To feel disgusted that Elle magazine are touting porn star Sasha Grey as a "feminist"?

[Scarletohello]

So I have seen a lot of porn and Sasha Grey is a very popular porn star. Mainly because she does very extreme stuff, for example the kind of scenes where she is gagged with a man's cock to the extent that she us virtually vomiting. And she acts like she is loving it. One of the quotes in the magazine article from one of her films is, " Rip my fucking holes open". It's the most brutal, mistogynistic, woman hating porn you can possibly experience. And she is talking about it as being liberating and empowering for women. I'm no prude but her stuff sickens me. And now she's written an erotic novel and has an interview in Elle magazine where the cover line is, " writer, actress, feminist,porn star".
Makes me absolutely despair of where we as women have come to if she is being described as a "feminist". She is absolutely everything anti feminist to me. Any thoughts? Also if you have never seen her stuff, prepare to be appauled...

ecclesvet

Why are they mutually exclusive? Surely one could still personally enjoy pain/humiliation, but still advocate equality of the sexes?

^
This.

How?

Am I misanthropic if I go sky diving?

You might be - who knows if you are a misanthrope - but I'm not sure what misanthropy has to do with masochism.

I'm not sure what feminism has to do with masochism.

No Binks it's obvious you don't as you have a total inability to comprehend how enjoying being painfully humiliated by a man (as in "rip my fucking holes open) is somewhat at odds with a belief in the intrinsic self-worth that leads women to be feminists.

Any woman can call herself a feminist - doesn't mean she is one.

I'll leave it at that because no one is able to answer my question "how", with a logical and rational response, preferring instead to give a rhetorical answer or a nonsensical response conflating/confusing? misanthropy and masochism; and TBH, this thread is making me feel a little bit sick.

Sometimes women are our own worst enemies.

Again, we have a problem of mistaking one thing for another - masochism is a separate question from the concern over what we publicly agree are standard models of sexual relationship. The problem is not whether or not you or indeed SG are masochists. The problem is the product that SG sells is ideologically inscribed with the equation that female sexuality is masochistic; and the suggestion that male sexual identity is realised through inflicting pain on sexual 'partners'.

Again, if this was another kind of cultural product, and the characters being played were not enacting their sado-masochism inside of a sexual relationship, we would expect that that aspect of their relationship should be explained and commented upon. The lack of explanation or comment in pornographic products presents those relationships as straightforward, unproblematic, natural reproductions of normative relationships. It is in this sense that pornographic products that are so inscribed that they become damaging; their ideology is (1) unexamined (2) in this case counterthetical to feminist discourses of the agency, physical sanctity and equality of women in sexual relationships and (3) actively productive of a discourse of damage to women as part of 'normal' - as in normative, publicly agreed standards of behaviour - for sexual relationships.

No aspect of this objection suggests that (a) feminists can't practice deep throat oral sex in their private relationships (b) feminists can't be personally involved in masochistic or dangerous practices of any sort (c) feminists give a flying fuck what you do in your own time to your own body inside your own sexual relationship. What it does suggest is that feminism as a discourse has an objection to the view that sex as a practice should be physically damaging to women inside normative models of male/female sexual relationships, because it then makes the requirement that women as a class accept actual physical harm from men as a class or else they be considered deviant. I'd rather we had it the other way round; that women are not expected to accept actual physical harm as part of their role in sexual relationships but are free to choose it should they want to. Not only is it the embodiment of what I want from male/female relationships outside of sexual relationships from an ethical point of view, but it is more practical. The other model - in which women have to argue for their own freedom from damage or opt out of 'aggressive sex' is complicated in the case that that model encourages the male partner to view their job 'to dominate'; thereby making female resistance part of the exchange, rather than a representation of her right to dissent.

Short version: do what you like, but we should agree in the public sphere to opt into, rather than opt out of masochistic or degrading sexual practices. SG actively promotes a model counter to this and as such can't be considered 'feminist'.

Being my usual fence-sitting self, I decided to do some reading and thought this might be of interest to others:

gaildines.com/2009/09/so-you-think-you-know-what-porn-is/

Everybody who supports violent porn should read that. This is the reality of what you are saying is ok (just a finacial transaction, after all), from your provincial lounges with your naice curtains and your naice Nigels.

Reading that article makes me think that male porn 'actors' must really hate women.
Who could possibly do those sort of things to a body, while maintaining an erection?

coco, there is a huge industry around just keeping men's erection during the filming of porn

people employed to keep it stimulated imbetween "takes", drugs, poppers, injections...there is a long list

I feel sorry for the men too, tbh

Thanks for the link, Kinky

Thanks for the link, Kinky

Pro-porn lobbyists don't like Gail Dines very much

just as it should be

I was going in from an ignorant's perspective, as I don't know much about her or the subject. I found it very interesting in light of what I've read on here today. It was difficult reading - should have possibly put a disclaimer, so apologies if it's upset anyone.

My main reaction is one of complete sadness. I see and hear how teenage boys are treating girls every day. I hear what girls are willing to do, as it is 'expected' of them. I worry for the boys too and the expectations upon them. It scares me for my now 4 year old DS - what will it be like when he's 14? I feel grateful my 14 year old DD is Aspie, so not involved in mainstream teen life at all. lPorn culture is saturating our young people and as it becomes more violent and disrespectful, so do their attitudes towards each other within their relationships.

I remember the good old days when it was controversial to give a blow job.

No need for a disclaimer. Some people need their complacency challenging.

KinkyDorito

Being my usual fence-sitting self, I decided to do some reading and thought this might be of interest to others:

That's an amazing piece of fence-sitting there. Sitting right on the fence, while posting an article from someone who describes herself as 'the world's leading anti-pornography campaigner'.

'Porn is more like making hate'

I'm not even half way through

You have no comment on the article itself, hamster ?

I commend KD on her "fence sitting" while she did soem research of her own

More of the posters on this thread should follow her lead. Quoting your own sex life is not "research" btw.

I said I was sitting on the fence until I read more about it... I read more about it, then posted.

Her point about ATM was a good one - lots of women enjoy both of those acts and so liking to watch them makes some kind of sense, it's possible you could do so believing that all involved were enjoying it.

But the ATM aspect adds nothing to the visual, it's just taking delight in the additional health risk to the woman. It's like watching a Russian roulette game with one dirty needle or something,