Ms Naughty Porn for Women Blog
Ms Naughty looks at porn for women, the adult industry and sex in general.
Porn Does Not Cause Rape
Friday, January 27th, 2012
For years, anti-porn activists have campaigned against porn on the basis that it increases acts of violence against women. In essence, they say that porn causes rape.
Today I thought I might sit down and compile a few resources that refute that claim. Because as far as I’m aware, there is still no reliable evidence to suggest that watching pornography induces men to rape.
I think the biggest piece of evidence against the claim is self evident. In the last 15 years, internet pornography has become freely available to anyone who wishes to view it. Yet there has been no substantial increase in the rape rate in that time. Indeed, US government statistics reveal that in that time, the rate of forcible rate dropped steadily. If the “porn causes rape” claim were true, we would have seen an increase in sexual assault rates. Obviously that is a very simplistic argument but it’s one that anti-porn people need to deal with. And they don’t.
One of the more interesting academic articles dealing with this issue is by Anthony D’Amato from Northwestern University School of Law. His paper Porn Up, Rape Down discusses the idea that there was an 85% reduction in sexual violence over the 25 years to 2003 (and the rate has kept falling since the paper was published). He goes on to posit that not only does porn NOT cause rape, he suggests that it may actually reduce rape, either by serving as a release valve or by demystifying sex. He concedes that the correlation does not equal causality and suggests further research.
A similar 2006 paper by Todd Kendall entitled Pornography, Rape and the Internet points out that rape rates decreased in US states where the internet was rapidly taken up. Interestingly, the growth in internet use had no effect on the rates of other crimes. Slate summed up the research in an article How The Web Prevents Rape. The Register also covers the topic here.
An earlier, pre-internet paper looked at rape rates in countries that had legalised porn and came to similar conclusions. Pornography, Sex Crime and Public Policy by Berl Kutchinsky was published in 1991. He writes:
The aggregate data on rape and other violent or sexual offences from four countries where pornography, including aggressive varieties, has become widely and easily available during the period we have dealt with would seem to exclude, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this availability has had any detrimental effects in the form of increased sexual violence.
Our knowledge about the contents, the uses and the users of pornography suggests that pornography does not represent a blueprint for rape, but is essentially an aphrodisiac, that is, food for the sexual fantasy of persons – mostly males- who like to masturbate
It should also be noted that this same conclusion was reached by Richard Nixon’s first inquiry into porn in 1970. Anthony D’Amato writes about working on the commission in his “Porn Up, Rape Down” paper. He says:
The Commission [on Obscenity and Pornography] concluded that there was no causal relationship between exposure to sexually explicit materials and delinquent or criminal behavior. The President was furious when he learned of the conclusion. Later President Reagan tried the same thing, except unlike his predecessor he packed the Commission with persons who passed his ideological litmus test. (Small wonder that I was not asked to participate.) This time, Reagan’s Commission on Pornography reached the approved result: that there does exist a causal relationship between pornography and violent sex crimes.
It’s not scientific to reach a conclusion and then set out to find data that backs your case, ignoring contradictory information. That is ideology, not research.
If anti-porn activists can give me real evidence that porn does cause rape, I’ll change my mind. But at this stage, based on the simple fact of dropping rape rates, I’m not seeing it.
One more link and quote to finish this post: a summary article from Scientific American which looked at various studies into porn and found that it was not harmful.
Contrary to what many people believe, recent research shows that moderate pornography consumption does not make users more aggressive, promote sexism or harm relationships. If anything, some researchers suggest, exposure to pornography might make some people less likely to commit sexual crimes.
The most common concern about pornography is that it indirectly hurts women by encouraging sexism, raising sexual expectations and thereby harming relationships. Some people worry that it might even incite violence against women. The data, however, do not support these claims. “There’s absolutely no evidence that pornography does anything negative,” says Milton Diamond, director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. “It’s a moral issue, not a factual issue.”
PS. Even though the sample was far too small, this 2 year Canadian study of men’s porn surfing habits does provide some illumination as to the real reasons why men watch porn. What it does make clear is that porn is clearly only fantasy and that men are easily able to distinguish between porn and real life.
Related Posts:
“Excessive Genital Detail”: Photoshopped Vulvas In Men’s Mags
Monday, January 16th, 2012A while ago I went to Sexpo and came home with a showbag full of… well, I didn’t bother to look to be honest. I was too busy being interested in my new corsets. The bag got shoved into a corner of my office and ignored until I did some cleaning. Thus I discovered 3 freebie copies of softcore men’s magazines: Zoo Weekly, Picture and People.
These magazines won’t win any prizes for offering subtle or intelligent journalism. They’re really just soft porn with exclamation marks. Guys like looking at naked women and these magazines cheerfully offer that, albeit with a veneer of hur-hur-hur sexism. In the era of the internet, when you can find any kind of porn at the drop of a hat, these mags still sell. I guess it’s sometimes hard to download porn in a truckstop bathroom.
In any case, that’s not why I wanted to write a blog post. What caught my eye was the ridiculous photoshopping that these magazines perpetrate. Not just removing blemishes or thinning thighs, either. These magazines heal up vulvas. Thus:
They even “improved” porn star Tera Patrick:
And here the frontbottom has vanished, leaving a worrying gap:
These magazines don’t photoshop vulvas into smooth mounds for fun. They do it so they aren’t penalised by Australia’s censors, the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The existing guidelines say that those kinds of soft porn mags can’t show “excessive genital detail” – i.e. pink bits or inner labia. Pink bits makes it real porn, not just a “lad’s mag”. So, to ensure they don’t get into trouble with the government, they get excessively happy with the healing brush, often removing any hint of a vulval slit at all. In other cases, protruding labia are “tidied up” so all that’s left is a “perfect” pussy.
This situation isn’t new. In 2001, Australian Women’s Forum published an article decrying this type of censorship, arguing that it was encouraging women to have genital surgery to meet the unrealistic bodily standards suggested by men’s magazines. Ironically, their article illustrating the difference between photoshopped and real vulvas was itself censored for having “too much genital detail” (see image above).
In 2010 the ABC program Hungry Beast discussed this censorship issue. Watch it here:
The message that this kind of photoshopping sends is very fucked up. It says that female bodies as they occur naturally are obscene and must be “tidied up”. But the censorship rules are fucked up to begin with – witness the attitude toward female ejaculation in adult films.
There is supposed to be a review of our censorship system occurring right now. Unfortunately it seems as though the Australian Law Reform Commission has dropped the ball. They’re actually recommending MORE censorship, especially of online content, while refusing to recommend the legalisation of X-rated movies. Irene Graham from Libertus tears them a new arse in her excellent submission which points out all the assumptions and errors in their discussion paper.
Meanwhile, the UK has just taken a step into the 21st century via a court case which has challenged their definitions of obscenity. It feels as though a legal challenge is the only way we’ll get anything changed in this country.
Just as an aside, these kinds of photos remind me just how censored the female vulva has been throughout the ages. If you go to an art museum you’ll find that female nudes rarely feature realistic genitals. They were either covered up or the artist simply glossed over the details, creating the familiar “smooth mound”. Public hair was considered to be obscene. As far back as Roman times they were leaving out the all-important slit and the tradition continued up into modern times.
Hell, Barbie still has the smooth plastic mound although there are now other anatomically correct dolls on the market. Which reminds me, when I was a kid I honestly thought that grown women grew hair and then their slit healed up.
See how important it is to show bits as they really are?
* Note: The last pic is from People magazine 25 July 2011. The ones above it are from Picture magazine 27 July 2011.
Related Posts:
Filament Says Goodbye
Saturday, December 17th, 2011
Filament, the hard-copy women’s magazine that set out to bring naked men to the masses, is closing down.
Launched in June 2009, Filament branded itself as “the thinking woman’s crumpet” and championed the cause of the female gaze. It featured full frontal nude photos of a variety of men, most of them average guys, not the standard beefcake seen in Playgirl magazine. It also featured erotic fiction, articles about sex and politics and even recipes.
At the end of November, editor Suraya Singh released this statement saying she was closing the magazine for personal reasons. It seems that the magazine will not continue on in any fashion but the website will feature all previous content.
I’m sad to see this happen as I’ve considered Filament to be a great thing for porn-loving women. It certainly attracted a lot of devoted fans and gained its fair share of media attention. It showed what a broad range of erotic tastes women can have. And it reminded me that I’m getting on a bit and need to stay in touch with what young women are thinking.
It’s tempting to speculate as to the reasons behind its demise. It may simply be a matter of economics – perhaps the money it was making didn’t justify the amount of work required to run it. I know that it featured a lot of unpaid contributions because it didn’t have the cash to pay staff and many contributors were perfectly happy with that. If it became too stressful with not enough reward, I could see why it would be time to end it.
When Filament first started, I was a little skeptical as to how it would go. Not because it was women’s erotica but because of the choice to be a hard copy magazine. In the era of the internet, it was a big call to go with paper and all the associated production and distribution costs (and subsequent censorship by printers). I think Suraya was very pleased to prove me wrong. Plenty of people were happy to subscribe, pay cash and get their subscription in the mail. Over time, Filament began to appear on newsagent and bookshop shelves across the globe. It really did seem that Filament had made it – up until now.
They are still selling the final issue, though there’s not many left. I’m pleased to say I was involved with this last issue as I judged the erotic fiction competition. You can read one of the runner-up stories here.
I consider Suraya a friend and I wish her well in whatever she does next.
Related Posts:
“Ladies” Versus “Girls”
Saturday, December 3rd, 2011On Twitter today I came across an interesting discussion about the word “ladies” via The F Word UK (@thefworduk). Emma Dixon had been sent a message that said “Attention Ladies, come to our Xmas lunch.” Emma asked if there was any women who would prefer not be be addressed as “lady” or “ladies”. The replies showed that some women hate it, others don’t mind it. The same goes for “girls”.
I’ve actually been musing on this topic for a while, even since I saw this comedy sketch by Demetri Martin.
At 1:49 he says “If you want to sound like a creep, just add the word ladies to the end of things that you say. You can even say something harmless like ‘Thanks for coming to the show…. ladies.’ ‘Help, I’ve fallen into a well and I’m trapped… ladies’.”
It’s funny but it also makes a point about why women aren’t so keen on the “ladies” word. It can so easily be used in a creepy, suggestive or condescending way. “Ladies” used to be a term of respect or politeness but now it can be… sleazy. Or sexist. I’ll admit I’ve never been that keen on the word. And the other awful way it’s used is when you are called a “lady” on the street by a child or by a stranger. “Look at that lady.” “Get out of the lady’s way, darling.” I knew I was old when someone called me a “lady” for the first time.
Way back when I got started in women’s porn there were a few adult sites that attempted to cater to women and more often than not, the tem “ladies” was used. Ladies Secret. Just For Ladies. Ladies Only Porn. A lot of those sites were run by mainstream companies trying to cater to a newly emerging women’s porn market, not sure what to do. To me, there was often an element of condescension to them and the name reflected that. You could say the same thing about “Ladies Nights”. Even if it’s meant to be a female friendly event, the word suggests an “otherness”. Ladies nights are about attracting women to a location, perhaps to bring on the sexytimes…. ladies.
Compare this with the word “girls” as a way of addressing a group of women. It too can be problematic, especially if it’s a guy that’s using the word. And yet I want to defend it, not least because I have a paysite called For The Girls (more on that in a bit).
One of the triumphs of the feminist movement in the 70s was their insistence that grown women not be called girls, as was often the case in workplaces and at home. And rightly so; the term infantilised women and took away their power. It didn’t matter if you were 50 and had been working somewhere for years, you were still the girl who brought the coffee. It’s good that that changed. And today, it’s still a no-no for a man to refer to a woman as a girl.
And yet when women use the word “girls” to refer to their friends or their family, it’s about comeraderie. “Come on girls, let’s go.” A “girl’s night out” is about women getting together to have a good time. Even the phrase “you go girl!” (which I personally don’t like) has an element of empowerment. Girl power.
When we named For The Girls in 2003, we wanted to capture that feeling of female inclusiveness. We wanted to be a porn loving girl’s club, a fun time with like-minded women, a girl’s night out online. No restraints, no need to be “ladylike”. I suspect that when Violet Blue started her Smart Girl’s Porn Club she was thinking the same thing.
I’ve since wondered about the suitability of For The Girls as a name. Perhaps some find it as bad as “ladies”. And goodness knows I don’t want anyone to think that it’s somehow catering to underage females. Perhaps “For Women” or something similar may have been better, although I must admit, we were working with pre-existing domain names so that restricted our choices at the time. Nonetheless, I do think that the intention of comeraderie remains. For The Girls is about a special women’s space, by women, for women. In that context, using “girls” is OK.
Shall I also muse on the word “chick”? I used to hate it but I’ve come to accept it because it’s a relatively non-derogatory female word, similar to “guy”. It’s usually referring to young women but not necessarily so. I think I’d prefer strangers called me a “chick” rather than a “lady”. Then I can pretend I’m young and groovy.
Yes, there’s chick lit and chick flicks. Both of these things are derided because women enjoy them but the term “chick” in and of itself isn’t the problem. Originally those phrases were positive things. I think the way they’re now used negatively reveals volumes about how society discounts the experiences and stories of women.
What are your thoughts? Do you find “ladies”, “girls” or “chick” offensive or are you OK with them?
Related Posts:
New Erika Lust Film: Cabaret Desire
Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011Cabaret Desire - Trailer from Erika Lust on Vimeo.
Erika Lust has been busy. In October she is releasing another erotic film called Cabaret Desire. As with her previous films, it has a real cinematic look to it. Can’t wait to see it.
Related Posts:
Brisbane Slutwalk Video
Tuesday, May 31st, 2011I’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
Sunday, May 29th, 2011
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:
Tomorrow I’ll Be Slutwalking
Friday, May 27th, 2011
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:
A Need For Privacy Makes This “Debate” One-Sided
Friday, May 27th, 2011
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:
Beware These Skewed Statistics About Porn “Addiction”
Friday, May 20th, 2011
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:
Anti-Porn Feminists Can’t Acknowledge Feminist Porn
Friday, May 6th, 2011
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:
The Birth Of Cleo Magazine
Tuesday, April 12th, 2011
I’m looking forward to an upcoming TV series about Cleo – the Australian women’s magazine that featured male centerfolds (only a few months after Cosmo had pioneered it with Burt Reynolds). If you follow the blog you’ll have already seen the image of actor Jack Thompson nude in the first ever Cleo male centerfold. The TV series features a scene showing how Jack’s legendary “Venus” photo was shot.
Cleo was ground breaking in 1972. It openly discussed sex and made the ideals of feminism accessible to Australian women. There’s a long interview with original editor Ita Buttrose here. A few good quotes:
“We had the best story conferences,” recalls Buttrose of the early days of Cleo, which she describes as progressive but not pornographic. “We wrote about sex as if we had discovered it.” A great deal of laughter came out of their offices in Park Street, Sydney, as the team of mainly young women (and a couple of men) had disarmingly candid conversations on topics ranging from sex toys to lesbianism.
….
In 1972, there were no women in Federal Parliament, they were not permitted to drink in “public bars” in pubs, and had only recently achieved the right to equal pay. There were no anti-discrimination laws, no Family Court or no-fault divorce, and no maternity leave, and abortion was illegal without extenuating circumstances.
…
Like many women of her era, Buttrose suffered discrimination. She couldn’t open a department store charge account without her husband’s signature (even though she supported him while he studied architecture). As late as 1976, she was one of the highest-paid women in the Australian media, yet was refused a bank loan.
I don’t have a lot of time for Cleo or Cosmo today because they’re so obsessed with fashion and diets. But in the 70s, they were revolutionary and I’m grateful for them; they laid the groundwork that enabled magazines like Australian Women’s Forum and then For The Girls to exist.
Related Posts:
I’ve Been Nominated For A Feminist Porn Award
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011
I just realised that I haven’t actually blogged about the news: my short film Fucking Is The Only Prayer has been nominated for a 2011 Feminist Porn Award. I’m rather chuffed. I suspect it won’t win as it’s only short and there isn’t a short film category. But it’s nice to be listed.
I submitted For The Girls to be considered for a website award but it didn’t make the list. Ah well.
All the nominees are on this page. I haven’t seen many of the nominated films although all the usual names are there. I do recommend Erika Lust’s Life Love Lust and Tristan Taormino’s Expert Guide To Female Orgasms.
Fucking Is The Only Prayer recently screened at Cinekink New York and the Painted Lips and Lolly Licks festival in Canada. It is my second erotic short film. My first, That’s What I Like, was also nominated for a Feminist Porn Award. Both are currently available in full at For The Girls.
You can see the trailer and more screenshots here along with information about the film itself.
I’ve made it using the pseudonym Louise Lush but I’m thinking that I might abandon that name and just be Ms Naughty. It will help prevent confusion in the future.
Related Posts:
Let’s Talk About Extreme Porn
Friday, March 4th, 2011The other day I saw an ad for a porn site that I found rather disturbing. It was a looped flash video ad that featured a couple having very rough sex. The woman was “fish hooked” (had a finger in her mouth, dragging her head back at a painful angle), a penis was rubbed roughly on her face, she was choked and slapped. She also didn’t seem to be enjoying herself much; her face was red and she was crying.
I didn’t want to see that. Firstly, I’m not into rough sex. Also I also had no idea of the context of that sex scene. Was it consensual? Did she sign up for that? Did she enjoy it?
The porn company that made the ad obviously thinks this will entice viewers to sign up, either out of curiosity or genuine desire. I’ve seen other rough ones like it, including one where it was a woman administering the rough sex to another women. I don’t promote that company, by the way, or any porn site that includes that kind of content.
This is the exactly the kind of extreme porn that Gail Dines discusses in her book Pornland. She says that almost all porn is like this and that it is having a negative effect on men’s sexuality.
The thing is, while there are plenty of problems with Dines’ generalisations and theory, I don’t want to dismiss her concerns with this kind of content. It seems reasonable to be asking questions about bad porn and extreme porn. We should be talking about what it means and how it effects us. I know that my initial reaction to that ad was pretty visceral. I can imagine that a lot of people might find it very disturbing or problematic.
I’ve seen my fair share of what I consider to be bad porn. Stuff that is overtly sexist and cruel, porn that appeals more to negative emotions and hatred than actual sexual desire (take for example the “ex-girlfriend” style sites. Or the ones where the scenarios are primarily about tricking someone into sex and not paying them). There’s porn out there that doesn’t look like it was consensual or ethically created. My stance has always been that I don’t like it and I won’t promote it – but I would never agree with it being censored. I’ve also had numerous online discussions with other adult webmasters about whether sites stepped over the line or not.
A few years back a company produced a website called “Sleep Assault.” The premise was that is showed night-vision movies of guys sneaking in and having sex with sleeping women – either strangers or friends/wives. A big argument about it started up on a webmaster board. The owners said it was merely a fantasy site and that, naturally, all the situations were staged. Others said that it was too close to a rape site and that the language was too negative. There was much discussion over whether the site was encouraging sexual assault or was just an outlet for fantasy. In the end the owners changed the wording of the tour to better emphasise that it was a fantasy and we all went our separate ways.
Extreme porn like this isn’t new although perhaps it’s now more widespread than before (this somewhat problematic research seems to suggest it). This is part of the overall one-upmanship occurring in the porn industry over the last decade, the desperate scramble to attract attention through increasingly more over-the-top porn. It’s also the result of consumers demanding more extreme stuff; perhaps natural human curiosity combines with regular porn consumption to create an urge for “the hard stuff”.
Gail Dines is concerned that extreme porn is so ubiquitous than it’s now considered “normal” and that it teaches young men the wrong lessons about how to have sex and how to treat women. I think I share that concern; I hate the idea that a virgin might see that ad and think it’s how sex is “done” or get so used to it that any partner who isn’t into rough sex doesn’t stand a chance. I can imagine that a young woman might see those images of rough sex and feel alarmed at the idea of being on the receiving end of that. It’s pretty easy to spin out scenarios about how porn might negatively affect others.
So yes, I do share these concerns. Nonetheless, I try and think beyond the immediate worries that pop up and analyse if they’re legitimate. Right now, I have no idea if the anecdotal stories of ruined marriages, lost libidos and confused virgins are true. There’s still not a lot of reliable research on it – although it doesn’t take much effort to find unscientific or religious anti-porn studies on the web. But from what I’ve seen, there’s no real data to back up the concerns about harm. If this changes, I’ll change my mind.
What’s often common in discussions about extreme porn is the idea that the viewer doesn’t think critically about what they are seeing. It’s assumed the viewer just passively watches it and then unthinkingly apes the attitudes and behaviour on show. Naturally, the person who writes about porn doesn’t do that; the concern is only ever for other people, the ignorant masses who dully consume or the innocent teenagers who accidentally encounter porn.
Is that what really happens? On my more misanthropic days (say, after reading the comments on Youtube), I suspect it does. But that’s just an opinion. The facts may show otherwise. Again, we need more research on this. I have found at least one study that has found that people do interact with porn in a far more “literate and critical” way than is assumed. Obviously that’s not conclusive though I’m sure there are other similar studies.
Two key factors in approaching porn in a critical manner are an understanding the context combined with a reasonable knowledge about sex and sexuality.
When it comes to extreme porn, it really does help to know the context in which its presented. The sex acts themselves aren’t the issue. Plenty of people enjoy rough sex or BDSM or water bondage or whatever kink it is. There’s nothing wrong with that.
The problem occurs when no context for the extreme sex acts is provided – there’s no indication that it’s a fantasy, no way of knowing if the performers were willing participants or if they enjoyed themselves. This is bad porn. If you don’t know that rough sex (for example) is a kink performed consensually, you might form the wrong idea about what it all means and it may negatively affect your sexual attitudes. I recommend Charlie Glickman’s discussion of bad porn for a further elaboration on this point.
I’ll say up front, I dislike extreme porn, particularly the nasty sexist hateful stuff. If a site is showing cruel-looking hate sex and presenting it as the ideal way to treat women, I obviously don’t want the viewer to agree with that on a philosophical level. I can’t help but feel that there IS something disturbing about the idea of people getting off on hateful, misogynistic or cruel stuff. I find it worrying that masturbating and sexual pleasure would be tied to such negativity.*
And yet the human mind is a crazy place and a fantasy is often just a fantasy. I don’t know what the people who watch that stuff are really thinking. I hope it’s just a fantasy.
So yes, I worry about extreme porn. I worry about what bad porn says about attitudes to women and sex. There’s a lot of porn I find offputting and unsexy and generally problematic. In the end, though, I think the only logical stance to take with regards to it is to talk about it and to encourage people to think critically about it.
As usual, education is so important. The concerns about teens and extreme porn are quite reasonable. Teenagers don’t always have the basics in reading texts (in this case porn) and sex education is sadly lacking in some places (especially the US where the religious right is doing its best to keep them ignorant).
I think the days of being able to restrict access to porn are long gone – if it was ever successful in the first place. The only reasonable remedy to the possible problems caused by misreading porn are pre-emptive education. Honest discussion about porn’s place in society and encouraging critical thinking as to what it all means. Parents aren’t always the best people to do this because, frankly, talking about porn with teenagers is not fun.
In this, the internet is like beer (the solution to – and cause of – all of life’s problems). The net provides the opportunity for teens to talk to each other and easily find information about porn. Many sex education sites are doing their best to get the issue out in the open and discuss what it all means – Make Love Not Porn and British site Bish Training are good examples.
Meanwhile, the anti-porn crusade continues. I guess we should be grateful they’re out there because they encourage the discussion of topics like this. Unfortunately they also encourage a debate that becomes too simplistic and too unscientific, one influenced by negative assumptions about sexuality and religious agendas. They also encourage censorship, which is ultimately a non-solution.
Porn isn’t perfect; there’s a lot out there that we should be concerned about. Yet there’s also plenty that’s positive and meaningful and worth celebrating. In the end, the best thing we can do is to keep talking about it.
—–
Update 5th March
I want to add something to this post following a reply tweet I received about it. Batcheeba wrote:” “worrying and disturbing” I’d say that is just a liberal way of judging ppl into stuff you’re not.”
I don’t think Batcheeba actually read the post, only my tweet, but I’m going to elaborate on this here.
I tried my best not to be judgmental about sex acts or sexual preferences in this post and I think Charlie Glickman’s post really spells out why it’s important not to approach extreme porn from that perspective.
Nonetheless I don’t think being sex positive and tolerant should mean that I blithely accept that all porn is fine. What I am worried about is the way some porn sites and movies deliberately tie cruelty and misogyny and hate into those sex acts. Not as part of the kink but as part of a general sexist philosophy; this kind of porn is speaking to anger and hatred and negativity, not desire or kink or preference.
And even then, I acknowledge that that negativity may just be someone’s fantasy. But damn… surely we should be able to ask: what the hell is going on if you need hatred to get off? And what happens if you think that hatred is par for the course?
Those questions and worries are shared by a lot of people. I don’t think it’s helpful to simply dismiss them as being “closed minded” or “judgmental” because all you do is turn it into a “them versus us” thing.
I wrote this post because I keep seeing the anti-porn people using extreme porn as a basis of their argument. And those of us who don’t agree with them often end up having to defend bad porn in order to maintain our own position. I don’t like that dichotomy. It’s not an honest presentation of the whole issue and it doesn’t go anywhere.
I don’t want to defend bad porn. I wanted to say that I understand why people get worried and concerned about extreme porn. And I wanted to say I think education is the answer to those concerns.
* Let me say again… I’m not talking about consensual bdsm or power play here.
Edit: Please read the comments below for more discussion about this issue. I am aware that the original post is a bit murky with definitions and could have been better written. I’ve opted to leave the post as it stands so that the comments make sense and also because it helps with the general discussion.
Related Posts:
Gail Dines On Lady Porn Day
Friday, February 25th, 2011I have to hand it to Rabbit Write. Her Lady Porn Day idea has hit the big time with numerous articles in the mainstream media. The latest is this one on ABC News.
What’s interesting in this piece is that Gail Dines has taken a step back from her “all porn is evil” stance. She actually concedes that there is some feminist and female-friendly porn available.
“This is a distraction to take our eyes off what’s really going on, which is the increasingly brutal nature of the porn that men are using.”…
“There are some women making pornography, but they’re not really bleeps on the industry map. What I’m more concerned with is the type of porn that most men watch when they’re alone,” she says.
Admittedly it’s not much of a concession but if we consider that last month she was saying that any porn for women was made by men, it’s a step forward.
Now if we can just get her to acknowledge that her concern is primarily with extreme gonzo – and if she backs off from calling for censorship – and if she stops making generalisations about “most men” and uses better data – then maybe we can have a real discussion.
Although it doesn’t help that she says watching mainstream porn is “anti-feminist”. But then, maybe that’s just the usual no-true-scotsman argument about what feminism means.
Great to see comments in there by Clarissa Smith. Please consider taking part in her pornography research project.
Related Posts:
For The Girls Sample Galleries
Ms Naughty On Twitter- msnaughty: @girlonetrack I couldn't empathise with any of the women. It all just seemed to be about fashion so they lost me. But I see your point.
- msnaughty: @girlonetrack I gave up on Sex and the City after half an episode because it shitted me.
- msnaughty: RT @girlonetrack: Hold on, I've seen something PINK. OMG. *scream* Must now GOSSIP with my GIRLS over BRUNCH. SHOES!!! BUBBLY! PINK!! *h ...
- msnaughty: My short film I.M. In Love is showing in the Couplings program at @cinekink NY Friday night!
- msnaughty: RT @CineKink: Fri 8:45 / COUPLINGS is a hot mix of two-somes, three-somes and more-somes! http://t.co/1DQli10P
