Category: Feminism

06 May

Anti-Porn Feminists Can’t Acknowledge Feminist Porn

Feminist porn in the SMH 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.

Filed Under: Feminism, Filmmaking, Porn, Porn for Women

Tags: anti-porn feminism, feminist porn, Sheila Jeffreys

12 Apr

The Birth Of Cleo Magazine

Cleo magazine 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.

Filed Under: Feminism, Naked Men, Popular culture

Tags: Cleo, magazines, male centerfolds

23 Mar

I’ve Been Nominated For A Feminist Porn Award

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.

Filed Under: Feminism, Filmmaking, Porn for Women

Tags: feminist porn awards, Indigo Lush

04 Mar

Let’s Talk About Extreme Porn

The 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.

Filed Under: Feminism, Porn

Tags: anti-porn feminism, bad porn, extreme porn

25 Feb

Gail Dines On Lady Porn Day

I 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.

Filed Under: Feminism, Porn for Women

Tags: anti-porn feminism, Gail Dines, lady porn day

22 Feb

Librarian Porn. Feminist Porn.

Dan the naked librarian
During our December photoshoot I was trying to think about funny and artistic ways we could shoot our male models beyond the usual “I’m naked with my hard cock out” pic. I did a few artistic rip offs, as you can see in the post The Artistic Male Centerfold.

These photos were inspired by my bookshelf. More specifically, I thought my collection of feministy, porny titles would probably look much better if I got a naked man to hold them.

As you can see, Dan here does an excellent job of holding my books for me. I used to be a librarian before I started to make porn. Apparently the “sexy librarian” has become a porn cliche (she rips off her glasses and shakes out her hair!) but only when depicting women. I thought I’d turn the tables.

I also deliberately chose those books because I wanted to make a statement about feminism and porn. The books in the pile include The Porn Report, The Hite Report, both of Nancy Friday’s books on female fantasies, Susie Bright’s Sexual State of the Union and The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf. I also included the weighty Attorney General’s Committee on Pornography report which was the result of Andrea Dworkin’s famous campaign against porn.

When we take a photo of a naked man, it’s still a revolutionary act. We have a lot of history behind us, including a history of repression and censorship. But we stand on the shoulders of women like Shere Hite and Nancy Friday and Candida Royalle and all the rest.

Dan the naked librarian with Pornland by Gail Dines

I admit, I had to photoshop the second pic. I don’t own a copy of Gail Dines’ anti-porn book Pornland. I intended to buy it for the photo session but was shocked to discover it was over $40 to buy. I found myself reluctant to contribute money to that particular author, given that she is so unrelentingly negative in her portrayal of porn and in favour of censorship. So we got Dan to hold another book and I’ve pasted in the cover.

Still, makes a nice image, don’t you think?

Gail Dines insists porn is exploitative. Are we exploiting the young and delightful Dan by taking a photo of him like this? I’d say no; we paid him well and we didn’t make him do anything he didn’t want to do. He had originally planned to be full frontal naked but he changed his mind. That was OK, we still paid him what we promised and everyone was happy.

Are women being harmed by this photo? Uh, I’m not sure. Anyone? How are you coping with this image? Is it causing you to turn to drugs, or to rush out and have abortions, or whatever harm it is that’s supposed to come from viewing porn? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Has this photo made you addicted to porn? Not sure. Maybe I should check back in an hour or so.

Anyway I hope you like this pic. It’s my final contribution to Lady Porn Day. At least, until tomorrow.

Filed Under: Feminism, Hot pics, Naked Men

Tags: books, Gail Dines, hot guys, lady porn day, librarian, library, naked man, Pornland

21 Feb

Lady Porn Day

I went back online after the conference and my time away to discover that a blogger called Rabbit Write had planned a blogosphere event called Lady Porn Day. The idea is to start a discussion about women and porn and also share links of what women enjoy.

I only found about about the event because MayMay posted a critique of the event’s banners, complaining that they focused on typical porn images of women rather than nude men or diverse sexualities. There followed plenty of Twitter agreement and snark. So I kind of landed in the middle of a shitstorm without knowing what was going on. I do agree… there weren’t enough nude men on the banners. There’s never enough nude men in banners.

In any case, Rabbit Write has heard the criticism, added more banners and listened to the various criticisms. She says she’s trying to make the thing as inclusive as possible.

I actually think it’s a nice idea, trying to stir conversation and raise a bit of awareness of women and porn. This is what I’ve been trying to do for ten years. It will be interesting to see how it all goes, especially if Rabbit garners some mainstream media attention.

I’ll write a post for Lady Porn Day on the 22nd.

Filed Under: Feminism, Porn for Women

Tags: lady porn day, porn for women

21 Feb

The Cambridge Porn Debate

Sexademic Jessi Fischer On the 17th of February, the Cambridge University Union Society hosted a debate entitled This House Believes Pornography Does A Good Public Service. On the “for” side were feminist porn filmmaker Anna Span, sex educator and therapist Jessi Fischer (The Sexademic) and porn actor Johnny Anglais. On the “against” side were anti-porn feminist Gail Dines, child psychologist Richard Woolfson and Shelly Lubben, ex prostitute and porn actress, now an evangelical Christian and anti-porn campaigner.

The debate was held in front of a packed audience (with students listening outside the hall) and the end result was a vote in favour of porn, 231 to 187 (with 197 abstaining).

Some have reported that Shelly Lubben’s emotional and non academic performance was a deciding factor (here, here). Jessi Fischer, in her blog post about the experience, says it was the lack of sources and general misinformation on the “against” side that did it in. Anna Span says the “against” side weren’t prepared to face such stiff opposition.

Debates like this are good for getting the issue out there but I do wonder whether the adversarial and strict nature of such an event can ever do it justice. I am mostly on the side of porn but I also believe there are plenty of negative issues surrounding it that need to be discussed. It’s such a pity that people like Dines and Lubben talk only in black and white when it comes to porn, they see only exploitation, abuse and bad outcomes when the fact is the whole shebang is entirely complex and can’t be reasonably discussed in generalisations.

I do have to cheer Jessi Fischer’s ongoing efforts to inject rationality and real data into the discussion, especially in the face of massaged statistics and moral hysteria. I think my favourite quote is this:

“The plural of anecdote is not data.” Superb.

Read Johnny Anglais’ speech here. BBC has a radio interview with Anna Span here.

Update 23rd Feb: Anna Span and Gail Dines appeared on BBC radio after the debate (audio here). Unfortunately the presenter took sides halfway through and belittled Anna. Violet Blue has publicly made a complaint about bias (and I did too after listening to the recording). We’ll see what happens from here.

Filed Under: Feminism, Porn

Tags: anti-porn feminists, cambridge, debate, Porn

20 Feb

Adventures At The Erotic Screen And Sound Conference

Well folks, I did it. I successfully gave my presentation “Girly Smut: A History Of Porn For Women” at the Erotic Screen and Sound Conference on the 17th. While I was pleased that my voice didn’t get quavery, I did end up turning it into a bit of a shambles because I went waaaay over time. I knew the talk was 22 minutes to begin with but I thought I’d speak quickly due to nerves. Nope. Apparently it’s the other way around. You should only write a 15 minute presentation for a 20 minute slot.

Porn for Women slide In any case, about 20 people were there (not bad for 4.30pm in the smallest room) and I made them laugh. That’s enough to make me happy. I didn’t get enough time for a proper discussion about the complexities of the idea of “porn for women” – they only got a super fast and brief rundown of the various viewpoints and criticisms of it.

Part of the problem with time was my decision to include clips from several feminist porn films. I was originally going to leave that up to Anna Brownfield who was going to discuss them but she pulled out of the conference. So it didn’t seem right to talk about female-friendly porn films and not actually show any. Thus I included short and relatively softcore clips from 4 Candida Royalle films and:

I got the vague feeling that I made some people uncomfortable by doing so. There seemed to be a bit of squirming in the room. It was probably just because no-one is used to watching dirty movies in the company of strangers like that. Or perhaps it was because I was happily showing porn without deconstructing it in any serious way.

Still, I was pleased to be given the chance to present my version of girly smut. If you consider that I was up at 2am the night before suffering food poisoning, it went well.

The conference was very intimidating on the first day, mainly because it was laden with academic presentations rife with jargon and obscure art references. It’s been over ten years since I last attended a university lecture so the intense intellectualism was a shock to my dumbed-down system. Later I discovered I wasn’t the only one feeling a little overwhelmed by the experience. I spoke to one lady who was pleased that she got to snooze without slumping in her lecture seat.

Eventually I tuned in to the various buzz words; this was a conference thick with references to heteronormativities, hegemonies, discourses, texts, the gaze and various isms. This cartoon sums it up, I suspect. It had a distinctly queer flavour and a lot of presentations had plenty of criticism for the usual suspects: the patriarchy, colonialism, conservatism, monogamy and the mainstream media. There’s a blog post coming about all of that.

Beyond that, though, it was good to be challenged. I heard some really interesting ideas that I hadn’t encountered before. The Porn Report‘s Professor Alan McKee (who is a young and funky guy, not a bearded Dumbledore as I imagined) spoke about the idea that popular entertainment (e.g. Big Brother) shouldn’t be so derided because it’s an end in itself and is necessarily vulgar and over the top by definition. A PhD student called David Gizzi discussed the phenomenon of “war porn” – a huge online community of people who watch violent real videos from war. Leonarda Kovacic showed us historic nude “noble savage” photos of aboriginal women and challenged us to read them differently to the usual victim/oppressor narrative.

I also had the unexpected experience of witnessing some extreme performance art. Rebecca Clunn projected her discussion of art onto a screen while silently threading roses onto a string. She then placed the rose necklace around her neck along with a circle of razor wire. For the next 10 minutes or so, she knelt and rocked back and forth while the razor wire scratched her skin to pieces, causing her to bleed. I ran the gamut of emotions from a panicked urge to run away (ack! blood!), to curiosity, to almost indifference because it got repetitive. Quite a strange place to be. Afterwards she sat casually on the stage and we all had a nice chat. It certainly made a change from the standard situation of sitting up the back and comfortably hearing a presenter speak.

I also got to meet some of – dare I say it – “my people”: pornographers, porn stars, strippers, performers and various kinky people. I think this was one of the strengths of the conference: it was willing to hear the voices of those on the front line of erotic screen and sound. It meant there was a balance between intense theory and real-life experiences. This also resulted in a few interesting clashes such as when stripper Zarha Stardust questioned the assumptions made about porn stars in a traditional feminist reading of mainstream porn.

BDSM presentation In the end, the best part of the conference for me was the chance to network. I got chatting to various lovely people during the meal breaks and have made some good friends. I was interviewed by Clarissa Smith who wrote One For The Girls, a book studying porn for women. I also introduced her to the bearded dragons living in the university gardens and there was a bit of squealing.

I had drinks with Fiona Patten and Anne Frances Watson from the Sex Party and talked to Dean Beck who hosts a radio show about gay sexuality in Melbourne. I met the lovely Angela White who not only makes a living as a porn star but is also a PhD student, and Zahra Stardust who is a stripper, politician and Masters student.

I talked women’s porn with Maureen who runs Bliss for Women in Melbourne. I talked to Rupert Owen (who appears in Anna Brownfield’s film The Band) about ways in which people uploading amateur porn can keep control of their videos through open source principles. And then there was all the fun of Tiara The Merch Girl and her exuberant, very smart presence.

One of the recurring themes of the conference was a lack of space and permission to explore sexuality and the erotic. I think there’s potential for this conference to spin into a broader event, possibly like the Berlin Porn Film Festival. Unfortunately, the law will get in the way. It’s one thing for the “elite” academics to gather and discuss fisting and BDSM, watch videos of facial cumshots and discuss their meaning or analyse photos of objects shoved into the anus. It’s another to be allowed to have a festival where the general public are invited. Showing any kind of adult film is still prohibited in Australia. Gathering to discuss and enjoy sexuality is really only limited to the commercial sphere of Sexpo.

It would be nice to try and I believe the general public would be up for it but I think our “moral guardians” would step in and make it unviable. You can discuss porn in an academic way but you’re not allow to enjoy it.

Still, perhaps this conference is an important first step in created a dialogue about sex, porn, art and censorship in Australia. I’m glad I went.

I’d like to direct you to the presentation by Tiara The Merch Girl. She’s kindly uploaded the whole thing onto Vimeo. In it she discusses the idea that erotic represenations, even when they’re labelled “alternative” still adhere to a very narrow aesthetic. She gives details of her own sexual journey and finishes with a superb burlesque/poetry piece.

Tiara the Merch Girl - Erotic Screen and Sound Conference 2011 Presentation - Not Your Ex/Rotic from Tiara The Merch Girl on Vimeo.

Filed Under: Feminism, Popular culture, Porn, Porn for Women, Videos

Tags: academic, conference, erotic, video

17 Jan

The “Pornified” Woman?

So while I’ve been off enjoying a break and then enduring flooding, anti-porn author Gail Dines has continued to wave her promotional flag, heavy as it is with assumptions and untruths. Unfortunately The Guardian likes to give her lots of space to do this. Her latest salvo was from the AVN expo in Las Vegas. Aside from her usual generalisations, she offered this particuarlly offensive paragraph:

One of the seminars at this year’s expo is called In the Company of Women. Here academics will mix with pornographers to share ideas on how to develop niche products targeted to women. I’m sure there will be lots of talk about how women can be empowered by watching porn, because the pornographers, being the savvy businessmen they are, like nothing more than telling women that porn is actually good for them. This is their “trick”, and one we must resist if we want to replace the plasticised, formulaic and generic images of the pornographers with an authentic sexuality based on our own experiences, longings, and desires.

Gail Dines seems to think that the porn industry is exclusively run by men and that attempting to create erotica for women is some kind of dirty capitalist trick to fool women.

As a woman who has worked for ten years to create alternative porn that does depict our own experiences, longings and desires, I feel pretty pissed off at this ridiculous claim. And no doubt all the other female directors and webmasters and happy porn performers would agree. I originally discovered this article via British filmmaker Petra Joy who wrote:

It negates the existence of any female porn directors, events such as the feminist porn awards and also the (increasing) number of women who enjoy watching porn. This article therefore victimizes and patronizes all women. It is an angle on porn which is very dated, stuck in the eighties, rather than embracing all the new trends in porn.

What about the women who choose to express themselves in porn or the women who watch and enjoy porn because it inspires them or turns them on? Gail says we do not exist and all porn is bad when she has only seen the tip of the iceberg. If you go to the most commercial adult event on the planet such as the AVN show, don’t be surprised if you get the ultra mainstream and commercial end of the stick.

Meanwhile, Violet Blue has pointed me towards an opinion piece in Salon which says that many women aren’t “pornified” as the commentators would suggest. They make their own decisions and many aren’t very interested in porn at all.

Those of us in our 20s and early 30s who were the first to come of age with free hardcore porn at our fingertips were said to be taking pole-dancing classes, waxing our nether regions and sticking our tongues down each other’s throats for show. We were supposedly “having sex like men” and “screwing like porn stars.” Our sexual coat of arms would feature a “Girls Gone Wild” T-shirt, a stripper heel and a MacBook live-streaming hardcore action. There is some truth there — yet many young women are remarkably unfamiliar with actual porn, and a gulf still remains between the sexes in talking about it.

Given that the article by Gail Dines relates an unsupported anecdote about women using pubic hair to avoid sex, Salon makes a good point. There’s plenty of moral panic about the idea that women are being persuaded to do porny things in the bedroom against their will, but is it really true? Where’s the evidence?

Filed Under: Feminism, Raunch Culture

Tags: Gail Dines, Porn, women

23 Dec

Porn For Women Retrospective 2010

Another year has whizzed by and it’s time to do another rundown of all things porn for women in 2010. This year the adult industry has again endured tough times in the face of ever-increasing free content and the dismal global economy. Nonetheless, erotic content for women continues to grow and become more popular. There’s been a real attempt by many in the industry to try and cater to women, perhaps out of desperation. There’s also been an explosion of queer and alternative porn.

In The News

Hello Ladies. Isiah Mustafa, the Old Spice Guy * “Hello Ladies.” In February, Isiah Mustafa first uttered the opening line to the now much-loved Old Spice ad and caused an internet sensation. The advertisement took a quirky view of masculinity and also unashamedly appealed to the sex drive of straight women, something that is still rare. Now millions of women around the world have begun to fantasise about a well-spoken black man who’s on a boat… and a horse.

* Playboy TV made headlines in November when they announced a revamp of the channel, setting their sights on female viewers. They plan to offer “softer” content with “real chemistry, nonenhanced body parts, varied body shapes and contextualized’ sex.”

* In January the Shady Lady ranch in Nevada caused a stir by getting approval to offer male prostitutes to female clients – a first. One of the new workers (“prostidudes”) called “Markus” caused a stir by comparing himself to Rosa Parks. He didn’t last long, quitting in March. The Shady Lady continued on without him.

* The Twilight books and films were so popular that some took to calling the saga “porn for women”. I disagreed.

* British women’s porn pioneer Anna Span put her filmmaking career on hold to run for parliament in March. She stood for the Liberal Democrats using her real name of Anna Arrowsmith and came in third, considerably increasing the LibDem vote.

* The ongoing saga of the .xxx domain continued and I was actually quoted in the Guardian opposing it.

* It was also a huge year for censorship – which I’ll address a little later in the post.

The Magazines Are Back

* 2010 was a bumper year for UK startup magazine Filament, with strong sales and an expansion into the US and Australia.

* Playgirl announced that it was going back into print after a year of web-only publication. The headline-grabbing nude photoshoot of Levi Johnston (Sarah Palin’s would-be son-in-law) prompted the turnaround; his pics appeared in the February edition, causing much distress because there was no full-frontal nudity.

* In January Candy Rain, another magazine for straight women, was launched. Only one issue appeared all year however a benefit has recently been held to assist in publishing the second.

New Porn for Women Movies (Straight)

* In my opinion the best film for women released this year was Erika Lust’s Life Love Lust. Her beautifully-produced vignettes have a depth and vision not usually seen in porn. She also dared to portray sex that results in… a baby. For The Girls interviewed Erika in July and I included pics from the movie here.

* Petra Joy released Her Porn 2, another compilation of erotic short films and excerpts for women. I found this important because it includes my first short film, “That’s What I Like”. Petra also completed filming her fourth feature, despite ill health and numerous production issues.

* Netherlands-based director Jennifer Lyon Bell teamed up with Belgian artist Murielle Scherre, aka La Fille D’O, to create Des Jours Plus Belles Que La Nuit, a depiction of a real couple making love in real time. It won a Feminist Porn Award for Best Direction. It is due to be released in the US soon, following the already successful Matinee.

* Mimi Balfour created a softcore erotic film called Man of My Dreams which also won a Feminist Porn Award.

* Sex advisor and author Jamye Waxman directed 101 Sex Positions For Lovers which was filmed in Jamaica and featured real-life couples.

* Larger producers Playgirl and Sweet Sinner continued to release new features aimed at straight women regularly in 2010. Major studio New Sensations also created a new line called “Romance”, aimed at women and couples.

Lesbian and Queer Porn

Queer porn mafia at the AVN awards - pic by Courtney Trouble * Artist and porn star Madison Young had a huge year in 2010. She directed and starred in a swathe of films including Pregnant With Desire, a new film exploring the sexual aspects of pregnancy. Madison herself is expecting her first child in 2011.

* Queersexual personality Jiz Lee was everywhere this year, appearing in many indie and alt films as well as popping up in more mainstream productions. She also set up her own charity website, Karma Pervs and appeared in a massive queer orgy for her 30th birthday on Crash Pad Series. For The Girls interviewed her in November.

* Courtney Trouble was also a queer filmmaking powerhouse this year, releasing numerous films through the Reel Queer Productions label including several titles in the Roulette series and Seven Minutes In Heaven. She also maintained her stable of queer porn sites including NoFauxxx.

* French director Emilie Jouvet took a group of queer friends on a sex tour of Europe and released Too Much Pussy: Feminist Sluts on the QueerX Roadshow, an erotic documentary of their trip.

* Triangle Films made waves with their major production River Rock Women’s Prison which won several awards.

Statistics and Surveys

* In February the Sun reported that more women were watching porn than ever with 76% of readers “admitting” to enjoying porn.

* In June, Cosmopolitan reported on a survey of their readers and found that 60% of their readers enjoyed porn, either alone or as part of their relationship. Another 15% said they hadn’t seen it but were open to the idea.

Awards and Festivals

Berlin Porn Film Festival * In April the fifth annual Feminist Porn Awards were announced with gongs handed out to a variety of groundbreaking straight and queer films. The list of nominations was substantial, revealing just how much the female-friendly and alt porn movement has grown. 2010 saw the first Emerging Filmmaker award handed out to Tobi Hill Meyer.

* The AVN Awards continued to mostly ignore alternative films, concentrating on the mainstream industry. Tristan Taormino won Best Educational Release for her Expert Guide to Threesomes but that was about it. The awards night was attended by the “Queer Porn Mafia” (Jiz Lee, Dylan Ryan, Amber Flores, Madison Young and Courtney Trouble among others – see pic above).

* The Pornutopia erotic film festival held in Albuquerque was cancelled after local authorities told them they were breaking zoning laws. The city maintains it isn’t censorship but the festival directors aren’t convinced.

* I didn’t get to attend the Berlin Porn Film Festival this year which was a pity as they had a record-breaking attendance. Jennifer Lyon Bell conducted a workshop on porn and feminism and Emile Jouvet’s film Much More Pussy received an honourable mention.

* Cinekink, the kinky film festival based in New York, toured the US throughout the year. I’m pleased to say my film That’s What I Like featured at a number of screenings.

Our Porn, Ourselves and The Anti-Porn Brigade

Our Porn, Ourselves * 2010 saw a major increase in campaigning against pornography, thanks mostly to Gail Dines who was flogging her anti-porn book Pornland to anyone who’d listen. Dines uses shock tactics and generalisations to argue that porn was “hijacking our sexuality” and ultimately should be prohibited. Dines said “Women defending porn are likely deluded by the near trillion dollar industry.” My reply to that is here.

* Religious groups are also moving to ban porn using the dodgy concept of “addiction”. In May I looked at Dirty Girls Ministries, a site that charges women money to help cure their “addiction” to masturbation and porn.

* Blogger and author Violet Blue fought back against the anti-porn movement, creating Our Porn, Ourselves, a gathering of pro-porn activists including many women who enjoy explicit material. Violet’s Facebook page had over 3000 members when Facebook shut it down without warning or explanation in July.

* Moral panic about the “sexualisation of children” has also spurred numerous calls for censorship. In July a conference in the UK attended by Australian academic Catharine Lumby sought to cut through the nonsense and properly study the issue. They pointed out that most of the “research” on the issue is biased or poorly conceived. I wrote about the issue here.

Other Censorship

Looking back at my blog posts over the last year, it’s depressing to see how often censorship and anti-porn campaigning comes up. Perhaps its a personal obsession but I think it’s part of an overall trend. The governments of the world have woken up and they want to control the internet. Part of that is a panic over online porn and a demand for increased censorship. Here in Australia, the nanny state has gotten worse in 2010 with numerous arrests and crackdowns on adult material.

Operation Titstorm * In January a storm erupted in cyberspace over reports that Australia had banned the depiction of small breasts in porn and were also banning female ejaculation. The news came from The Sex Party and I wrote about it on this blog post. Within days the story had gone viral and turned up in mainstream media. The censors eventually denied that this was the case, although it did publicse the fact that material can be considered child porn if the models *look* underage.

Nonetheless, it rapidly became an established internet “fact” and even resulted in web vigilantes Anonymous attacking the Australian parliament in “Operation Titstorm” as part of a protest against the proprosed mandatory internet filter.

* In March TV show Hungry Beast raised awareness of censorship with their report on the way magazines alter images of female genitalia to meet classification guidelines: “Too Much Genital Detail”

* In May Garion Hall, the owner of AbbyWinters.com, was found guilty of “making an objectionable film” – even though the magistrate didn’t watch the film or ask for anyone else to classify it. It was the first conviction of its kind in Australia. Abby Winters has now moved all operations to The Netherlands.

* Also in May, an adult shop owner was sent to prison for three months for selling X-rated films in Sydney. Since then there have been numerous raids on sex shops and a crackdown on selling explicit porn in several states. It is not illegal to own or buy X-rated films in Australian states but it is illegal to sell them. NSW has since given police the power to decide if a film is illegal on the spot, rather than handing it over to classifiers.

* In July Australian Senator Stephen Conroy announced that the planned mandatory internet filter would be delayed pending a review of the classification categories. The subsequent federal election saw a minority Labor government with the filter still on the cards.

* In the US in April, adult director and author Tristan Taormino faced protests from a “family” group before giving a presentation on porn at Princeton University.

* In December, the UK parliament decided they wanted to jump on the censorship bandwagon, looking at a plan to ban online porn unless adults “opt in”.

Ms Naughty In 2010

Pic from the model shoot at For The Girls Professionally, this year hasn’t been the best for me. The biggest problem has been neverending delays with the upgrade of For The Girls. You can read the full, painful story here. I still haven’t got a refund and I lost so much time waiting, putting things off. I also held off on my plans for more erotic films. So it’s been very frustrating.

Indeed, writing this retrospective based on my blog posts has been difficult simply because I haven’t posted as much this year. Twitter is partly to blame but I’ve also been spending time doing other things.

Still, the last couple of months have seen me get back on track. I’m still editing the footage I shot in November and I also took part in a fabulous male model shoot at the start of December for FTG. The results are fantastic.

2010 marked my 10th anniversary creating porn online. It’s kind of hard to believe I’ve been doing this for so long. I have been suffering a bit of porn fatigue lately but I’m also motivated to head into the new year with a fresh mind and try new things. Lots to do!

Perhaps my biggest non-porn achievement of the year was cycling 500km over 9 days in September. I also attended the Rise of Atheism conference in Melbourne which was inspiring and interesting. And I handed out “how to votes” for the Sex Party which was more fun than I expected.

Some larger blog posts from 2010

Defining the harm of porn – a look at Michael Flood’s research and why it’s flawed
What Oprah didn’t tell you about porn for women – I wrote a guest piece for Good Vibrations blog on my favourite topic.
Dear kinky people, cut vanilla a break, will ya? – A somewhat controversial post about how vanilla sex is sometimes derided as boring or repressed.
It Gets Better… But why should it be bad in the first place? – Are teenagers forever doomed to be horrible to each other?
In 2010, a prosecution for procuring an abortion – My thoughts on abortion.
Fiona Patten reveals how the NVE classification was derailed – a video from the Humanist Conference detailing how porn was almost legalised in 1999.
How sex with your head in a toilet bowl can be OK – Not all porn is degrading
The female gaze does not exist? – Another bit of musing (and arguing) on the terms “porn for women” and “the female gaze”.

Eye Candy Posts

Admiring the mankini
The Dirk Diggler dick from Boogie Nights’ last scene
In defence of facial hair

Previous End Of Year Posts

Porn for women retrospective 2009
Porn for women retrospective 2008
Porn for women retrospective 2007
Porn for women retrospective 2006

Image Credit
Pic of the Queer Porn Mafia by Courtney Trouble from here.

Filed Under: Censorship, Feminism, Porn, Porn for Women

Tags: 2010, erotica, history, Porn, porn for women, retrospective, women

04 Nov

“She Must Have Egged Him On”

This happened two nights ago.

Stop Rape It was a balmy evening by the beach and we were heading off from the caravan park to have dinner at a nearby restaurant.

As we headed for the exit we noticed a young woman walking quickly away from a man muttering “fuck off!” She started to run into the main area of the park. She and the man were followed by two other people (as we found out later, the caravan park attendants) who were calling to the woman, trying to get her away from the guy.

It became apparent that it was a chase and that the woman was very scared.

My husband turned and went after them while I stayed back out of the way. Moments later, the guy was being held down by my husband, the caravan park guy and two others who had rushed over to help. The woman, apparently the target of a rape attempt, ran off and we didn’t see her again.

The very drunk or drugged would-be rapist swore, struggled and yelled his guts out until the police arrived, at which point we left them to it and went to dinner, discussing what had happened. My husband’s karate skills had been put to good use and I felt glad that he’d stepped in and stopped something awful from happening.

As we returned from dinner, we encountered the caravan park guy again.

Now, I should say here that I wasn’t very keen on this guy to begin with because he was a rule Nazi, was wearing a fairly sexist T-shirt when we arrived and seemed fairly light on for intelligence. The conversation we had after we got back confirmed this.

“Do you think the police will want to talk to me about this?” my husband asked.

“Nah, mate,” the caravan park attendant said. “They’ll get him for drunk and disorderly. I don’t like people disturbing the customers like that.”

“Well,” said my husband, “at least we stopped him. He looked like he wanted to rape that girl.”

“Yeah, well, she must have egged him on, I reckon.”

At first I couldn’t believe the idiot had just said what he’d said. Not two hours ago he’d been instrumental in physically restraining a man who obviously planned to attack the fleeing woman. Then he’d assisted in the arrest of that guy. And yet this numbnut had already decided that the woman was probably at fault somehow. And that the more worrying issue was a drunk guy waking up the people in caravans.

I should have told him he was a fucking idiot. Instead I just walked away, angry. My husband was good enough to say: “Well, no means no and she definitely wanted nothing to do with him.” But the caravan park guy wasn’t the slightest bit convinced.

I have an awful feeling that this attitude isn’t rare. And from now on, when feminists talk about “rape culture”, I’m going to think of this incident. Because apparently it doesn’t matter if you’re running away screaming from a rapist, it’s still somehow your fault.

Unbelieveable.

Filed Under: Feminism, Ramblings

Tags: rape

01 Nov

How Sex With Your Head In A Toilet Bowl Can Be OK

Brooklyn, the haughty, dominant lesbian pauses in her frantic fisting and then whispers in the ear of Vai, her moaning, submissive female partner. She points to the toilet her lover is leaning on.

“Do you want to put your head in there?”

Vai, panting and flushed as the result of several gushing orgasms, looks a little hesitant. “Is it clean?” she asks.

Brooklyn nods. And so the eager submissive lifts the lid and places her face into the toilet, her hair dropping into the water as Brooklyn fucks her hard with a strapon.

When I started watching Tight Places, the new queer film from Good Releasing, I expected to see fisting, strapon sucking and female ejaculation, the sort of sex that is par for the course in this kind of authentic lesbian/queer porn. What I didn’t expect was a scene that raises questions about personal taste and provides grist for the debate surrounding the “degrading” nature of pornography.

Right now, anti-porn activist Gail Dines is touring the world, marketing her book that agues that porn has “hijacked men’s sexuality.” She maintains that the current crop of porn websites and movies is far more sexist and degrading to women than ever before. She cherry-picks examples from the dark alleys of internet porn to illustrate her point. One of the regular things she mentions are sites where women’s heads are pushed into toilet bowls while they’re fucked.

How interesting, then, to encounter the very same sex act in a film that aims to be feminist, sex positive and queer- and female- friendly; a movie that features a cast of lesbians and trans-identified people but doesn’t star a single straight man.

Clearly, this movie is not following Gail Dines’ script.

I must confess to being more than a little squicked out by the scene itself. Watching someone being fucked while their head is in a toilet bowl is definitely not my bag, baby. Indeed, I found it to be rather disturbing, perhaps because this act has so many negative connotations involved. For a start, it’s just not a nice physical position to be in, as most of us who’ve suffered bad hangovers can attest. It’s hard to put yourself in her place and not feel a little, well, nauseous.

Beyond that, it has very negative philosophical associations. I’ve only ever seen it in porn that’s very abusive and hateful towards women – exactly the kind of porn that Gail Dines says is “standard” in the industry (not really true, but that’s an argument for another day). I’ve always found those sites to be pretty disgusting and avoided them if possible, so it’s confronting to find this kind of thing in a female-friendly movie. It took me out of the moment, making me analyse the politics of it all rather than simply enjoying the scene.

And the politics are pretty interesting. Because this scene is a perfect example of how consent and intent make all the difference.

Though I was personally turned off by the sex act portrayed, there is actually nothing wrong with the scene itself. Both performers consented to being in the scene and, once it’s underway, Vai voluntarily puts her head in the toilet bowl. Indeed, it seems to increase her physical pleasure by ramping up the psychological arousal. Her partner may have done it to degrade her but the intent is benign; Brooklyn seeks to get her partner off rather than to exert power or make her look or feel bad.

It’s an important difference and one that pro-porn feminists are doing their best to illustrate. It’s not the sex acts that are important, it’s the ethics of consent and how the performers are treated.

If the goal is consensual female pleasure, who cares how the results are achieved?
—-

The rest of my review of Tight Places appears at For The Girls this week. In case you’re wondering, I did enjoy the rest of it – the sex is authentic and hot.

I watched Tight Places courtesy of Good Vibrations.

Filed Under: Feminism, Porn, Porn Movies

Tags: Feminism, Gail Dines, Porn, Sexuality, Tight Places

12 Oct

In 2010, A Prosecution For Procuring An Abortion

Abortion statistics for Australia Abortion is back in the headlines here in Australia because in Queensland a woman has today gone on trial for procuring an abortion. This is the first such prosecution in the state’s history, even though the law banning abortion was first introduced in 1899.

There were several pro choice rallies held around the country in support of Teagan and her boyfriend, although I’m disappointed to say they weren’t well attended. This might just be because people feel protests don’t achieve much. Despite this, the majority of Australians do support a woman’s right to choose – see here and here and here.

Technically a court ruling overturned the law in 1986, although this case appears to completely ignore that legal precedent. The Queensland government, with its first female premier, has been remarkably cowardly on the issue, refusing to repeal the 1899 law and instead wallpapering over the cracks with a few changes to legislation that seemingly make it OK to take RU486. But the case has had a huge chilling effect on the ability of women to obtain an abortion in Queensland and, if they are found guilty, will no doubt cause further erosion of a woman’s right to seek a termination.

I don’t want to go into too many details about this case as it’s already been covered elsewhere. The two SMH opinion pieces Abortion law stuck in the 19th Century and Abortion trial not just about women do an excellent job of summing up the case.

What’s inspired me to blog about this case, apart from the obvious feminist interest in the whole disaster, are the comments on those opinion pieces. Specifically, the way the pro-life/pro-choice arguments keep boiling down to the idea of “Is it life?”

I am pro choice, of course. I completely support the right of women to make choices about their reproductive health and about whether they want to have children. My body, my choice. Raising a child is a huge responsibility and if someone isn’t ready to be a parent, they shouldn’t have to be.

I honestly think that “Every child a wanted child” is the fundamental reason why we should support legal abortion. Kids deserve to be loved and raised properly. Given the plight of so many unloved and unwanted kids in this world, I think it’s better that women be able to choose whether they want to be a mother or not. If you are not up to doing the job, you shouldn’t be forced to do it.

The anti-abortionists (“pro-life”) are all about the rights of the child, and only the child. They don’t seem to take into account what happens after the birth of that baby; all they see is a life, a potential person who has a right to live.

Here’s the thing: I do see their point. But it doesn’t mean that I agree with them.

All the arguing about “when life begins” is essentially ridiculous. An egg is alive. A sperm is alive. When they join, they create a new cell. And that cell has the potential to go on and become a new conscious human being. But there is never a moment when that entity isn’t alive so it’s a moot point. And I am not going to deny that a zygote or embryo or fetus is a human.

Nonetheless, it is a bundle of cells that requires the womb of the mother in order to grow.

The question then becomes: when is a child viable? Or, perhaps more importantly, when do we say that a baby is a baby and not just a bundle of cells?

And this is where the various arguments get a little bogged down because you can probably argue all day about spinal cord growth and brain development and nerve endings and so on. The anti-abortionists say that the moment of conception is most important because that’s when the new individual begins. The pro choice argument is a little more vague on this topic. It seems the closer you get to birth, the more viable the child becomes and the less acceptable an abortion is.

I’m just going to come out and say where I stand: I understand that abortion involves killing a bundle of cells/embryo/fetus/baby/potential person. And I don’t have a problem with that – even when it involves late term abortions of disabled fetuses.

My reasons are this. It comes down to conflicting rights; the rights of the mother versus the rights of the potential child. And for me a grown, conscious woman’s life takes precedence.

An embryo/fetus/baby is not conscious. Even a newborn child is not fully conscious. For me, consciousness is the most important thing. Obviously I’m not advocating infanticide but it really does come down to that fact. Consciousness makes us who we are. We don’t have a soul, all we have is a brain and when the brain is not fully developed, there is no consciousness.

Anti-abortionists are arguing that an unconscious fetus is exactly the same as a grown adult and that it has a right to life. But that life is solely dependent on the mother, on her body, her time, energy, attention and care. They demand that the mother make physical, emotional, mental and financial sacrifices -for years – against her will for the benefit of the unborn child. Put simply, it’s not a fair transaction.

And not only is it unfair for the mother, it’s also unfair to the child. Better that the kid be wanted and properly looked after than a source of ongoing regret, spite and anger

I think I could take the “right to life” arguments more seriously if babies were instantly independent the moment they’re born. But they’re not and that’s exactly the point. A child is 20 years of your life. That’s a massive undertaking and it should always be done willingly and happily.

And it seems that most right wing “pro-lifers” are also against welfare for single mothers, sex education and contraception. They want the babies to be born and then don’t give a damn what happens afterwards. They also seem to hold the view that women who have abortions are all callous sluts (see The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion for examples of this attitude – where pro-lifers have abortions and are back picketing the clinic the next day).

But having an abortion is never an easy or simple choice. I’m sure that most women give it serious thought before they undergo a termination. And while the pro-life movement likes to make up statistics about “abortion grief”, the fact is that most women who have abortions feel relieved afterwards. They usually go on to have a family a little later, when they’re ready (although some don’t, and that’s fine too.) There are, of course, women who have finished having children and who choose to terminate a late-in-life accident. It’s not only young women who have abortions.

The reason it’s called “pro choice” is because it’s about trusting women to make the right choice. About understanding that unwanted pregnancy is a very stressful and difficult situation to be in, a situation that no woman takes lightly. It has to be about individuals making decisions according to their own needs and circumstances, independent of any religious authority that wants to dictate “morality” to them.

Nobody wants to have an abortion. It is ultimately a very sad thing. But it’s better to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and start again than to continue on and have an unwanted child.

On a personal note, I have never had an abortion. I think it’s mostly a matter of luck, although I have been fairly meticulous in my pill taking, simply due to my strong desire not to have children. My husband and I said from the beginning that we would terminate any accidents; thankfully I’ve never been confronted with the actual decision. I do know that it would have been hard, in spite of the beliefs I’ve just outlined. But I think that if I discovered I was pregnant tomorrow, I would be OK with having a termination.

I do have plenty of female friends who have had abortions. All of them say they don’t regret it. Some went on, built up their lives, relationships and careers and then had much-loved children. Others remain happily child free. None of them wanted to be in that situation but accidents happen, as they always will. They made a choice that was right for them at the time and I would never say that it was a wrong choice. And it makes me angry that others would judge them for it.

I suspect that this long blog post hasn’t covered any new ground. Still, it’s been useful for me to write it and to articulate exactly where I stand on this issue.

In looking for an image to accompany this post, I typed “abortion” into Google images. I then scrolled through the many gory and confroting images that anti-abortionists use to argue against abortion. And while I found the pictures horrific, I don’t resile from my position. Yes, termination is an awful thing. But the rights of the mother are greater than the rights of the unwanted, unborn, unconscious zygote/embryo/fetus/baby.

Every child a wanted child.

It’s the 21st century and it’s time the law reflected the modern-day ethical choices of women – and acknowledged reality.

Abortion should be legal.

Pic came from here.

Note:
I also recommend Leslie Cannold’s excellent book The Abortion Myth for a more thorough exploration of the issue.

“The women I interviewed, no matter what side of the abortion fence they were on,” writes Leslie Cannold in The Abortion Myth, “were clear that the fetus is alive, and abortion kills it. None of them, however, believed these facts proved that abortion was wrong.” Cannold criticizes pro-choice feminists for denying the fetus in an effort to bring the woman back into focus as the locus of pregnancy and the agent of decision-making. In her view, women are moral persons for whom the decision to abort derives less from a sense of rights or privacy and more from a broader evaluation of what the “right” thing to do is. This evaluation speaks to their attitudes towards pregnancy and motherhood, and the real difference between pro- and anti-choice women is their level of trust that other women will “act morally.”"

Filed Under: Feminism, Sex and Women

Tags: abortion, pro-choice

24 Sep

Having Body Hair Does Not Make A Woman “Unkempt”

Pubic hair or no? The Sydney Morning Herald today has an article discussing the Brazilian wax, declaring it to be “here to stay.” While the article doesn’t offer any new information, I found the 100+ comments to be rather fascinating. Specifically, the apparently overwhelming enthusiasm of male commenters towards waxing – and some serious negativity towards female body hair. Some examples:

“Brazilians are literally the best thing that has ever happened to the world. May it always be so.”

“Personally, I find it much nicer playing on a barren pitch than trying to navigate the Amazon. In fact – it’s a deal-breaker.”

“If I want to see hair on a womans body I will grow a moustache.”

“Women should at least trim their pubic hair, it’s a huge turn off when you see a forest down there.”

Perhaps the worst comment was this:

“A small landing strip is fine but in this day and age any more than that is just basically unkempt. You won’t hear many men saying that they want more hair down there and I can assure you in my circles (early 40′s) more than a landing strip is frowned upon by the boys. So to those who are living in denial, stop being lazy and SORT IT OUT.”

I find it rather disturbing to think that, according to the standards of these men, a woman should regularly pay large amounts of money to have her pubic hair ripped out, otherwise she’s unattractive, unclean, lazy and unkempt. I’m really hoping that this attitude is not becoming widespread amongst men. Pity younger women who may not have the confidence to deal with that kind of sexual expectation and so accede to requests to depilate, even though it may not be their preference.

And I should say, I’m not against pubic hair waxing per se. Many women say it makes the pubic area feel more sensitive and they feel more confident about receiving oral sex. Some men also say they prefer bare skin because it’s easier to give cunnilingus and that does seem to be a reasonable claim to make.

But jeez. We’re meant to have body hair. It’s natural and normal. And it should always be a woman’s choice whether she keeps it or removes it. Any guy that says its a “deal breaker” is obviously so selfish he’s not going to be much good in bed anyway. And any guy who considers natural body hair to be a sign of laziness or lack of hygiene is clearly someone who has bought into the impossible ideas of the beauty myth, is ignorant of reality and will be impossible to please, therefore also crap in bed.

And I believe all such demands for hair removal should be met with a strong reply of: “You first mate. I hear the local salon does a great crack, back and sack wax.”

Interestingly, the comments section of that article has thrown up anecdotal evidence that women aren’t so keen on depilation after all:

“I’m a doctor and I can tell you that Brazilian waxes are not as common as the media portays. I see human bodies in all shapes and sizes, across all age groups and it is only a very small minority (in my experience at my clinic) that follow this trend. Perhaps a lot of people talk the talk but do not walk the walk? Another observation I have made (again from my own personal experience in my clinic) is that it is generally only undertaken by young woman (up to the mid twenties). Even amongst the young woman in their thirties that I see, the number of Brazilians are very low.”

It would seem there’s a discrepancy between the hype of the media (and porn) and what is happening in the real world. I hope the wax-eager studs of this world realise they’re in for a lot of “deal breaking”.

In case you’re wondering – I’m a furry princess. I hate pain and I don’t even wax my eyebrows, let alone anything else. Sometimes I shave my legs and armpits and sometimes I don’t. Thankfully my equally furry spouse loves me just the way I am, so this issue doesn’t come up often. But if I was single, I think I’d be echoing the thoughts of these female commenters:

“Nope, never getting a brazilian done. If the sight of trimmed & maintained pubic hair sends a man running, good riddance.”

“And as for getting rid of pubic hair – what a load of marketing bunkum. If you have to rely on hairless pubic bones for good sex, then you can’t be doing it right.”

Filed Under: Feminism, Sex and Women

Tags: body hair, brazilian wax, pubic hair, sex