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...

thanks. I'm braced for someone to tear that analogy to pieces though.

Well, where other strands of feminists recognise each other as feminist with methodological disagreements, no feminist.politics with a concern about.women as a class can recognise the basic assumption that SG makes that sex positive feminism is about her right to promote (sexualised) violence against women as anything other than a neo-liberal appropriation of feminism as a term. Also, it was my understanding that sex positive feminists tend towards the creation of porn for female consumption, which centralised female sexual identity - SG' s 'work' comes straight out of male-identified porn and as such couldn't be considered by sex-positive fems as identified with or by their politics. Sex-positive feminism isn't simply about calling participating in pornography 'feminist'; it's about reclaiming sexuality as a territory in which female identity can have agency and tenure. I would also say that actual fems who are sex-positive are still primarily identified with radical/ cultural/ material etc. feminism but that they incorporate the notion of sex-positivism within that i.e. they don't think making female centric pornography is the sole aim of feminism or the only way that women experience social inequality. So, I still think she isn't a feminist, because her product and further work does not address those concerns. I still don't think she does understand what feminism is, and she certainly doesn't understand what performance art is.

I am a feminist, I wouldn't say I was faithfully radical or materialist though I would say I'm not a liberal feminist. Which is why I have no objection in refusing to accept self-identification as the primary category by which you can judge whether or not someone is a feminist; I am materialist enough to say I do not accept the absolute relativism that it's all about a point of view. If feminism is about anything it is about women as a class. Therefore anything that undermines that or is based upon an individualist politics can not be called feminism even if people like SG would like to use that term. Their insistence only reveals a basic failure to understand the difference between their personal concerns and the relationship of those concerns to women as a social class.

hairy, it's a good analogy

Great posts sparkling and hairy

Sparkling and hairy, sounds like a vajazzle gone wrong!

Sparkling. Thanks for posting that I actually get what you mean from that explanation and understand it.

we have a mini breakthrough here ?

Hells bells hairy, thats something to mull over. Well put.

Sparklyboots

That's your interpretation of it and that's fine. This is another interpretation from another feminist and I think that's fine too. Whether you agree or rationalise against it is your choice but I would personally rather embrace the diversity.

www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/12/16/interview-with-a-sex-positive-feminist/

But to reiterate its a bit of a moot point given SG's porn career is well behind her. As none of us actually know her then it is nigh on impossible to argue against her feminist credibility today for something she was involved with 4 years ago.

Perhaps this is a dreadful analogy. I don't know.

No, it's not. I guess you knew it wasn't, but that's okay.

I meant

Nothing that sex-positive feminist says disagrees with my view of sex-positive feminism, though; she refers to the central idea that sex-positive feminism is interested in pornography which is as sexually bold, but 'reflected our politics and values'. To reiterate, SGs 'work' does not reflect anything apart from male-identified, male-centred pornography. It does not 'reflect the politics and values' of feminists, who are also sex-positive.

The interviewee is also clear to describe her interest as defending women's rights to define their own sex lives (rather than being about the uncritical acceptance of all women choosing to make pornography as feminist). Her sex-positivity is about her private life and not about her right to make a product which promotes violence against women. She does talk about the problems that self-identifying as sexually masochistic has had for her as a feminist, but no part of her defence of her right to do so includes the promotion of female sexuality as inherently masochistic, as SG's work does, for reasons we've gone over up thread. Again, it is not possible to align this view with SG's work and claims to be feminist in this context.

She concludes by confirming that she chooses to be a feminist activist over sex-positivity because she has a particular affinity for it but that sex-positivity is an aspect rather than reason for her feminism, which rather reiterates the point that sex-positive fems are not about achieving absolute empowerment and liberation through sex; rather that the social inequalities that affect sexual relationships and their perception are the ones that they choose to campaign on as feminists. So sex positive is not really a strand of feminism in the way that liberal feminism is insofar as liberal feminism describes a total approach where as sex-positive describes a view on one aspect of female social identity.

I genuinely wasn't sure if the analogy was off or not. I'm still open to hearing debate or dissent around the subject and I'm still learning. I'm interested to hear what pro-porn people think of the subject if gender and race are interchanged but other principles remain the same, in particular the balance of power, and whether the rights of consenting participants outweigh the damage wreaked on the entire class as a whole.

HairyLittleCarrot One question: does your analogy refer specifically to the extreme porn that Sasha Grey took part in? or was it intended to apply to ALL porn and softcore erotica?

Hairy

I'd say that was a good analogy for YOU but not necessarily for ALL.

The industry isn't run exclusively by white people
The subjects are both black and white people
Consumers are also increasingly black

And these black people aren't necessarily damaged, brainwashed or into it to appease white people either.

There's your answer Hairy - it's just denial.

"There's your answer Hairy - it's just denial"

No, it's a refutation, as the reasons for disagreement are given.

Also, the argument that "the branch of feminism that I believe in doesnt think that other sort of feminist over there is a real feminist" is hardly a convincing argument either.

Seems to me the main lesson of this thread is just that those who are against porn are unwilling to accept that those who are for it can have valid opinions, in any area. Even if they no longer practice it.

Tecnotropic
The industry isn't run exclusively by white people - no, but the few black people on the 'ruling' side aren't out for the interests of black people. You will always have the 'uncle Tom' - the 'Margaret thatcher' - the member of the subjugated class who rises to power of some description and instead of using that power to help their class, oppress it.
The subjects are both black and white people - but black people and white people are treated extremely differently, with white people using physical and verbal degradation to humiliate and belittle the black players
Consumers are also increasingly black - people can participate in things that harm them, it's called cognitive dissonance.

It is still a good analogy, for everyone.

Lazy, it's nothing to do with whether SG is still practicing - if she believes that violent porn is empowering for women, her beliefs are at odds with many many strands of feminism.

Many strands of feminism maybe but not ALL strands.

Google 'sex-positive feminism' and it is possible to see many supporters of this strand and also people that engage with BDSM and/or porn (my previous link included). I'm not into violent sex and frankly find it a complete turn off but I am in no position to judge what many sex-positive feminists deem to be perfectly acceptable. If the women that classify themselves under this strand of feminism are pro BDSM (and in essence violent sex) then I think it a little inequitable to deny Sasha Grey her right to engage with a strand of feminism that she connects with. Unless that is, violent sex is ok, only as long as the producers are feminists.

Many feminists have the insight and analytical judgement that 99% of the population simply don't (or just don't think about). Up till this thread I had no idea who Sasha Grey was and IF I were into BDSM then I would have trouble telling between a feminist acceptable BDSM video and one of Sasha's.

So where does one draw the line, unless all BDSM is unacceptable but then you are denying certain feminist strands their right to interpret feminism in a way they find acceptable. Which brings me back to POV.

But that's fine. I can see you have very rational arguments and I respect that so is probably best leaving it at that

I'm so hacked off with how porn is thrusting its way into mainstream media.

DM also guilty of this.

On today's showbiz site:

How Snoop Dog/Lion used to be a pimp ("I put an organisation together. I did a Playboy tour, and I had a bus follow me with ten b*hes on it.")

Two lead stories on former Playboy playmates Kendra Wilkinson and Holly Madison

And a story on MTV Teen Mom Farrah Abraham and how she sold her sex tape (called 'Backdoor Teen Mom') for $1m

Who, I wonder, is getting rich off all this?

wrt my analogy:
I'm unsure of the ratios of male:female

1. industry stakeholders (producers, directors, distributors, investors, crew)
2. consumers
3. supporters/promoters/pro-campaigners/active proponents

and also wonder about M/F ratios in the following categories

1. participants primarily on the receiving end of physical damage, stds, verbal abuse and objectification.
2. victims of sexual crimes which are portrayed routinely in porn
3. criminals convicted of sexual crimes where porn has been cited as an influencing factor.

because, yes, my assumption is that there is a huge male bias on the numbers 1,2,3&6
and a female bias 4&5.

Am I wrong?

in other words, it is predominately males who profit and benefit from porn
and predominately women who are damaged and detrimental affected by it.

But I'm happy to see figures that prove me wrong.

That's not quite right Hairy as the imbalance with porn is that the female stars get paid significantly more than the males. The people that get rich of porn are the producers obviously but the women do very well out of it too.

But again, you clearly are anti-porn so will always argue against it. Others will argue for it (including pro-porn feminist women).