Ms Naughty Porn for Women Blog

Archive for May, 2011

I’ve put together a short video of the Brisbane Slutwalk which was held on Saturday 28th May. Thanks to all who agreed to be interviewed. I’ve also edited a longer version of this with more footage and interviews. This is the feature at For The Girls, appearing on Thursday.

I keep seeing comments that say “I’m confused as to what this is all about.” I hope this video explains it to them.

So many people don’t seem to understand why 1500 people would want to be associated with the word “slut”. But that lack of understanding is part of the point. Beyond protesting against blaming the victims of assult, it’s about getting people to question the word – and the attitudes behind it. Why is it bad to be a slut? What exactly does it mean to “dress like a slut?” Why do people use it to put women down? Why do we let it have such power?

I’ve seen such an unthinking response. Either it’s guys saying “Her her, lets go perve at all the dumb sluts” or its people happily reinforcing the stereotypes about female sexuality and “proper” female behaviour.

And of course, all the assholes insisting that it’s “just common sense” not to wear skimpy clothing because it attracts “the wrong sort of attention”. These people are victim blamers and slut shamers, pure and simple. So many can’t seem to distinguish between sex and rape. If a woman wants to attract sexual attention via sexy clothing, that’s her perogative. Perhaps she’s just out to pull a root (to use Australian slang). There’s nothing wrong with that. The point is that she is the one who decides who that root will be with and the circumstances in which it occurs.

Perhaps one of the more powerful moments at the rally was the story of the woman who was raped in her home and the police asked her what she was wearing. That kind of dreadful attitude needs to be eradicated.

One of the other things I tried to portray with this video was the real sense of fun and comeraderie that infused the Slutwalk. It was great to associate with so many other like-minded people. These were smart, aware people who were also sex-positive in their outlook and forward-thinking with their politics. I hope we can keep the vibe going.

Related Posts:

• Fun At The Brisbane Slutwalk
• Tomorrow I’ll Be Slutwalking
• How Sex With Your Head In A Toilet Bowl Can Be OK
• Why Yes, I Am A Capitalist

Yesterday I attended the Slutwalk in Brisbane and had a fabulous time. The rally was well organised, well attended (about 1500 people), peaceful, positive and fun. I expected there to be trolls but none were to be found – perhaps it’s easier to make abusive comments online. When faced with 1500 empowered “sluts” I’m sure they knew better than to say anything. Which is part of the point.

This Slutwalk was organised by Ann Watson and Rory Killen from the Sex Party. Professor Alan McKee (co-author of the Porn Report and possibly the coolest Professor on the planet) spoke, as did Creatrix Tiara and Fiona Patten. We then marched through the city and ended cheerfully at a park by the river. Most people along the route were supportive, I thought.

The whole thing was great. There was a real sense of atmosphere and comraderie there. The majority of attendees were young women but there were also plenty of guys which was wonderful. Given that it was May, not that many opted for full “slutwear”; most were just in their comfy jeans and t-shirts. No doubt the media were a little let down by that but a few lovely people got their freak on and that was fab too.

I think an annual Slutwalk sounds like a very good idea. And part of me would like it to somehow morph into a kind of female sexy mardi gras, a way to celebrate sexuality in public similar to the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in Sydney. Maybe I will get my chance to wear a spangly bikini and ride a giant penis float after all.

I filmed the event and will put the video on Youtube when it’s done. I’ll also be putting a longer movie and feature article in the member’s area at For The Girls.

Meanwhile, here’s a few small photos…

Related Posts:

• Brisbane Slutwalk Video
• A Weird Feminist Critique Of Porn For Women
• Naomi Wolf’s “The Porn Myth” Is Recycled… Again!
• A Feminist Porn Community?

Been meaning to write this blog post for a couple of weeks now. Tomorrow I’ll be attending the local Slutwalk in the city. I was going to get into my sexiest outfit but I suspect it will be too cold for such extravagances. So now I’m considering just wearing my usual jeans and comfy shoes. Although perhaps I should wear my work pyjamas. Sitting here making porn wearing pyjamas makes me a slut, I’m sure.

I also had the idea of creating a crazy Angry of Mayfair-style costume that was half burka and half bikini because I thought it would make a great point about the whole nonsense concept of “modesty”. But naturally I didn’t have time to create it. So you’ll just have to imagine it*.

There’s been numerous mainstream media articles about the Slutwalk in the last few weeks and perhaps the most interesting part of those have been the comment sections (here’s an example – almost 250 rabid comments. And here’s Clem Bastow’s great piece with 150 comments). What the comments have revealed is just how much the Slutwalk is needed. A disturbing number of people, often men, have come in and repeated the same victim-blaming mentality that the Slutwalk is protesting against. Often it’s couched in terms of “it’s just common sense” but the attitude remains.

Ideas about what female sexuality should look like are quite thoroughly entrenched in our society. It’s sad to see the number of people who unthinkingly regurgitate ideas about female promiscuity, “sluttishness”, uncontrollable male desire and the circumstances in which rape occurs.

We’re told that “that’s just the way it is” and Slutwalkers are “ignoring reality” by demanding that people rethink attitudes to rape and female sexuality. Well, fuck them.

Clem Bastow, one of the organisers of the Melbourne Slutwalk, wrote this comeback on her blog

STOP comparing women’s bodies to wallets/presents around the Christmas tree/your house/your car with your stupid, stupid “You wouldn’t leave your wallet on a bench” analogies. If I leave my wallet on a bench and someone steals it then, yes, that was a silly thing to do and I’ll probably regret it. If I go out and somebody rapes me, then THAT IS NOT MY FAULT.
STOP saying “But women have to accept some responsibility blah blah”. NO, the only people who have to “accept responsibility” are those who rape and sexually assault people.
STOP this inane idea that men are governed by such uncontrollable caveman urges that they simply can’t even look at a woman’s cleavage/legs/etc without needing to have sex with her then and there. Give them, or yourselves, a bit more credit.
STOP shaming women who dress “sexy” or “slutty” for wanting attention. Whether they want it from men, women, or because they like to think of themselves as sexy, wanting to be looked at or desired DOES NOT EQUAL wanting to be raped or inviting sexual assault.

I also want to feature the wonderful writing of comedian and author Ben Pobije who wrote about the Slutwalk today. It makes me want to pump my fist in the air and shout it from the rooftops:

This is why I like SlutWalk: because I want to send the message that when the bastards of the world, the paternalists, the misogynists, the rape apologists and the straight up-and-down arseholes, snarl the word “slut” at a woman because she’s not conforming with the way he wants femininity to manifest itself, the decent, well-adjusted people of the world will LAUGH IN THEIR FACES.

You want to call them sluts? Well that is just fine, guys. We will throw it back in your faces, laugh our heads off, and go on living our lives. Not just the sluts, but the men who love them, the children they raise, and everyone else who doesn’t accept the right of the pricks to shape the world.

Ben really nails what the whole thing is about. It’s a good reminder, especially in the face of those who are complaining that it’s “too vague” or not feminist enough (e.g this article from today’s SMH).

The big question is… what will I put on my placard? There’s part of me wants to be silly and hold something that says “I have a sign” or “Down with this sort of thing” a la Father Ted but I think that might be a waste of a good sign. The tricky thing is coming up with a short phrase that somehow sums the whole thing up easily. One of the suggestions I read on Facebook was “Got Consent?” I liked that a lot. But I think I’ll go with “Women like sex. Not rape.”

By the way, to all the guys saying they’ll be at the Slutwalk so they can look at scantily clad women: Thanks. That’s nice of you. May I suggest you join in as well? Because if you enjoy looking at women, you should also respect them. If you don’t, you’re exactly the kind of slut shaming arsehole we’re protesting against.

*Photoshop fun, done in a very dodgy and hasty manner but gives you the idea.

Edit: You just have to read Ben Pobjie’s hilarious piece in New Matilda about the Slutwalk. It’s PURE GOLD:

One of the feminists who doesn’t like SlutWalk is Gail Dines, who is such a big massive feminist that if you look feminism up in the dictionary, she’ll slap you because the first syllable of dictionary is “dick”. Dines is a powerful and kind-hearted feminist who has committed her life to protecting women from penises…

And then of course there is the issue of how, ever since nudity was invented in 1953 by Hugh Hefner, everyone is a rapist which is a shame.

And Catherine Deveney has lots of great things to say here.

Related Posts:

• Brisbane Slutwalk Video
• Fun At The Brisbane Slutwalk
• Time Again For Operation Church Stakeout

Last Friday I heard that anti-porn author Gail Dines was going to appear on the ABC’s interactive program Q&A. As the public is invited to submit questions, I thought I’d add mine. It went something like:

Gail Dines dismisses feminist porn by saying it’s not different enough from mainstream porn. What kind of sexually explicit material would be OK by her personal feminist standards?

I signed it as “Louise Lush” because, after being mentioned in the SMH a couple of weeks ago, I should post the question as a feminist pornographer.

I hit return and the question went into moderation, along with thousands of other questions. Then, at 10.30pm on Sunday night, I got an email from one of the producers of Q&A asking me to video myself asking the question and to send it in. She also wanted to know where I lived.

Immediately, I quailed. The idea of me appearing on national TV under my porn pseudonym – with bonus information about where I live – is not appealing. I live in a small town and every second person on my street is a fundamentalist Christian.

I declined on the video question. The producer replied the next morning saying that was OK… but where did I live?

I didn’t reply. As far as I know, the question didn’t get asked. (I couldn’t bring myself to watch it).

I guess you could say it was a cowardly response. Surely if I believe in what I do and oppose censorship I should stand up and be counted, fight the good fight and be damned what people think.

The problem is, if it was only a matter of what people think, I’d probably be OK. But it’s not that simple.

Australia has some very confusing and fucked up laws regarding porn. As far as I’m aware, I haven’t broken any of them. Still, that’s no guarantee of protection from persecution. As we saw with the prosecution against Abby Winters, it only takes one crusading journalist to kick up a stink and things can go very pear shaped indeed. It would only take one fundamentalist Christian neighbour to call the police and tell them I was making child porn and my life would become a living hell. Never mind that I don’t or that my kind of porn is possibly the most innocuous stuff in the world… that doesn’t matter when the police are raiding your house at dawn and confiscating your DVDs and computers.

Ask Richard Wollstoncraft about that one.

I have a lot to lose. And while I want to engage in political discussions and tell the world that Gail Dines’ anti-porn stance is wrong, I’m at a distinct disadvantage.

Things are great for Gail Dines and other anti-porn activists like Sheila Jeffries and Melinda Tankard Reist. Our society gives them the high moral ground. Porn is automatically assumed to be evil so those who want to ban it can swan about and demand censorship with impunity. Gail Dines gets opinion pieces in major newspapers, radio show slots, TV appearances and special presentations at NSW Parliament House. Those who oppose that position are on the back foot already because defending porn invites automatic personal attack. And, in my case, possible breach of privacy or persecution.

I’m always conflicted about this. I wanted to start a group similar to Feminists for Free Expression in Australia. I want to have a lobby group to oppose the increasing influence of conservatives with an anti sex agenda. Problem is, I don’t want to be the spokesperson. I can’t be the spokesperson. I’m tainted. And I’m also afraid for my privacy and my livelihood. And yet I want to defend freedom of speech and speak out for feminist porn.

How can there be any kind of reasonable debate about the place of porn in society when the board is set so unevenly?

—-

Note: Thomas Roche has written an excellent reply to Gail Dines’ SMH piece from last week. He says everything I wanted to say – and saved me the hassle of writing it myself. Thanks Thomas!

Related Posts:

• First They Came For The Pornographers…
• At Last: The Sex Party
• Australian Porn, Censorship And Statistics Roundup
• Poems Punishable By Jail

Gail Dines is doing the rounds and she’s back in Australia promoting censorship of porn, saying that “there is no room for porn in a just society.” The response to that is a whole other blog post (although I have 2 comments on that story).

Today Joel Tozer, a freelance writer, offers his reply to Dines’ piece here. And while it’s mostly OK, I’ve got a problem with his basic assumption that porn is “addictive” and his use of a University of Sydney study to back it up.

Firstly, there is no scientific consensus on the topic of “porn addiction”. There is no diagnosis of pornography addiction in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Porn is not inherently “addictive” although some people may develop behavioural compulsions with it. The phrase “porn addiction” has become widespread thanks to its use by fundamentalist Christian organisations offering “cures” and anti-porn conservatives. It’s not helped by the numerous pseudo-psychological articles found online and the media’s constant unquestioning use of the term.

The whole dirty ball of lint will then be expanded by a piece of research which has been conducted by Gomathi and Raj Sitharthan at the University of Sydney. I can see that their preliminary statistics are about to propagate throughout the media and become a new “truth” about porn, even though their research doesn’t come close to being the whole story.

To quote from the Joel’s article:

A world-first study in Sydney has found that almost half of all adults first watched pornography between the ages of 11 and 13…

Preliminary results from the University of Sydney study show many men, and women, are spending massive amounts of time and money viewing porn. Of more than 700 adult Australians surveyed, about one-third looked at internet porn three to five times a week, while 28 per cent look at it almost every day – half of them for between 30 minutes and three hours. A few are spending up to 14 hours watching porn.

Co-researcher Professor Raj Sitharthan says many are becoming addicted to the safety of online pornography to the point where some are unable to achieve orgasm during intercourse.

Here’s the thing the article doesn’t tell you: that university study was created specifically to study “porn addiction”. It’s basic premise was that porn addiction is real and it sought to find participants who felt they had a problem with porn.

Here’s the abstract, taken from this University of Sydney Page:

The Impact of Internet Pornography
The purpose of this research is to further our understanding of Internet Pornography Addiction/ Problematic Internet-Enabled Sexual Behaviours .The study is exploring the support / treatment currently available for internet pornography addiction. The investigation is also exploring help seeking behaviour for internet pornography addiction and the barriers to seeking assistance.

When you click through to the survey, the questions are very specific in their tone. Under the heading of “The Impact of Internet Pornography”, the questions are:

How often do you find that you stay on-line longer than you intended?
How often do you neglect household chores to spend more time on-line?
How often do you prefer the excitement of the Internet to intimacy with your partner?
How often do you form new relationships with fellow on-line users?
How often do others in your life complain to you about the amount of time you spend on-line?
How often do your grades or school work suffer because of the amount of time you spend on-line?
How often do you check your e-mail before something else that you need to do?
How often does your job performance or productivity suffer because of the Internet?
How often do you become defensive or secretive when anyone asks you what you do on-line?

And that’s just the first page of questions. There’s another page of very similar questions before things get specific about first use of porn, what kind of porn is used etc.

I actually wanted to take part in this survey because I thought it might be about porn use. When I encountered those first biased questions I realised that I did not not fulfil their criteria – or their agenda. So I filled it out anyway, hoping to at least even up their figures a little bit.

By the way, question 41 is “Would you like to seek professional assistance to manage your dependence viewing pornographic materials?”

Question 42 says “If you answered Yes to question 41, how would you like to receive assistance to manage your dependence on pornographic materials:
* send me booklets
* via the internet
* face-to-face individual counselling
* group counseling

So, it’s pretty clear that this is not research about porn use. It’s research about porn “addiction” and one of its aims is finding the best way to cure that “addiction”.

The problem with today’s SMH article is that the figures produced by this survey are being quoted out of context. The statistics are being used to imply that ALL Australians accessed porn early and that lots of people have some kind of problem with it or use it constantly. The article doesn’t acknowledge that the survey was designed to find people who already thought they had some kind of problem with it.

Now, watch the truthiness propagate out. These figures will start to pop up in mainstream media outlets without any fact checking. They’ll be repeated ad nauseum until it becomes The Truth.

Unfortunately, this is often the problem with a lot of research into porn. It often approaches the subject as if porn use is a problem that needs to be solved, or it has an anti-porn slant. This is why I’m really looking forward to the results of the Pornography Research Online study being conducted by Clarissa Smith, Feona Attwood and Martin Barker, three UK academics who are interested in studying porn use. They want to be as objective as they can with the results.

If you haven’t already, I recommend you take their private and confidential survey.

I also recommend the Sexademic’s excellent debunking of the “addiction” myth here.

Related Posts:

• Porn Does Not Cause Rape
• More On Australian Women, Porn and Sex
• Swedish Mums Like Porn
• More On The Porn Report

In the US bookstores Barnes and Noble and Borders are censoring the cover of Dossier magazine which features an image of androgynous model Andrej Pejic, shirtless. As you can see, Andrej is biologically male but he is also very pretty and his face may be considered to have feminine characteristics. Andrej has made waves in the fashion world by modelling women’s clothing, including a wedding dress by Jean-Paul Gautier.

It seems that Andrej’s genderbending prettiness is too much for the good folk in the US so opaque plastic covers are being placed over the cover to protect the oh-so-delicate sensibilities of bookshop customers. Dossier are expected to pay the extra expense for the plastic.

So… where to start with this. Firstly, it’s a lovely PR coup for Dossier magazine and a great publicity boost for Andrej, so in essence I guess this kerfuffle isn’t a bad thing. But it says so much about gender, censorship and society’s attitude to breasts.

From the SMH:

Dossier creative director Skye Parrott told the Huffington Post that the magazine had informed both stores that Pejic was male, and that they were essentially censoring the image of a shirtless man.

However, both stores stood by their decisions, saying customers could mistake Pejic for a shirtless woman.

I think that statement what’s really caught my attention. This shows up just how ridiculous it is that we declare a woman’s breasts to be obscene and censor-worthy but it’s OK for a man to show his nipples (except, of course, for this man, because he looks too much like a woman). It’s the assumption that breasts are alwasy sexual and must be hidden from view. That putting boobs on a cover is always indecent or sleazy.

This is the same way of thinking that sees breastfeeding photos banned from Facebook and images of shirtless children deemed obscene. It’s helped along by the increasing use and acceptance of the term “breast nudity” in the media, a fact that no doubt pleases the hysterical anti-sex conservatives. Men can be “shirtless” but women must never be “topless”.

I’m a believer in the top free movement. If guys are allowed to take their shirts off in public, women should have the same right. Nobody should be demanding censorship because a magazine shows male nipples, no matter how feminine he might look. And nobody should be automatically assuming that censorship should occur because a magazine shows female nipples.

Obviously this censorship is also a kneejerk reaction to a queer image. Andrej’s photo messes with our ingrained perceptions of gender and no doubt this upsets some people who want it all to be neat and tidy, thank you very much. I’m sure there’ll be howls about the “gay agenda” surrounding the whole thing. Dossier have achieved their aim which was to garner attention and create that gender-ridden confusion. It’s challenging to our sense of what’s “normal” and that’s a good thing.

I’ve looked at pics of Andrej on Google Images. He’s a very, VERY pretty man. He has that aloof, ethereal quality that seems to be favoured by the lunatic fashion designers. I’ve seen comments suggesting he may be the image of perfection to the often weirdly misogynist fashion world: a stick-thin model that looks female without all that nastiness of actually being female. Part of me thinks that’s not too far off the truth.

Is he sexy? I’m not sure. He’s not really my type. Perhaps he looks TOO female for me. Especially in this pic (left) which would probably have caused armagedden if it was on a magazine cover.

Actually, that image is also a good one for challenging stereotypes and stirring up discussion. It shows just how critical the pose is to our interpretation of an image. Here Andrej is posed in a typical, “sexy” female position. It demands that we read that picture in a certain way, looking at it as a sexual image. It also demands that we study it with a male gaze and admire the feminine beauty of the model. But he’s male and that throws a delicious spanner in the works. It’s good fun.

Reminds me of the good old days of Boy George and Marilyn and Dead or Alive. Although I do hope lovely Andrej doesn’t go the way of Pete Burns.

In any case, fuck you to Barnes and Noble and Borders. And fuck you to everyone who thinks censorship of the human body is a good idea.

Related Posts:

• Now Australia Is Banning Small Boobs
• Alien Nipples And “Adults Only” Hair Sex
• “Excessive Genital Detail”: Photoshopped Vulvas In Men’s Mags
• “A Real, As Opposed To A Fanciful, Risk Of Harm”

I’ve badly neglected my blog this week. I’m working on the revamp of Ms Naughty plus a number of other things. I’ve also been participating in various online comment sections about the upcoming Slutwalk. I want to do a large post on the Slutwalk but haven’t had a chance to gather my thoughts. Will do it soon.

In the meantime, here’s the lovely Dan who was our centerfold at For The Girls a couple of months ago.

Related Posts:

• Revisiting The Rudeness Of Hot Gossip
• Beautiful Man Photos
• Sexy Short Films
• Soft Focus But She’s In Charge

A couple of weeks ago I was interviewed (in my Louise Lush filmmaking persona) by Alyssa McDonald and the end result was published today in the SMH: Feminist Porn Faces Hardcore Critics.

I had a decent chat with Alyssa and showed her my film which she enjoyed. I think the end result isn’t too bad, although I wish she’d included some of the other things I’d said. I also have an issue with this paragraph:

The vast majority of explicit material is made for a male audience; at best, it is degrading, and at worst it is often physically harmful to the women featured in it.

This is too much of a generalisation and not backed up by facts. Porn is not inherently degrading and it’s doubtful that porn is “often” physically harmful to the female performers. Not to say that these things are concerns but this is too much of a blanket statement.

My other problem is that last quote about “objectification.” It hasn’t quite come out right. I was questioning the entire concept and the way it’s always trotted out as a criticism of porn. No-one really questions what it means, or whether “objectification” is something that only happens in porn. I was pointing out that objectifying others is a human trait, it happens in everyday life all the time including when we’re at the supermarket.

And, I should say to all the shop assistants at the supermarket: you do an excellent job and thank you for doing it.

As all news articles will seek out an opposing opinion in the name of “balance”, this article features quotes from Sheila Jeffreys who is a professor of Political Science at the University of Melbourne. Prof. Jeffreys is an anti-porn feminist in the mould of Andrea Dworkin and she has also written about transgender issues, much to the consternation of some in the trans community. She is also critical of BDSM practices and has advocated lesbian separatism.

Unfortunately, anti-porn feminism doesn’t seem able to accept the idea that feminist porn might exist or be a force for good. I think this is because it’s founded on the belief that all porn is inherently sexist, harmful and bad. The existence of good porn undermines the basic premise, therefore it must be dismissed.

Anti-porn feminists do this by claiming false consciousness (”feminist pornographers are just regurgitating the same sexist ideas because they are unthinking tools of the patriarchy”), fake marketing (”feminist porn is just a term invented by the mainstream porn industry to sell the same stuff”), or by simply denying that feminist or ethical porn even exists.

Sheila goes for the false consciousness idea right off the bat:

The ideas of the [feminist] filmmakers have been constructed by mainstream pornography, so they don’t come from somewhere completely different.

Firstly, how does she know where feminist filmmakers get their ideas?

Secondly, why would it be wrong to look at mainstream porn, get an idea and then work from there? A lot of us look at porn and make a checklist of what NOT to do. That to me is a positive thing. Perhaps her issue is with the very concept of depicting sex itself; perhaps she believes that any image or footage of people having sex is inherently wrong. Given that anti-porn feminism concerns itself with heterosexual porn, perhaps we’re back to the old Dworkinesque concept that all sex with men is rape and therefore any depiction of it is wrong.

I’m also wondering what “completely different” porn might look like. Because, in the end, sex is sex and there’s only so many ways you can depict it. I’d actually love to hear more about Prof. Jeffreys’ idea of what porn that comes from “somewhere completely different” would look like.

And the culture pornography creates is a culture of violence against women… it’s a culture in which women are shouted at in the street, in which gang-bangs are ordinary in the Australian football league…

Cart before the horse. I actually think that the sexism of our culture sees some of its expression in porn and that’s the kind of porn I don’t like. But to say that porn is what causes footballers to be obnoxious rapists… um, no. Try harder, Homer.

Oh, but there’s feminist erotica. Oh, but there’s something else. And the fact is, thirty-five years on or whatever, I haven’t seen the something else that is completely different…

Again the call for something “completely different.” I’m fascinated as to how different porn needs to be before it meets the standards of Prof. Jeffreys. Poetry instead of dialogue? Unusual costumes? Disco lighting? No sex whatsoever?

I’d like Sheila Jeffreys to actually watch some feminist porn. Maybe not my films but I’m sure the work of Shine Louise Houston or Bren Ryder might be more to her taste. I’d really like to hear a refined critique as to what exactly is wrong with filming two consenting, happy lesbians having sex together and then watching it. (Or two straight people. Or three people. Or six trans guys, a hot gay man and their luscious female friend who has tied them all up and is making them pleasure her with their tongues… Um… what was I saying?)

It really is a shame that anti-porn feminism feels the need to decry feminist or positive or ethical porn. The argument is too black and white. Fact is, the feminist pornographers share some of the concerns of people like Sheila Jeffreys with regards to how porn is made and what it depicts. We should be having a sensible discussion about the whole thing. Instead, we’re denied and derided, dismissed as shills for the mainstream porn industry and excluded from the realm of “true” feminism. It’s no way forward and ultimately doesn’t help women.

For more info on pro-porn feminism, I recommend Violet Blue’s Our Porn, Ourselves site.

Related Posts:

• A Need For Privacy Makes This “Debate” One-Sided
• The Guardian Does Porn For Women
• Let’s Talk About Extreme Porn
• Gail Dines On Lady Porn Day

Yes, I do have a dirty mind.

My grandmother taught me the much tamer version of this song, “Sweet Violets” and I have fond memories of the word play involved. Actually, my Nan taught me a lot of mildy rude songs when I was a kid. I miss her.

This one is crude but still hilarious.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Not a bad little video.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts