Major props for Iamcuriousblue for posting this to the BPPA; this is a perfect example of how antiporn fascists like Diana Russell cook the books to justify their biases.

“When a Scientist Stacks the Deck: A Review of Diana E. H. Russell’s Against Pornography: The Evidence of Harm”
by Jen Durbin
Spectator Magazine #835 (Sept 30-Oct 6, 1994)

Imagine a literary scholar writing a book about the sonnet in order to give the general public, many of whom have never read a sonnet, an opportunity to make up their own minds about this verse form. This hypothetical scholar first defines “sonnet” as a poem about a horse. He and a dozen research assistants spend eighteen years sifting the canon of English literature for poems about horses. Some of these poems may have fourteen lines; others may not. The number of lines is irrelevant to his study. At the end of this period of extensive research, he publishes his findings: his long-awaited scholarly book proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that sonnets are about horses. He even includes over a hundred poems as evidence.

As farfetched as this hypothetical anecdote might seem, it provides a frightfully accurate analogy for Diana Russell’s new book, Against Pornography: The Evidence of Harm (Russell Publications, 1993). She calls her book a “scholarly work” (p. xii), but it breaks every rule of good scholarship, which, if it can’t be original and well written, should at the very least be unbiased and logical. As a teacher of pornography, I can sympathize with Russell’s opening statement: “I have come to dislike talking about the effects of pornography with people who have not seen it for themselves” (p.vii). If there’s one thing I dislike even more, however, it’s talking about pornography with people whose only exposure to porn has been a narrow band within the broad spectrum of pornographic material, carefully pre-selected by the anti-porn feminists.

Just like the fraudulent scholar who looked for horses everywhere, Russell begins by re-defining pornography so that she can pre-determine the results of her search. She sets out to look for “material that combines sex and/or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone, or encourage such behavior” (p. 3). Not surprisingly, that’s exactly what she finds.

The 108 images she reproduces in her book come from the porn collections of such groups as OAP (Organizing Against Pornography) SVAW (Stopping Violence Against Women), WAP (Women Against Pornography), SOAP (Students Organizing Against Pornography), and of course WAVPM (Women Against Violence in Media and Pornography). The last-named group, which Russell helped to found, was established in 1976. It has taken her and her comrades in arms nearly twenty years to collect the violent images she reprints in her book. A serious academic study would have attempted to provide a more even-handed survey of the field. If it took dozens of women this long to collect a handful of violent images, just imagine all the benign or neutral images they must have viewed and then discarded in the course of their search.

Russell does attempt to contextualize her sample of pornographic visuals by introducing some statistics, but none of them are too impressive. For instance, in Penthouse and Playboy in 1977, “5 of the cartoons and 10 of the pictorials were sexually violent” (p. 9). Of course, it doesn’t take a scientific study to estimate that by far the bulk of the images in both magazines were just plain sexual, but who wants to analyze the most representative kinds of porn images anyway? Since no one has been able to prove that pornographic images are predominantly violent, Russell has decided to modify the findings of some existing studies to suit her purposes. She draws on the Canadian Criminologist T.S. Palys for some fairly significant percentages of sexually aggressive scenes in sexually-oriented videos. What she doesn’t say is that out of the 150 videos sampled by Palys, 58 were not x-rated, and 25 were specifically (not randomly) chosen for their violent content. It’s as if our literary scholar, finding that epics were far more likely to feature horses, decided to beef up his case by throwing statistics about epics in with his statistics about sonnets. Even worse, Russell barely mentions Palys’ main point –”the unexpected finding that ‘adult’ videos have significantly greater absolute number of depictions of sexual aggression per movie than triple-X videos” –a point that probably will not surprise regular viewers of R-rated and X-rated videos.

Among Palys’ actual findings, those ignored by Russell, were the following: “the triple X videos had a higher frequency of mutual (i.e. egalitarian) sexual depictions than the adult videos (72 versus 12.9),” sexual aggression was more prevalent in adult than in X-rated videos, and the aggressive depictions were significantly more severe in the adult videos.1 Palys critiques previous studies for leaving “concerned individuals with the potentially misleading impression that those who produce ‘pornography’ hold the monopoly on violent and sexually violent materials” (Palys, p. 33). One can only speculate about the reasons Russell chose to ignore his warnings about creating a “misleading impression.”

How does Diana Russell create the misleading impression that pornography is predominantly violent and degrading towards women? Let me count the ways. In the interests of brevity, I will cite only one instance of each tactic (or two if they are impossible to resist).

Faulty logic: On page 114 she writes, “Because it is important to know the proclivities and the state of mind of those who read and view pornography, I will start by discussing some of the data on males’ propensity to rape.” Spectator readers will be interested to know that as a group they are indistinguishable, in Russell’s mind in any case, from rapists. Wouldn’t it be a little more scientific/scholarly to start with a group of consumers of porn (using a group of people who don’t consume porn as a control group) if one were interested in analyzing the “proclivities and state of mind of those who read and view porn”?

Misleading rhetorical strategies: On page 20 she writes that there is “reason for great concern when those who feel aroused by pornography (or racism) become advocates or defenders of it.” Here she implies that defending one’s right to view or read arousing material is the same as joining the Ku Klux Klan.

Baseless claims: Russell cites a study by Malamuth, in which subjects were “randomly assigned to view either a rape version or a mutually consenting version of a slide-audio presentation.” She justifies using this study to pillory pornography because “the rape version of the slide-audio presentation is typical of what is seen in pornography” (p. 124). Of course, anyone who has viewed much pornography knows that the most common scenario features the willing, even nymphomaniacal woman, not the female victim of forced sex. Russell’s flawed premise allows her to pretend that rape is a typical feature of porn.

Misleading categories: Throughout the book, she lumps bondage in with violence. For instance, she reprints a cartoon featuring a smiling woman in a dog collar and leash (p. 23). How does Russell know the woman did not choose bondage? Another cartoon shows a woman tied spread eagle on the bed. The man who has tied her up asks, “Comfy?” Here’s Russell’s interpretation: “This cartoon perpetuates the idea that women enjoy bondage” (p. 36). Of course, many do. Need I add that throughout the book she makes no distinction between consensual and non-consensual acts?

Faulty assumptions: And who’s to say that a man looking at the cartoons above or watching video sex scenes always identifies with the aggressor? Carol Clover, in her book about slasher films, Men Women and Chainsaws, has shown that males in the audience often identify with on-screen females, and vice versa. Indeed, in one of the studies Russell cites, researchers found that male college students and men living in inner-city housing projects found four categories of violence arousing. One of the arousing categories was “a female killing a male” (p. 146).

Lip service: At various points throughout the book, Russell will make a reasonable statement. For instance, she writes “What is objectionable about pornography, then, is its abusive and degrading portrayal of females and female sexuality, not its sexual content or explicitness” (p. 5). Elsewhere she admits that by the definition of simple causation, “pornography clearly does not cause rape, as it seems safe to assume that some pornography consumers do not rape women, and that many rapes are unrelated to pornography” (p. 119). However, since she does not provide any examples of sexual content that is not abusive or degrading, and since her purpose is to implicate pornography as one of the primary causes of rape, these brief admissions can be seen as mere lip service.

Ignoring the obvious interpretation of others’ findings: In making a case that viewers imitate what they see on screen, she cites the seemingly shocking statistic that “Among the junior high school students [in Jennings Bryant's study] 72 of the males reported that ‘they wanted to try some sexual experiment or sexual behavior that they had seen in their initial exposure to X-rated material’” (p. 126). This finding will assuredly be shocking to any reader who has taken Russell’s word about what “typical porn” is like, but anyone who has viewed porn for him- or herself might have a different interpretation: most 7th and 8th graders have not experienced sex, and it is not surprising that they would some day like to try intercourse (or, God forbid!, fellatio or cunnilingus), the real staple of heterosexual porn.

Failure to critique the studies she cites: She quotes from a study that confirms “that exposure to non-violent pornography causes masculine sex-typed males, in contrast to androgynous males, to view and treat women as a sex object” (p.132). The flaw in this study lies in the initial classification of the participants. The term “masculine sex-typed males” was defined as men who “encode all cross-sex interactions in sexual terms and all members of the opposite sex in terms of sexual attractiveness.” An astute reader–one who can translate jargon into plain English–will have noticed that by definition this group of men viewed women as sex objects before they even participated in the study.

Ignoring the findings or premises of others’ studies: Russell makes use of Dietz and Evans’ statistics about the increase in bondage and domination imagery on the cover of heterosexual porn magazines. She neglects to mention, however, that the authors of this study saw it as an “unobtrusive measure of the prevalence of the corresponding fantasy among consumers,” since “the imagery of pornography tends to correspond to the preexisting fantasy images of the consumer.”2 In other words, they posit that pornography is an effect, whereas Russell takes the opposite stance, arguing that it is a cause.

Citing irrelevant studies: She cites a study by Malamuth and Check, in which students viewed a “feature-length film that portrayed violence against women as being justifiable and having positive consequences (Swept Away or The Getaway)” (p.134). Their findings are of course irrelevant in a book called Against Pornography, since the films they used are rated R, and any actions taken by fired-up readers of Russell’s book are unlikely to be directed against The UA or Landmark cinemas.

Ignoring or glossing over points that run counter to her theories: She admits that “Psychologists James Check and Neil Malamuth have provided experimental evidence that pornography that is supplemented with sound educational information does not induce the negative effects that would otherwise occur” (p. 17). However, she ignores the ramifications of this finding: it is important to make porn more accessible, not less. Families who will not freak out if little Johnny or Jenny is watching porn will be more likely to have a chance to discuss the videos with their kids, and to use them as an opportunity to educate.

As a teacher, I of course believe in the power of education. And I believe that the best education succeeds not in transmitting the biases of the teacher into the minds of the students, but rather in teaching the students to ferret out faulty logic wherever it resides, and to open their minds to truth wherever it may be found. And the best education of all succeeds in opening the teacher’s mind too. In that spirit, I turn from my point-by-point critique of Russell’s methods in order to attempt to reach an unbiased perspective on the issues she raises. I don’t want readers to come away from this review article with the impression that I am just as biased, and just as likely to ignore evidence that runs counter to my pet theory, as Russell is.

There’s a little gold sticker on the cover of Russell’s book that reads “WARNING: Some of the visuals in this book may cause distress.” It turns out that I am not so desensitized to sexual violence that I was completely immune to that distress. Certainly the album cover depicting a just-raped woman next to the graffiti “Guns N Roses Was Here” disturbed me: I couldn’t help but think of the young fans of that group, who are being taught a less-than-subtle lesson about rape. Given my own personal history, I also was disturbed by the ad in Playboy (for Oui magazine) depicting an adolescent-looking nude girl in handcuffs above the caption “How one family solved its discipline problem.” I don’t think it’s possible to argue that Playboy caused the national epidemic of child sexual abuse, partly because incest existed for centuries before Playboy came on the market. But I do think it would be naive to argue that the media plays no role in the overall climate of misogyny in the United States today.

Given the fact that pornography is far less prevalent and accessible than television, advertising, mainstream movies, and billboards, why do radical feminists such as Russell focus their attacks on pornography? One argument is that the conjunction between sex and violence is especially compelling. To put it crudely, one might compare male viewers of video porn to Pavlov’s dogs: they are trained to ejaculate at the sight of sexual violence towards women. Russell cites a 1985 study by Donnerstein, in which participants were divided into three groups: one saw X-rated movies depicting sexual assault; the second saw X-rated movies showing only consenting sex; the third saw R-rated sexually violent movies. Then they all saw a reenactment of a real rape trial. “Subjects who had seen the R-rated movies: (1) rated the rape victim as significantly more worthless, (2) rated her injury as significantly less severe, and (3) assigned greater blame to her for being raped than did the subjects who had not seen the films [i.e. the control group]. In contrast, these results were not seen for the X-rated non-violent films. However, the results were much the same for violent X-rated films, despite the fact that the R-rated material was ‘much more graphically violent’” (p. 137). There is no question in my mind that if I had my druthers, the media would not pre-dispose potential jurors to underestimate a rape victim’s worth or her injuries.

Still, Donnerstein’s study also suggests that the degree of explicitness of the sex scenes in the movies was not a factor in the participants’ responses to the rape trial. Since the ratio of sexual assault scenes to consensual sex scenes is much higher in Hollywood films than it is in porn videos (for evidence, see the study by Palys above, or just pay attention when you go to the movies), the unavoidable conclusion seems to be that despite their protestations, writers such as Russell actually are attacking sexuality.

Intentionally or not, Russell is adding to the climate of misogyny. She notes for instance that “Negative consequences to males who exploit women in this situation [i.e. in bondage] are improbable since women who are violated while in bondage are unlikely to report such abuses to the police.” She is right: most sex workers know they will automatically be assumed guilty by the judicial system. But the more Russell contributes to a climate of sexual repression, the harder it will be to obtain legal redress for crimes against women who work in the sex industry.

It’s hard to object to her recommendations, since she provides none. She does not seem to be recommending that pornography be fought via the courts; in fact, she goes to some lengths to distinguish herself from MacKinnon and Dworkin, who needed to use a legal definition of pornography in order to write their legislation. She repeatedly claims to be against censorship, although it is true that she does so only in the context of defending her own right to free speech. A rave review just inside the cover, in which Nikki Craft writes that she was “moved to tear up several hundred Hustler magazines in convenience stores and throughout Santa Cruz,” might be interpreted as an implied recommendation. Anyone who reads this book out of context (of the feminist debate about pornography or the full spectrum of pornographic materials) is likely to take matters into their own hands, and the target will be a symptom (for instance Hustler magazine) of our social ills rather than an underlying cause (such as economic inequality between the genders).

In lieu of author’s recommendations, I will make a suggestion of my own. On the copyright page Russell prohibits reproduction of any part of the book, specifying that “the only exception to these rules applies to feminists dedicated to the fight against pornography, who are welcome to copy this material free of charge in pursuit of their anti-pornography work.” This is especially ironic in light of the fact that, by her own admission, she stole these images from the pornographers who held the copyrights in the first place. In her preface she admits to the following violation: “I did not attempt to obtain permission from the pornographers for several reasons. I didn’t want to support the pornography industry by giving them money. . . ” In light of the fact that one of the most popular tactics used against the porn industry is to tie up all its resources in legal battles in the hopes that the production companies will go bankrupt, I have a fitting response to Russell’s book to suggest: the pornographers whose images she has stolen should consider suing her for copyright violations. It would be interesting to see if the courts agreed that her “right to free speech” (which, according to Russell, “includes the right to publish the material necessary to show that pornography is harmful to women” p. x) overrides publishers’ and photographers’ and artists’ rights to fair payment for the reproduction of their work.

On a more serious note, I would like to say that a feminist writer who has done such important work in the areas of rape and child sexual abuse might have been expected to have chosen her target more carefully. Pornography is not the culprit here. If feminists are to make real strides towards stopping violence against women, we will need a more realistic assessment of the root causes of the problem, and a more effective plan for bringing about true social change.

1 Palys T. (1986). Testing the common wisdom: the social content of video pornography. Canadian Psychology, 27(1):27–35. (p 27–29)

2 Dietz P, Evans B. (1982). Pornographic imagery and prevalence of paraphilia. American Journal of Psychiatry 139:1493–1495. (p 1423; italics mine.)

Oh, hark!!  What is that incredible screeching sound I hear in the background???

Why…doesn’t that look like some British woman on a broomstick, flying around like some gnat at a horse’s butt??

Oh, noez…woudn’t that be some antiporn zealot named…what??  Bitchy-Who or whatever???  Oh, sooooo sorry, that would be Witchy-Woo??  My apologies.

And what exactly is she screaming about, anyway??  Would it be because I called her bluff and responded to Nine Deuce’s loaded push poll…..errrrrrr, inquiry on how “pro-porn” males like me should feel about how the product they defend harms women??

Oh, I see…she’s complaining that I didn’t respond directly at ND’s blog, that I kept my response over here.

Gee, I wonder why?? Because there was the distinct notion that if I responded there, then Witchy would have been able to fire more of her stink bombs at me from there??

Oh, wait….she says it’s because she just doesn’t want to come over here and read exactly what I wrote….too dangerous for a prim radicalfeminist to even look at this blog.

That’s pretty hilarious, Witchy….since you were so free to go over to Renegade Evolution’s blog and freely blast her congratulating her for getting fired from her volunteer job at the rape crisis center due to her chosen profession.

And Goddess knows that you weren’t scared in the past to come here and view this blog and comment on my words, or comment on words I’ve posted to other blogs.

Now…does that mean that if I decided to go over there to your blog and copy my answers there, would you be willing to post it without any alterations?? Like you would allow posts from other critics of your positions??

Yeah, right. Like that would ever happen.

Maybe now I see why you were so moved to lighten the shade of that stripper pic you stole from Heart and ND to whiten out the racism intended (and BTW, it didn’t work; you can still see the Black faces there); I guess that you need the light because your regular vision is so darkened by your myopia???

Ahhhh…never mind.  Fly far away, Witchy, and take your flying monkeys with ‘ya.  Your act is steadily tiring.

[Major props to Caroline at Uncool for smoking W-W out and smacking her down.]

All right, let us continue with our detailed fisking of Maggie Hays’ latest jousting of windmills. First part was here.

Porn Apologist: Advocating censorship is not a good thing. Pornography is free speech.

Rad Fem: Who’s talking about censorship here? You, not me. I’m talking of harms. Pro-porners often use the inaccurate word “censorship” to stigmatize any feminist work against pornography and to try to shut us up. Censorship or banning would never address the demand for pornography. Educating people on the harms and asking for an end to men’s demand for an industry that is predicated upon and produces sex-based exploitation and widespread aggression has nothing in common with censorship. Pornography is not free speech, it is hatred of women. The only freedom in pornography is the one for men to abuse women. In a male-supremacist, capitalist society, the First Amendment protects only those who can exercise the rights it protects. Where is women’s freedom of speech in all of this? Pornography keeps women and other people who have been harmed from exercising their rights to free speech.

Ahhhh…nice try there, Maggie…but I’d say that openly pushing for legislation that would effectively regulate sexual material and sexual media out of business by forcing them to endure impossible bookkeeping requirements (see the 2257 regulations), or force clients of sex work or consumers of porn to endure the threat of jail or “john schools” to humiliate or shame them for even having normal sexual thoughts, or even allow any woman under the guise of “civil rights” to sue anyone selling an adult video for triple damages for the thought crime of “degrading and harming women” for treble damages….that pretty much counts to most thinking people as censorship.

And I’d say that the First Amendment seems to be a bit different from your interpretation of it….since when did women become exempt from its protections?? Especially women who happen to disagree with your interpretation of what porn is and if it really does as much harm as you say??

Oh….and enough already with the “We are being CENSORED!!!!!!11ONE11!!” nonsense, Mags….when the government (or Blogger or WordPress) comes in and totally shuts down your blog, then you can make a case about being “censored”. Challenging the nonsense that you put out as untrue, biased, and slanderous is not censoring you; nor is saying that you should be held to the same standards of accuracy and decency as everyone else.

One more time: simply substitute “the homosexual lobby” ; the “homosexual agenda”, and “radical gays” in the proper places, and think about how this apes the Radical Right to a perfectly crossed T.

Porn Apologist: Feminists are often man-haters. That’s why they criticize porn.

Rad Fem: In a patriarchal society where misogyny is the norm, whenever you point out to the fact of male violence against women you’re accused of being a “man-hater”, while whenever a man says a misogynist comment or laughs at misogynist jokes he’s never accused of being a “woman-hater”. Feminists aren’t man-haters and they criticize porn because it is harmful and it is strongly linked to violence against women.

Now, let me see, Maggie…why on earth would we even think that you or some of your allies would be considered “man-haters”?? Gee, I don’t know…would it be because of rants like this???

I do not consider the “consent” I gave while under patriarchal delusions to have been legitimate. I believe that the males who took advantage of my training have as much responsibility to ensure that a woman is not submitting out of culturally instilled obligation as they do to ensure that she isn’t drunk or otherwise unable to give meaningful consent. But I understand that males will never behave in a manner that reduces the pool of “willing” women.

This is what makes men rapists. They will use any pretense as sufficient proof of consent, when the truth is that consent is impossible under patriarchy. That men and male-identified women continue to harp on the unverified existence of a few women on the planet who would seek out penile intercourse (which puts them at higher risk of STD’s than men, while simultaneously putting them at risk for pregnancy) in the absence of any training toward an obligation to engage in heterosexual PIV intercourse, is ridiculous to me. It’s not as if the men fucking those famed and fabled born-to-let-men-masturbate-into-them women aren’t also fucking a lot of women who’d reject them out of hand if not for the brainwashing.

A man’s not being a rapist in one highly unlikely circumstance (fucking a woman whose consent is not mitigated by social/individual coercion) doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not he’s a rapist in other more likely circumstances (that the woman he’s fucking is “consenting” to it out of obligation - to social norms or to economic interests). Because I believe the number of women not affected by socialization when making the decision to fuck men is very low, and because I believe that the men who are fucking those rare women are also likely to be fucking or to have fucked women who undeniably *are* affected by social training, I feel quite safe in saying that all men are rapists.

All men are rapists.

Now granted, not all radicalfeminists are quite as extreme as Justicewalks was there (well, there is Luckynkl)…but maybe a person reading this might have the slightest impression that there was at least a little bit of male bashing involved in indicting men for having erections and sexual thoughts?? As opposed to, like, violently assaulting women against their will?? But, I guess that even the latter is given a benefit of a doubt if the perpetrator confesses his sin and accepts St. Andrea and the Right Reverend Maggie and Bishop Bob as their personal savior and promptly reports to the proper authorities for castration and reeducation??? Even if he goes on to continue to violate women under the guise of “defending” them??

(Oh, Memo to Kyle Payne: to quote Bill Goldberg, your ass is next…right after I finish this fisk; you just don’t get to get away from your acts, fool.)

There is still a decisive difference between hating men who do abuse and violate women (and anyone else who violates and abuses anyone else, for that matter); and tainting ALL men with the lash of “rapist” merely because they have working dicks and fantasies in their brains. Just as there is a decisive difference between authentic radical feminists who actually believe in their theories and are willing to promote them with all respect for civility and debate; and unctuous, obnoxious, arrogant, vicious, and self-important cranks stealing the “radical feminist” label and using it as a crutch for their own personal myopias. You can guess which side I believe Maggie Hays to be on.

Porn Apologist: Isn’t it natural for men to watch porn? Pornography expresses sexual freedom and all men use porn.

Rad Fem: If it is natural for men to use porn, then how come some men have given up on their porn consumption and haven’t died? Not all men use porn. And pornography is not freedom; it is a mechanical, mindless, plasticized, inhuman, cruel and disconnected form of sexual imagery made by big corporations who only want to make big bucks. Besides, if pornography was so “natural” for men, why would it be so relentlessly misogynistic? Men have usually been socialized so differently from women that we can hardly claim anything about their nature. From an early age, males are typically trained to repress their feelings of sensitivity, care and empathy. It doesn’t have to be that way but gender roles both uphold and are maintained by male supremacist social order. And pornography typically reinforces gender, i.e. what it means to be “masculine” and what it means to be “feminine”.

Ahhh, Maggie, haven’t you said that nonsense about “Porn isn’t free speech; it’s violence against women” like about 50 times before?? Trust me, we get your point.

And…let’s look at the divergence here: “male supremacist social order” is so pervasive that it literally forces all men to be induced to wank to THE EVOL PORN that socializes them to commit such horrors on women….but it’s not so pervasive that men can kick their porn habits and convert to the good side?? Ahhh, it can’t be both at the same time, Maggie: either it’s insurmountable, or it’s beatable.

Oh..and people have been making sexually explicit media long before porn became a billion (or even a multi-million) dollar industry; and people have even been making such content for free. How exactly does that jive with porn as an evil capitalist corporate plot, Mags??

Porn Apologist: But, I don’t look at the bad and extreme stuff. Misogyny is not really inherent in pornography. And pornography is neither violent nor racist.

Rad Fem: Violence is pervasive in pornography; it is normalized because it is made to look like “just sex”. Any proper and clear-headed study of the content of the best-selling porn titles will reveal that violence and contempt for women are pervasive in mainstream pornography, as a comprehensive 2007 media research based on top-selling porn titles listed in Adult Video news (results of the research are revealed in this video here) has proven. As for the racism, pornography typically portrays black women as subhuman, dirty, primitive “ebony hoes”, black men as savage, animalistic beasts, Asian women as slavishly obedient, and Hispanic women as “hot-blooded Latinas”. If you don’t recognize these stereotypes as horrifyingly racist, then I’m afraid I can’t help you. .

Now…not even the most diehard proponent of sexual expression or sexual speech has denied that there is an subsegment of porn that does play into a darker side of racism and violence and even outright contempt of women. Contrary to the rants of Gail Dines; most of us “pro-porners” — especially the more progressive wing — are well aware of how porn can be used to promote reactionary ideas and beliefs. That, however, is a cosmic leap from Maggie’s notion that violence and racism and degradation is not only inherent in porn, but that the sole purpose of porn is to promote violence and rape and degradation in the guise of sexual pleasure. To put is simply, that is sheer bullshit….and no quoting of the Top 50 list of titles from AVN will justify this bogus claim any more.

And here’s a question for you, Maggie: ever bothered to actually ask the porn actors and actresses of color whether they believe that the porn they produce ever promotes the stereotypes you claim that they promote?? I mean, is Angel Kelly or Ebony Ayes or Heather Hunter or Midori or Vanessa del Rio lying through their collective teeth when they say that they are into porn to dispell and break through such stereotypes?? And as for the myth of “Asian submissiveness”, two words in response: Ava. Devine. Enough said.

Porn Apologist: Look, women are objectified everywhere, even in the media. How is pornography different? I simply cannot imagine a world without the objectification of the female body.

Rad Fem: While mainstream media has clearly been invaded by soft-core objectifying pornography and that’s certainly not a good thing, hard-core mainstream pornography is worse. Women are not human beings in pornography, just things. . . Dare imagine a world that would not rely on the objectification of women, dare ask for justice and real sexual freedom within a new world where women would have the right to their own bodies without having to force themselves to have sex with men, where we would have true intimacy and mutuality, and where our lives wouldn’t be invaded and controlled by pornography.

First off, Maggie; you get the theory all ass backwards: the idea is not that ALL objectification is OK; just that sexual “objectification” is legitimate and natural in some aspect….as long as the person being subjected is still treated as a full human being. I know that that is an alien concept to you, Mags, but for most normal people not quite as trapped in anti-sex microcode as you are, it does make some sense.

And secondly….I thought that softcore porn was in fact just as obscene and degrading as hardcore; there’s not supposed to be any difference at all between the two (other than the degree of naughty bits being shown explicitly, that is).

And how nice of you to show us your favored vision of sex after the Revolution….so freed of “objectification” and violence and racism and all those bad things….and also freed of individual choice, of mutual pleasure, of full autonomy, and of any vestiges of real life. In short, even more objectifying and inhuman than even the “porno-iarchy” you claim to oppose.

Porn Apologist: Women look at porn too.

Rad Fem: While women’s use of porn has somehow increased since the Internet, the VAST majority of pornography users are men and the industry knows it (but they’re not gonna tell you). Porn producers, when interviewed at the Las Vegas porn convention, said most of the consumers of their materials are men. That is why porn is so endlessly misogynistic and degrading.

Oh, I get it….because the majority of consumers of porn happen to be men, and we all know that men are innately violent and evil and only want to rape and abuse women with impunity (because Dr. Hays SAID SO), then it would be right to assume that porn for men is inherently “misogynoustic” and “degrading”. (Not to mention, violent.)

Once again, note the biased linkage to one of Bob Jensen’s rant columns, where he does his usual out-of-context quotes from porn producers and columnists. I’m surprised that Maggie didn’t go directly to Gail Dines’s ambush of Nina Hartley and the AbbyWinters girls at this year’s AVN convention…but then again, she probably didn’t want the threat of a slander suit.

Porn Apologist: Hey, do you know that there’s also feminist porn available out there, that is to say porn for women?

Rad Fem: Women-made porn is a smokescreen to protect the largely (mostly) male-run, male-led pornography industry. It is only a small portion of the industry. The solution to ending the harms of pornography is not to create “feminist porn”. As I said before, “[m]isogynistic porn (which is the type of sexual material that most men want to see and masturbate to) isn’t going to go away so easily, and women and children will continue to be harmed. There are so many more urgent things and so many more struggles to overcome before we are able to live in a non-patriarchal society and maybe think about such things as any “egalitarian forms of erotic arts”!!! Indeed, thinking about such things before the overthrow of the whole patriarchy itself happens, is nothing other than capitulation! And it is insane! Considering and confronting the harms of pornography and prostitution to women and children, and working toward the building of a new non-patriarchal world, are paramount causes!!! As Gail Dines pointed out at the 2007 feminist anti-porn conference, we live in an “image based culture” (i.e. any thing, to be valuable, has to be made into an image) and the answer to stopping porn culture is not more images. Personally, I feel A LOT MORE FREE without having images or so-called “art” control my life and/or sexuality!”

Translation here for you non-zealots: “We gotta break some eggs in order to make a perfect omlett, and before we can even consider making “erotic material” that isn’t merely an apeing or the evil male-centered porn industry, we must eliminate porn FIRST…and that includes this phony “feminist porn” for women that is nothing more than a Trojan horse for men to justify raping and degrading women. Sex will just have to wait until after the revolution happens….so sorry.”

But don’t worry…after the Revolution comes and goes and women are freed of their patreiarchial and porno-iarchial chains (and their autonomy) and are allowed to have sex the way the Goddess intended them to, then mutual pleasure will abound and freedom will ring and we will be welcomed with parades and flowers!!! And of course, men will benefit as well from their freedom, too. (Mostly because those who don’t comply will be either “re-educated” or jailed or…what?? Dead??) I believe that your Maoist slip is showing here, Maggie.

Porn Apologist: If you don’t like porn, just don’t watch it.

Rad Fem: If this could only be that easy! Women have to interact with men who use pornography every day without knowing about the harms. I walk in the street and see soft-core porn on billboards. I cannot watch T.V. without stumbling upon a show or a film within which a joke on pornography is being laughed about. I cannot go to a party without seeing a bunch of guys laughing at the porn pics on their phones they’re showing to each others. The list goes on. . . Pornography is everywhere. What you’re saying sounds so much like saying “If you don’t like the president, then forget he is the president!” or “If you don’t like pollution, then forget it also comes from cars”.

Never mind the conflation (again) confusing soft-core billboards and mainstream TV shows talking about men and porn with viewing hardcore; or how any man downloading porn on their iPhones would even allow someone like Maggie Hays to become the House Voyeur and sneak in on their viewing habits (and BTW, Maggie, you do know that certain jurisdictions do actually make it a crime to show adult material in public venues using iPhones). Also, most opponents of pollution from cars don’t call for banning autos; just making them more pollution free; why can’t porn be made less violent and degrading?? Oh, I forgot…that wouldn’t jibe too kindly with Maggie’s vision of porn being wiped off the earth.

And I now post the final argument in Maggie’s arsenal of idiocy:

Porn Apologist: Porn was the only sex education I had. I can’t give it up.

Rad Fem: Then you have been sexually “educated” by what is the mainstream sex miseducation for men, a form of media within which women are stripped of their own humanity and portrayed as sexual objects, as things to be penetrated. How original! Wouldn’t you be more free without having the corporate pimps mapping out your sex life? Besides, even if you’re not causing harm to women you know, by not giving up on pornography, you believe that there are acceptable losses, “necessary victims” in order to satisfy your self-centered orgasm to the sexuality of cruelty, the sexuality of disconnection from truly meaningful feelings toward another human being. By creating the demand for pornography, you generate, maintain or condone the harms it causes as well as submit to the self-objectification it creates when it controls you, shapes your sexual thoughts into a twisted manner and when you become addicted to it. So, why not giving up and have your own dreams for yourself? Why not accepting that your sex (mis)education did not involve sexual justice and equality between sexes?. . .

Yeah…why the hell not??? Why not admit that your personal, private orgasms are not really your own, that rather than reflecting your own fantasies and personal autonomy, they are just inventions of the “porno-iarchy” developed to imprison you to the evil of male oppression and rape?? Why not just give up those selfish and “self-centered” physical pleasures and join the real movement for group “intimacy” and fulfillment that only “radicalfeminism” (radicallesbianism???) can provide?? Why not just give up all that baggage of “male power” and “submission” to cruelty and disconnection from “meaningful feelings” (True LOVE?!?!?!) that authentic intimacy stripped of all that bad lust and power can bring???

Oh, now I finally get it. Maggie Hays is simply a combination of John “Men from Mars; Women from Venus” Gray and Pat Robertson wearing a “radicalfeminst” cloak.

Thanks, but no thanks, Ms. Hays…I and most sane and less whacked out men and women would rather remain on good old Earth, with all its diversity and color and freedom. Ban sexism…not sex.

Oh, WOW….Maggie Hays is getting her zealot freak on again.

First off, Mags…did you get permission from Twisty to steal from her tagline??

Secondly…..“porno-iarchy”?!?!?!?! Don’t you know that “porno” as a suffix and a noun went out with the 70’s?? Wouldn’t “porn-iarchy” be a better term???

Now, I’m not going to fisk through the entire thing, since Ren Ev has already done so magnificently. But, let’s just go through some highlights:

I blame the porno-iarchy for all the misogyny, degradation, abuse, and racism that are inherent and blatant in the content of mainstream pornography.

Which means the all the misogyny, degradation, abuse and racism that take place outside of “mainstream pornography” — that is, in the wider world — are perfectly OK with you, Maggie?? As long as they all can be blamed on “the porno-iarchy”??

I blame the porno-iarchy for all the harms caused by pornography to women and children (and sometimes to men) in this unjust male-supremacist society.

Oh…so she actually admits that some men might be harmed by porn?? I thought that all men who used porn were simply innate rapists??

And change “male-supremacist” with “secular” or “Godless” society…and then tell me there’s much difference between this and the Religious Right.

I blame the porno-iarchy for so many women and girls having to make themselves look “sexy” or “fuckable” to men in the goal to achieve a false sense of “empowerment” (been there myself when I used to go clubbing).

As if women weren’t doing such before porn became popular?? And what about the idea that the reason some women might dress to make themselves “fuckable” or “sexy” to men (or, perhaps, to other women) might be because she’s actually looking for sex for her own pleasure??

Oh, but of course not….everybody knows that sexual pleasure not redeemed by “deep intimacy” or “radicalfeminist” politics is simply male-defined and invented by the “porno-iarchy” to enslave women in their own selfish orgasms!!! It must be true because Maggie said so!!

I blame the porno-iarchy for the fact that so many women and girls have to force themselves to have sex when they don’t necessarily want to in order to please their boyfriends and husbands.

I blame the porno-iarchy for the fact that so many women and girls are sexually coerced into sexual acts (coming from the ‘domination/subordination’ pornographic mind) they do not really want to practice.

Oh..and who are you to determine whether women want to or not want to engage in such “domination/subordination” practices?? Even when the woman is in the dominant position?? Of course, even if a woman says outright that she chooses for herself what position she favors, we all know that in a “porno-iarchy”, there is no such thing as mutual consent or even pleasure; it is all nothing short of rape…even if the individual participant insists she was never coerced and that she was never raped; and that she actually wanted to do it.

And….why, Mags, is it only women who are forced to have sex against their will?? Do you assume that men don’t have the same right of refusal when women insist on getting it on??

Oh, I forgot…men are simply coarse animals who can’t control their sexual instincts (unless given the proper radfem treatments of “john schools” and Bob Jensen/Kyle Payne/John Stoltenberg/Richard Leader seminars where they are taught that their penises are nothing short of dangerous weapons to be castrated for the good of society). Therefore, they aren’t capable of self-control….right??

Again…substitute “homosexual” for men and “ex-gay treatment centers” for “john schools…” and you are precisely into crackpot Paul Cameron/NARTH territory. How fitting for a “progressive feminist”.

I blame the porno-iarchy for blaming the victims of rape (saying that’s “her fault, she’s responsible for what happened because blah, blah, blah. . .”) and not the rapists.

Oh, nice one, Maggie…too bad that you can’t find one single example of a leading “pro-porn feminist” ever blaming a woman for being raped. On the other hand, I could find countless examples of antiporn “feminists” going so far as to say that women who dress “sexy” not only deserve to be raped or beaten; but that their very existence triggers men to rape innocent women in response. But…it’s all about the ‘porno-iarchy”, not the scapegoating, slut-shaming, hateful slanders of your side.

I blame the porno-iarchy for the (usual) censoring and demonizing of radical feminists in the malestream media.

I blame the porno-iarchy for accusing us of “siding with religious zealots”.

I blame the porno-iarchy for not letting us rad fems educate enough people on the harms of pornography ’cause of the malestream media being tied to the pornography industry, ’cause pro-porners are endlessly trying to silence us and ’cause of ‘leftist’ liberal stubborn pornography-protecting mind (as Gail Dines & Robert Jensen say ‘Pornography is a Left Issue‘, not a right-wing one)

Too easy, Mags….I don’t see anyone shutting down Gail Dines’ workshops or attempting to censor Bob Jensen’s slideshows or beating down antiporn activists. (Unless you consider Maxine Doogan an antiporn activist, that is. Errrr…OOPS.) And last time I checked, wasn’t Wheelock College a “malestream” institution?? What about the Justice Department, which has funded plenty of Melissa Fairley’s studies that you use to buttress your arguments?? Or the significant support from the Bush Administration that your side has received??

And please….you just don’t get to define what the Left is or should raise as issues, given your close ties to the Farthest of the Right.

I blame the porno-iarchy for some women defending pornography and prostitution in the name of ‘feminism’.

I blame the porno-iarchy for the pro-pornstitution ‘feminists’ being unfairly magnified by malestream media.

I blame the porno-iarchy for slandering us, radical feminists, and totally misrepresenting our views or simply not understanding why we’re so angry at the pornstitution industry (because of the HARMS!!!).

Because only tried and true, pure, antiporn “feminists” like Maggie Hays are assumed to be telling the truth; everyone else is merely apeing the “porno-iarchy” in deep denial of the real “HARMS!!!!”) And of course, the “malestream” media simply eats the “pro-porn” lies up….note the big fat $400 MILLION contract that Nina Hartley just received to promote her book on talk radio…..ahhhhh, wait, hold up…..that wasn’t Nina??? That was really that anti-porn feminist activist Rush Limbaugh?? Oh…never mind, so sorry.

The rest of it I will defer to Ren Ev, since she debunks so well.

Actually, this was only the second most whackoid rant that Maggie has produced…the winner I will tackle with a full fisk anon. Hint: Think of broken records and building sock sand castles to knock down.

Having stated my fundamental disagreement with Nine Deuce over her basic philosophy and her use of that racist cartoon (and it should be noted that she has now gone ahead and taken it down, though the rest of the GenderBorg Posse, especially Heart(less) and Witchy,  still defend it with pride); I will now proceed to do the fundamentally contrarian thing and actually agree with her on something she posted today at her place

Funny, that…there is actually an issue or two where I as a sex rad progressive can actually agree with a antiporn radicalfeminist. So sue me.

Today, ND posted about her grave issues with the clothing conglomerate American Apparel, which is well known for not only its guarantee of sweatshop-free clothing designed for the young, hip, middle-class market, but even more for the…ummmm…innovative ads they run to sell their gear.  That would be innovative as in “Throw lots and lots and LOTS of SEX, SEX, and more SEX at ‘em; as close to porn as we can get without actual sex happening!!!”

It has gotten them and their CEO, Dov Charney, very rich and very successful…but it has also gotten them in a heap of controversy over the overtly sexual use of youngsters in their ads. Now, it is granted that none of the models in the AA ads actually have sex, so Charney and AA aren’t liable to the kiddie porn laws or even 2257…but still, they do kinda stick out there as going pretty damn far in the T & A department.

And it doesn’t help matters either that Charney has had the reputation of being either  — depending on which side of the fence you stand — a Reniassance Man with a unique and open-minded attitude towards sex in the workplace…or a creepy, skeezy pervert and near pedophile who forces his dick on every woman he sees and employees.  He was well known for the notorious act of openly masturbating in front of a female reporter who once interviewed him for a trade journal (the woman interviewer wasn’t offended and took it all in stride); and he openly boasts of sleeping with his ad models.

And even his company, despite its anti-sweatshop commitment, has come under fire from traditional unions for underpaying his workers; along with the accusations of sexual harassment. A bitter lawsuit was filed at one time by some female employees there, but it was soon thrown out.

Obviously, ND sees him in the latter light as a total pervert and asshole, and the perfect model of the corporate pimp who uses womwn’s bodies for his own pleasure, not to mention his theft of gritty urban fashion for petty gain.

I almost want to blame Dov Charney for hipsterism. His store is a mecca for people who think they’re making the world a better, hipper place by overvaluing ugly cotton clothing, and it’s the place people go when they’re ready to make the belated move from dance music to lame corporate “indie” rock. I definitely blame Dov Charney for the dorkification of some of the more interesting urban areas in this country. I mean, once you see an American Apparel store go up in a neighborhood, you can pretty much assume that any real counter-cultural activity going on in the area is over and that any interesting residents will be moving elsewhere, afterward to be replaced by Radiohead fans with Apple computers and sparrow tattoos who don’t mind paying triple the current rents.

Whether he made hispterism the asshole trend of the decade or not, he’s making sure it spreads and doesn’t go away, so fuck him to the floor for that alone.

[....]

But did I mention that he likes to sexually harass his employees, the women he does business with, and everyone else he comes across who owns a vagina (he’s been sued at least 5 times for it)? Did I mention that his company’s advertisements (which are done in-house and can’t be blamed on anyone else) are basically kitschy 70s porn? Did I forget to say that he coerces the “models” he hires to create that 70s porn into letting him pork them, often by warning them that their jobs depend on it? Oh yeah, he also jacked off on someone and he likes to walk around the office naked, firing anyone who doesn’t like it. He’s a bad guy.

I suppose it isn’t much of a surprising story. Total geek in high school (I mean, fuck, his name is Dov Charney… and did you see him?), hated by everyone, can’t get anyone to touch his wiener, gets rich and powerful, then takes it out on the women he has some authority over and pretends it’s just one big fun sex party.

For the sake of clarity, it should be known that Charney does have his defenders, including some present employees at AA who insist that no sexual harassment occured at all, that everything going on there is totally consensual, and that it is mostly disgruntled former workers with axes to grind who are responsible for his and the company’s bad rep.

Now….there was a part of me back in the day who would actually, in my more utopian moments, actually see the glass-half-full side of this issue; where the antics of American Apparel’s workplace could be actually seen as a model for a more open and progressive viewpoint of handling sexuality in the workplace. I mean, can you imagine a job where there would be no hangups about who’s sleeping with who; and where open sexuality would be treated with respect rather than ridicule??  It may make for wonderful wanking fantasy for erotic fiction and the “Sex at Work” section of the adult movie store; but could it quite work out for real in the workplace of today??

Ahhhhh…errrrrrrr..uhhhh….no.  Not even close.  Not in this lifetime. And not with the prevailing attitudes.

Don’t get me wrong, though…I would wonder whether a woman with the power (both corporate and sexual) of Dov Charney would be able to pull off such a feat; and it would make for an interesting experiment for the future should an openly sexual and intelligent woman ever achieve such power in the corporate world. Within the porn industry, indeed, there are women who are slowly getting that kind of corporate power, such as Lisa Ann, a porn performer who now runs her own talent agency for porn performers (Lisa Ann Talent Management, which manages some of the heaviest hitters in porn like Nina Hartley and up and cummers like Bridgett Lee), and who still does the occasional video and strip club tour.  And there are women like Vicky Vette, who have parlayed their years of experience in the corporate world in middle management into their subsequent careers in the industry (and in Vicky’s case, her highly successful website.

Problem is, though, the prevailing attitudes about sexuality being both private and not fit for public consumption, and the potential for abuse by  leering men (and women) who may take advantage of such an open attitude; not to mention the wandering eye of the vice cops; would probably squash  that experiment flatter than the Catrock in West Texas.

But while Charney’s personal perversions may be an issue only to those who feel offended by his act, his use of young girls for AA’s “sexy” ads is the main issue for me…and why ultimately I’m more than tempted to agree with Nine Deuce for a change. While I am all for much more adult sexual expression, I draw the line explicitly at using young underage girls and boys as hooks for selling sex to pimp clothing….and I’d much rather that I not see 15- and 16-year-old girls  and boys be put out in the ‘ho and slut fashion merely to make more money for Dov’s private sex parties. That’s why we have legal age of consent, fool, and why porn should be made by ADULTS.

Besides, if AA really wants to push the sex angle so much to pimp their gear, why not simply hire out actual and LEGAL women from porn for their ads??  I mean, they would be actually doing a service by giving these girls an alternative source of income, and providing actual benefits like insurance wouldn’t hurt their cause.  They could even team up with HUSTLER and their “Barely Legal” line of videos; it’s not as if they don’t share the same demographic. There is no need to go to the “Buy our clothes so that you can get seriously laid by fresh, hot, young ass” card…unless thinly-veiled pedophilia was part of the hook to begin with.

Sorry, Dov, but you represent open-minded sexuality the way Jim Jones represents Christianity. Very, very, badly.  And you’re still a skezy, slimy perv, too. (I don’t mean that in the sex-positive way, either.) Youz gets no love or support from me…only a grand “FAIL”. I’d shop at Wal-Mart before I ever touch one of your clothing.

Besides…Danni Ashe did it so much more better, and would kick your ass both professionally and sexually. And, she’s one hell of a lot sexier looking when she jills off, too.

(Note: Even Renegade Evolution, who knows a thing or ten about sex and taking charge, gives Dov Charney the big FAIL.)

(Note #2: Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon (nice upgrade!!) gets her forearm shivers into Charney and AA’s backsides, too.)

[Updated: scroll down to the bottom.]

Oh, how nice….I was so busy answering Nine Deuce’s inquiry that I glossed over the rest of her essay….and it’s even more loaded and leading of the question than the questions:

Where are the men who want to argue vociferously for women’s “right” to participate in their own exploitation? Where are the men clambering to convince me that (women) getting naked for money is empowering? Where are all the dudes who want to tell me that feminism is about “choice” and that women who are making the “choice” to suck a bunch of dicks for money are leading the charge toward some future utopia in which women will be safe, free, and human? Not many of these men exist, because most men know that they’d have a hard time keeping a straight face while making such claims. So why are women making the claim for them?

Of course, all this is just a figment of ND’s vivid imagination, since no prominent sex-pozzie male has ever, at least as far as i have seen, ever claimed the universal that sex work is innately “empowering” to all women (other than those women who have testified personally that it was empowering for them….but you know that their voices don’t count in the minds of radicalfemiinists like ND); or that there is anything “utopian” about “making the ‘choice’ to suck a bunch of dicks for money”. And of course, the idea that women can’t speak for themselves (at least, not the women who don’t think like Nine Deuce and Heart(less) and Maggie Hays and Witchy-Woo) but need men to carry their water, tends not to get through the microcode implants in their brains.

But even that does not compare to the greatest weapon that ND brandishes in her assault on pro-pornie men…..namely, this cartoon:

Uh-huh. Nothing says “exploitation” quite like gawking, leering men staring down a scantily-clad woman.

Except, ND…that it isn’t quite exploitation if the woman actually likes it. Or the guys actually respect her. And they are willing to tip her graciously. (Yes, ND, she’s the one getting paid, and they’re doing the paying. So, who’s exploiting who here???)

But, it’s the racial mixture of the gawking men that should really squick everyone here: does Nine Deuce really understand how depicting men of color as mouth-dripping, sex-obsessed adolescents just might feed into charges of racism???

Errrrr…..just sayin’.

Update: Get a load of how Nine Deuce attempts to dismiss criticism of using this cartoon:

“I think the picture is of a bunch of old white dudes that are outside the reach of the spotlight. If the artist intended them to look like men of color, I’m not backing that, but I doubt it. In any case, with regard to the post it’s a tertiary issue at best. Back to the point.”

Oh, really??? Well, bless her heart…..or, to be more accurate, BULLSHIT.

Notice, for example, the guy at the forefront who’s staring directly at the stripper’s ass. Looks Black to me….or else that must be one powerless spotlight.

Or…the two men standing next to the man who’s talking about “Enough exploitiation, let’s have the empowerment!!!” Most definitely Black…especially the bald-headed one.

But, of course, all of that is merely tertiary to the main point of…what?? That sex-positive men only want to get into women’s panties?? That their respect for women who perform sex acts on stage or screen (or even those who simply strip in night clubs) are simply “Freedom to Rape With Impunity” cards to assault women with?? That we all are simply Ted Bundys in training??

How very antiracist of you, Nine Deuce….I see that Jon Justice isn’t the only one needing a trip on the Klew Train.

Update #2: Leave it to Amber Rhea to bring down the bolt of truth onto such haters:

Yes, no surprise, shit like this and this (check the comment from “L”) downright enrages me. And even that word, I think, does not do justice to the pure RAGE I feel when I see people DENYING MY AGENCY AS A HUMAN BEING, denying my very existence, denying that I am an intelligent, capable, self-aware woman who is CONSTANTLY examining and reflecting on my own life and the choices I make. It hurts the most when it comes from other women, in particular other feminists.

[...]

It enrages me, and it makes me feel sick, and sad, and just awful about humanity, actually. Because why is it such a difficult conce