either can or does exist.
All films which involve acting are lies really aren't they? Hence the discussion has been about the depiction of pleasure or enjoyment, not actual pleasure.
To be honest, do the male actors enjoy or get pleasure from it?

If you know it’s a lie, why bring it up?

You brought it up because you thought it was a lie told in service to women’s pleasure. Your assumption is incorrect.

I think it's important to examine the lie, not give in to its goal of confusing you about the difference between a scripted act written by men for men and "female pleasure".

That's why I highlighted "appears to enjoy". We all know how it's made behind the scenes. And your comments aren't relevant to the point I or dadwashere made. He was referring to the depiction on screen, not the abuse behind the camera.
Porn does exist which shows cunnilingus. Dadwashere was saying it doesn't. It also exists where the women "appear"* to enjoy it.
It seems the "on screen & on screen abuse" porn is increasing though, compared to the "on screen not abuse & off screen abuse" porn, which is very worrying.
Hope that's clear enough.

*Usual disclaimer, same I put in my last post.

Your post adds nothing to the conversation when we've just seen that a porn performer appearing to enjoy an act she had refused is an intentional pro-rape myth for men to get off on.

You're also missing that the very exhibitionism and voyeurism of watching a naked prostitute onscreen is what men who watch porn already consider a degrading act, no additional abuse necessary to achieve sexual humiliation and subservience.

I've read porn advertising copy and DVD cases, the only thing porn consumers find more fun than sexually hurting a woman is when the stupid whore begs for more bruises and mistreatment.

Felascloak asked and you should earnestly attempt to answer: "How is making a film where a reluctant woman ends up loving anal despite being adamant she hated it at first a feminist act? Or ethical?"

Clearly commercial porn has no interest in depicting female pleasure, otherwise cunnilingus and female orgasm would actually exist in it.

It does exist. Porn exists where women appear* to be enjoying it also.
Like you say, there is a huge volume of porn, and the humiliation, on-screen abuse porn is not the whole picture.

*They're acting of course.

To me porn is much like a gun, in the sense people can legitimately enjoy watching skeet shooting in the Olympics, but its more commonly people and animals being shot with one, not clay targets. I personally see nothing wrong with the idea of porn, but the commonality and volume of the production of it for subsequent consumption buries 'good' porn like a needle in a haystack.

Could there be feminist porn? Well, of course. Most humans fuck and some of them are quite titillated by the idea of other people deriving sexual excitement from wanting to see them fuck. The internet opened the floodgates for exhibitionists. That expression of human sexuality, whether you personally agree or not with its 'morality', is not invalidated by commercial porn, but it is rather buried by it. Nevertheless websites exist where amateurs upload home-made porn and receive no financial reward for doing so. Such sites operate on the basis of monthly subscribers being able to download full quality imagery and movies with additional money made via advertisement to non-member traffic. That does not mean all the porn on those sites is ethical however, clearly some of it will have been filmed/distributed without the womans consent, and some of it would be produced using prostitutes.

And more depressing still, consensual, feminist sex with orgasms for all is not what most people want from porn.

Given the huge volume of commercial porn its hard to know if its what people actually want to consume, or only what they are aware they have access too. Clearly commercial porn has no interest in depicting female pleasure, otherwise cunnilingus and female orgasm would actually exist in it.

Interestingly, women who are porn consumers more commonly watch gay male porn (30% more than heterosexual act porn). I have read ideas women key into the erect penis so context is less relevant, that they desire exclusivity (ie its important another female not be present) or they see men in commercial sex as being inherently unexploited participants.

I think I remember that, Sillage. Isn't it the one in which she describes a group of them reading aloud passages about the violent sexual torture and murder of women from American Psycho, outside a bookshop selling the book, and being forced to move on by police or face imprisonment for public order offences? So you can sell the book describing torture and murder, but not draw people's attention to how awful it is by actually reading aloud from it? (Actually, I'm against censoring books, however terrible, but free speech has to be blanket - Mckinnon and friends should have been allowed to carry out their protest. If people can write terrible books then there should be a public right to reply).

Great post, FreshwaterSelkie.

The short and brilliant book "Only Words" by Catharine MacKinnon is a beautifully reasoned explanation of how men's laws make illogical exceptions to its own stated rules on so-called 'freedom of speech' when it comes to pornography.

I'd say it's one of my Top 5 favorite books of all time, just mind-blowingly concise and rational. I recommend it highly, Bitofacow.

Porn as education.

Porn as an outlet for men so they don't assault women.

Wow.

I'm very sceptical at the "porn is educational" line.

If you one were really that unsure of how one's body worked sexually I'm sure there are more reliable sources of information.

www.wendymcelroy.com/freeinqu.htm

She says it so much better than me, although I dislike the term pro sex feminist.

Thank you all for these nuanced posts. I agree with you while not agreeing. I am squirming intellectually, which is a good thing.

"

The writer explains this was part of a "scene" at the end of which Ruby says "I love this toy". The writer also says "we cannot know if Ruby was truly reluctant to be analy penetrated" and goes on to discuss the morality of forced consent scenes.

I think that quotation sums it up for me."We cannot know if Ruby was truly reluctant........." Well, we can- she said several times she was!

Good points, I agree. Some of the porn I have seen (a long time ago) seems to focus on the women - the film starts with a woman as a main character and focuses on her getting what she wants (behind the scenes probably not the same story!).
But in this society, porn is an industry. And like any industry, it's "stars" are exploited for profit. Like the music industry. But in porn it's sexual exploitation, coercion and rape used to exploit.

It's an interesting question, deydo. What I mean by the "eroticization of the subjugation of women" is that the function of porn is to provide a woman who never says no, and who enjoys being dominated and hurt, who never turns a man down and so on. It makes women into objects, to be looked at, fuckable objects made up of body parts, not people.
You know, I am far from an expert in what porn is out there - I don't use it. I haven't in many a long year, but even just the titles of porn that slips through my email filter tells me that it's about women having things done to them that they don't want, that are painful, that are unpleasant, that are meant to show them being mastered, made to submit. The submission is the turn on.

Men don't look for porn that shows equal, loving adult relationships. The top porn search is "teen". Why? What are the qualities of teenage girls? They haven't had much exposure to the world, they're easy to manipulate, they're gullible.

I don't think it's unconnected that the recent uptick of the expectation that women will enjoy porn is matched by an uptick of the violence and extreme scenarios depicted in it. As a user above said, if women like it, men don't want it. What could the reasons for that be? In the same era that liberal feminism tells us that women like porn, the more extreme the violence in porn becomes.

I'm now thinking of all the fuss that was made over James Deen being the "feminist" porn star. Until a number of women who'd worked with him revealed that he had raped them on set. I bet those films were marketed as feminist, but we now know that they depicted rapes. Most porn actors burn out with months (Hot Girls Wanted provides a very depressing insight into this), so why does this happen if it's so fabulous?

So, could there be a feminist porn? As buffy said, while it might be possible, it's not in this society, not in this time period, not with the world as it is.

I'll echo the good post, fresh.
But could you expand on this?
"porn is the eroticization of the submission of women".
Much of the porn described in this thread is along these lines, but must it always be the case? Like you say with regard to the content, why must it involve submission, humiliation, degradation?
Would it just not sell if it was not like this?
I haven't seen a lot of porn, but what I have seen, some just looks awful and I'd worry about the mindset of anyone who enjoys it, not to mention the actresses.
But some is not like that at all. If the consent was well regulated and the content was not violent/degrading/humiliating, actually showed more "normal" sex i.e. women enjoying it, being in control sometimes, even dominating sometimes, would that be at all possible?

Applause fresh

sugargrace, that's a very interesting article, though it was difficult reading.

I had been prepared to give feminist porn a fair hearing, if you like, despite my underlying feeling that in the context of the world we live in, it's not possible that it exists - because porn is the eroticization of the submission of women, and there's just no feminist way to do that. I thought, OK, so maybe "feminist" porn manages to depict non pornified sex through its content.

That article says No, no it doesn't. It's not feminist in any way, shape or form. For a start, the article in Jezebel linked above only concentrates on the individual consent of the actor involved, and how she felt about it. Which is lovely, but does absolutely zero to analyse the societal impact of porn, its meanings, its uses etc. It's the neo-liberal feminist individualist position writ large - I do this, and I like it, I'm a woman, therefore it's feminism. I just don't buy that as an analysis. It makes things worse, because it removes the option of class analysis of "how does this affect all women" - it shuts that question right down, because any attempt to do that is seen as an attempt to tell that individual woman that she's wrong to do what she does.

Not having watched any, I had naively thought that feminist porn would perhaps at least attempt to depict something more authentic about women's sexuality than mainstream porn. Well, from the content of the article linked above, describing scenes from Taormino movies, the darling of feminist porn, I was dead wrong. The descriptions of what's contained in the feminist porn in the article turn my stomach. Facial come shots, strangulation and simulated scenes of prostitution where the actress playing the prostitute is told "I've bought you and I can do whatever I want with you". What the FUCK? How is this positive or feminist or non-mainstream??

Strangulation is not a game. Strangulation is actually a key risk factor in an abusive relationship for future lethal violence. If your partner has ever put his hands around your neck, the risk that he will later kill you jumps significantly. The thought that this act is depicted in "feminist" porn makes me want to cry.

So the benchmark for feminist porn seems to be not about the content, but merely about the "consent". Which is a low benchmark - the jezebel article makes no analysis of how the consent is impacted by, say, the wish to work again (if you only consent to a limited repertoire of sex acts, you limit your work options), the rates of pay (niche stuff pays more), the ability to choose or reject sexual partners (how many men do you get to turn down before you have to accept one of them or tank your career?)

So it's still a no from me, in fact a stronger no than ever. Feminist porn in a porn culture is a unicorn. It'd be lovely if it existed, but it's doubtful that it does. I'm still reading through some of the links on this thread, so I might come back to this again later.

I see my mistake. I live in a world of moral relativism, shades of grey, so to speak. People make mistakes and human sexuality is complex and dirty and not always clear cut. Nuance is everything, understanding essential.

This is not the place to discuss issues this complex. People talk in broadbrush RIGHT and WRONG. We have to be on the good side or we are bad. One mistake makes you and all your work beyond evil and everything else you do irrelevant. (Mistake! I hear you cry it was barbaric)

Any attempt to discuss means you are an apologist or creepy. I am sad, I like to think about issues from a different perspective. I enjoy being challenged, I don't like being insulted.

Have at it you lot, I really am off this time.

Or not

I think you're stretching a bit there as well bitofacow

How is making a film where a reluctant woman ends up loving anal despite being adamant she hated it at first a feminist act? Or ethical? It's that exact thing I was talking about, pushing the narrative to women that even if she thinks she won't like something, someone else knows better so she should try it. The opposite of feminist.
I agree with lass on this. You sound creepily over invested in thinking porn is a feminist choice.

Silage, Very interesting article thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Although the scene is not how you present it. Your text selection does not cover the end of the article. I would cut but can't get it to work on my tablet.

The writer explains this was part of a "scene" at the end of which Ruby says "I love this toy". The writer also says "we cannot know if Ruby was truly reluctant to be analy penetrated" and goes on to discuss the morality of forced consent scenes.

Interesting and indeed disturbing but not the anal straight forward violation you imply.

Also, this was very early in her career and I can see no evidence of anything similar happening.

You state Taormino "brags about it" I could find no evidence of this.

Felsa - great example of not trusting everything people post.

Tristan Taormino doesn't care about women at all. www.academia.edu/25430513/But_what_about_feminist_porn_Examining_the_work_of_Tristan_Taormino

p9/10

Nabbed from radical feminist Rebecca Whisnant describing a scene in a pro-porn documentary

The opening scene of her Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex shows Taormino entering the offices of prominent pornographer John Stagliano, widely known as ‘‘Buttman,’’ to try to convince him to fund and produce her film. She pleads with him:

"I know that people are probably here all the time, asking you to make their movie, but I really, really, really want you to make my movie...I want it to be hot, really hot...I want to inspire women everywhere to get into anal sex." (Stagliano et al., 1999)

Stagliano displays reluctance, noting that Taormino is inexperienced and that his is ‘‘a high-class company.’’ He then continues,

"if you can get somebody like [performer] Ruby in the movie having
anal sex, then I might be interested. Because Ruby, I can’t get nothing in her fuckin’ ass. She won’t take nothing in her ass...If you can get her to take that [gestures] in her ass, then I’ll help you produce the movie." (Stagliano et al., 1999)

Taormino immediately agrees, and we cut to a man bringing
Ruby into the room. Stagliano explains the 'proposition' to her:

"We want to find out if you’d be interested in, maybe, uh, doing that
thing that you always said that you didn’t wanna do....Tristan
claims that anybody can do anal sex, and it doesn’t have to hurt
at all." (Stagliano et al., 1999)

sme.sagepub.com/content/2/2/2374623816631727.full.pdf+html