Ms Naughty Porn for Women Blog

Just a quick post to draw your attention to Why feminism must embrace reason and shun religion, an excellent article that questions the feminist movement’s apparent “blind spot” when it comes to religion, especially given the appalling sexism that exists in almost all religions, especially the monotheistic ones.

It seems to me that some feminists are afraid of a critical discussion about religious faith, because of the ever-looming label of ‘intolerant’, ‘prejudiced’, or, when it comes to any religion besides Christianity, ‘racist’. When in fact, there is a big difference between questioning an idea (in this case: faith in the existence of a specific supernatural entity in spite of a complete lack of evidence) and hating a person or group of people. Saying that critics of religion are prejudiced is as moronic as calling feminists ‘man-haters’.

It’s a very good point. I think this desire to be tolerant is actually doing harm; it means that feminists aren’t speaking out loudly enough when it comes to the treatment of women within Islam, to use only one example. It’s this relativism that sees some people defending female genital mutilation or violence against women because it’s part of someone’s “culture”.

Human rights trump culture and religion every time. If feminism is truly about giving women equal rights and choice, it needs to remember that.

This is an ad from Egypt encouraging women to cover themselves to prevent rape (via this post at Pharyngula?.

That’s right girls, if you’re raped, it’s your own fault for being uncovered and letting the flies stick to you. Never mind the education campaign telling men that rape is bad. Responsibility and honour lies with women.

I’ve stated before that I think religion is responsible for oppressing women and Islam is one of the worst offenders. This is just a further example. It’s similar to statements made a couple of years ago by a Sydney imam who compared unveiled women to “uncovered meat” which is available to the cats.

Islam is obsessed with sexuality. It defines all contact between men and women as being sexual. There’s no such thing as a platonic friendship in this religion. Women are defined according to their bodies and their sexual availability. Men are considered to be beasts with uncontrollable desires. If a man rapes, it’s the woman’s fault for being “too tempting.” I find the whole philosophy to be abhorrent and degrading to both sexes.

There is a debate going on at the moment about the banning of the burqa in Belgium and France. I support the ideals behind it but I think it will ultimately do more harm than good. Education, not prohibition, is the way to go.

Today in the Sydney Morning Herald there’s an opinion piece called The Burqa is an Affront to Feminism, arguing for a ban in Australia. The writer goes astray when ranting about “teenagers today” but she makes a few good points. Unfortunately she doesn’t address this basic issue of sexuality within Islam that creates the whole dilemma.

The comments are running hot. Among them someone has posted the manifesto of the Council of Ex-Muslims in Britain. I really like what they have to say so I’m reposting it here.

1. Universal rights and equal citizenship for all. We are opposed to cultural relativism and the tolerance of inhuman beliefs, discrimination and abuse in the name of respecting religion or culture.
2. Freedom to criticise religion. Prohibition of restrictions on unconditional freedom of criticism and expression using so-called religious ’sanctities’.
3. Freedom of religion and atheism.
4. Separation of religion from the state and legal and educational system.
5. Prohibition of religious customs, rules, ceremonies or activities that are incompatible with or infringe people’s rights and freedoms.
6. Abolition of all restrictive and repressive cultural and religious customs which hinder and contradict woman’s independence, free will and equality. Prohibition of segregation of sexes.
7. Prohibition of interference by any authority, family members or relatives, or official authorities in the private lives of women and men and their personal, emotional and sexual relationships and sexuality.
8. Protection of children from manipulation and abuse by religion and religious institutions.
9. Prohibition of any kind of financial, material or moral support by the state or state institutions to religion and religious activities and institutions.
10. Prohibition of all forms of religious intimidation and threats.

* Here’s another post about women, “modesty” and Islam.

Just a quick post. Amber Rhea has hosted the latest Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy with a fab post here. It’s chock a blog (yes, that was a typo but I like it so I’ll leave it) full of great posts about the intersection of sex and feminism.

And yes, I’m listed in there too. If you’re after some well written, thought-provoking reading about sex, check it out.

Obsessing about my place in Google once again I found a rather long winded feminist essay about women’s porn, entitled: Rape Culture: Renegotiating Sexual Subjectivity on Porn Sites for Women. The piece takes a rather large philosophical stick to Sssh.com, which is an adult site for women that’s been around for roughly the same time as For The Girls. It does this in an attempt to make a general point about porn for women, which is that it somehow upholds the patriarchal “rape culture.”

Unfortunately the author, Caroline Godart, does not bother to define what “rape culture” actually is so I was confused from the very beginning about what point is being made. I can only assume that it’s the same ol’ same ol’ – that women’s erotica, in the form of adult sites like Sssh.com and FTG, reinforces gender roles and stereotypes. At least, I think that’s what she’s saying, although the piece is so full of academic-sounding references to Foucault, the Panopticon, the Lacanian Symbolic order, “haptic space” and other obscurities that I started to glaze over a little. I may call myself a feminist but that doesn’t mean I’ve done any study or serious reading on the topic, and this means I get kind of bored with extensive critical academic discussions about feminist theory.

Yes, I’m a philistine. What do you expect from an evil pornographer?

In any case, what did get my attention was the bizarre argument the author uses to conclude that Sssh.com reinforces “rape culture.” She says that because Sssh.com does not depict any rape fantasies, which many women have, it’s essentially not empowering women to fight against patriarchy and thus helps to perpetuate rape. So, no rape on the site equals rape.

I can almost see the logic here… but then it eludes me. Especially when the author is using descriptions like these:

Far from being traitors to their own kind, women who indulge in rape fantasies disguise themselves and poly-identify; they transform and appropriate a prototypical narrative that inherently dismisses the possibility for them to access power, especially in order to reach sexual satisfaction. They enable the fantasizing subject to use an oppressive culture over which she has no agency, by a clandestine appropriation of cultural “products,” i.e. the omnipresence of rape.

Hmmm. But of course. It’s far more complicated than I thought.

My understanding of the idea comes from Nancy Friday’s original research into women’s sex fantasies. In My Secret Garden (1975), she first discovered the prevalence of rape fantasies among the women she interviewed and concluded that they were primarily about women escaping sexual guilt by having pleasure forced upon them. In Women On Top (1991) she found that rape fantasies had actually declined among the younger generation because the guilt about sex was not nearly as prevalent.

In any case, in pondering the rather confusing idea that no rape = rape I found myself wanting to defend Sssh.com and, by association, FTG. While I don’t mind a good philosophical feminist argument about what constitutes porn for women and what it means for feminism, I’d like to at least be able to understand what the hell the critics are on about.

How do you depict heterosexual sex in a feminist way? That’s the big question here folks. Because for some feminists, any depiction of hetero sex is about men oppressing women. They can only see a negative power exchange and patriarchy in the act of penetration – this may be the “rape culture” the author speaks about.

But an awful lot of women don’t buy that. It’s why you get so many young chicks disavowing that they’re a feminist. I’ve argued before that women shouldn’t be made to feel ashamed of their fantasies or desires if they are “stereotypical” or sexist… what gets you off may be seriously politically incorrect, but it does the trick, giddy up.

So who is Caroline Godart to applaud rape fantasies but reject the “normative” depiction of hetero sex? If porn’s intent is primarily to arouse, then you need to consider that fact when making a critical judgement of what’s being depicted.

I also want people to remember that, in the end, it’s just a porn site. That means it essentially exists to make money. In doing so, a site like Sssh.com aims itself at as broad a market as possible and tries to make the majority of surfers happy. Usually that means catering to middle class women who are keen to indulge in a little porn without all the offensive crap. They also want to feel comfortable with their sexuality and not alienated or threatened. This means that you’re probably not going to find cutting edge sexual representations on that kind of site.

I like to think that FTG has a strong feminist ethic and we do feature a range of perspectives and ideas within the site. At the same time, we still rely mainly on the stuff that others brand as “stereotypical” because that’s what our members (and we the site owners) want to see.

I like to think we could feature a rape fantasy within our Wicked Ways (letters) section at some time in the future although that would depend on someone actually submitting one. I acknowledge that women do have rape fantasies and that they should be expressed. But even making sure it’s in context may cause problems. We have to deal with our credit card processor who occasionally does a scan of our content and orders us to change certain words or content if it is deemed offensive. Thus, I once had to change an article discussing rape so that the “r word” became “sexual assault.”

As with a great many things, commercial factors do come into play and they do make a difference to the final product. I’m well aware that I straddle a line between my feminist philosophy and my desire to make a living from porn. No doubt I could sit down and produce a adult site that ticked all the boxes when it comes to critical feminism but I’m not sure it would be very sexy, or that it would make much money.

I just had to post this very cool photo of comedian Bill Bailey, who is a very, very funny man.

A snippet from his blog:

What is this lunacy of making people pledge allegiance to the Queen? I could understand if it was allegiance to the band Queen.

On October 20, 2003 an article called “The Porn Myth” by Naomi Wolf appeared in NYMag. The article suggests that porn desensitises men to real women and thus ruins relationships. She says that women now have to compete with a porn star aesthetic:

Now you have to offer—or flirtatiously suggest—the lesbian scene, the ejaculate-in-the-face scene. Being naked is not enough; you have to be buff, be tan with no tan lines, have the surgically hoisted breasts and the Brazilian bikini wax—just like porn stars.

The article begins with Naomi saying that “at a benefit the other night, I saw Andrea Dworkin.” Dworkin died in 2005. Naomi also writes that she is 40 in this article. She was born in 1962.

In the almost five years since The Porn Myth first appeared, the article has popped up as a new item in Google news several times, even though the text remains exactly the same. There’s no actual date on the piece. And NYMag has recycled it again this month, prompting another wave of commentators to use it as an excuse to rail against the evils of porn (latest example: Is porn making men too picky?).

I find the whole thing rather frustrating. Why is a five-year-old piece of opinion being recycled like this? Doesn’t Naomi have anything new to say on the topic?

And it’s bothersome because I’m not sure if Wolf’s conclusions are correct. There’s a lot of assumptions going on and not much evidence to back it up beyond anecdotes from friends.

Fact is, five years later we still don’t know what men really think about porn, or what affect it’s having on our sex lives. You only have to see the enormous debate on a post called “How Porn Ruined Sex” at Jezebel to know that this is a complex issue that nobody has really researched.

It’s entirely possible that young, inexperienced men are getting the wrong idea about sex because of porn. If that’s the only info you’re getting, chances are you’ll be a little confused. But it’s a long bow to draw to say that all men are becoming desensitised, that porn is addictive and ruins relationships, yada yada yada. If we’re only going to rely on anecdotal evidence, then there are plenty of guys out there refuting Wolf’s argument on the net, saying “nothing is better than the real thing.” Example here.

And I have to say, Naomi really loses me when she starts to argue that the headscarves and conservative religious attitudes to sex are somehow sexier than the freedom of dress and association that a liberated Western women enjoys.

While I appreciate the point she is trying to make, this article is just too problematic to keep reappearing in the media like this. Where is the new commentary on this?

Ever since reading the Jezebel debate I’ve been thinking about the issue of how porn affects men and relationships and whether porn reflects male fantasy or creates it. It’s probably time I got on with posting about it. Stay tuned.

The Dominion has an article about porn for women and the feminist porn awards. Admittedly, they’re six months late with the awards, but the piece does discuss women’s erotica in an interesting way.

As for the opposite of feminist pornography, “any film made with female coercion” would qualify, says [Chanelle] Gallant. She stresses that feminist porn is not a genre. You can’t identify it by pointing to certain aspects of storyline, sexual content, or its status as soft or hardcore. Feminist porn does not look like something in particular; it acts like something in particular.

The article also says there’s “no feminist porn community” but I’m not sure that’s entirely correct. Over the last year or two I’ve got to know a group of writers and filmmakers – Tristan Taormino, Audacia Ray, Violet Blue, Petra Joy, Erica Lust, Tony Comstock and even Chanelle Gallant – who are all striving to create their version of porn. We may not all agree on what that should be, but there is a lot of discussion and interaction happening between us. I think that could qualify as a community, as much as any other on the internet.

While I was away enjoying life a small debate erupted about porn, facials, blowjobs and feminism. It started because Petra Joy wrote this on her blog:

A woman receiving head, a woman fucking a guy with a strap-on, a guy tasting his own cum and also to feature female ejaculation – those techniques that show a woman in control might be “feminist porn”. If you want to show cum on a woman’s face that’s fine but don’t call it feminist.

Petra made the comment while discussing her appearance at the Berlin Film Festival in a seminar called Good Porn for Good Girls. Her fellow panelists, Audacia Ray and Erika Lust, weren’t so impressed with this. Audacia made this post on her blog, and Erika wrote a long, angry post in defence of blowjobs.

I was off bushwalking and guzzling wine at the time, so I didn’t make any serious posts about it. And I was tempted to just let it slide, figuring I’d missed the boat on it. But I feel the need to write a few things on the whole subject.

I’m a huge fan of Petra’s and I really support what she’s trying to do. I understand where she’s coming from with that comment, but I also understand why it caused such an extreme reaction. I copped something similar when I wrote I Hate The Money Shot several years ago. When it comes to feminism and porn, everyone has a different view, and it helps to lay down caveats at every stage.

I’ll say this: I still hate facial cumshots. I’m pretty sick of external cumshots. And the fact is that porn blowjobs bore the hell out of me.

This is a personal opinion and does not apply to all women. I don’t, however, believe I’m alone in thinking this, not by a long shot.

Facial cumshots always look fake and stupid to me. The usually involve the woman kneeling before the guy, her mouth open or smiling like a blowup Barbie doll. We only ever get to see the man’s cock and his hand while he jerks off. The cum goes on her face, in her hair, in her eye, and then she smiles and licks it all off like it’s manna from heaven, often smiling and looking directly into the camera.

I don’t think that is sexy. It just looks dumb.

Facial cumshots suck because:
1. We don’t get to see the guy’s face when he comes, which is always a sexy thing to see.
2. They’re often carefully staged, are disconnected from the sex and look fake.
3. They can be very easily interpreted as a degrading thing. Wait, my fellow rabid feminists! That’s not to say they always are, but within the context of a very misogynist porn industry where facials are the norm, and where it’s often assumed the viewer is a male who likes to see women in their place, the facial can be a sexist thing.
4. It’s always assumed that a facial will occur at the end of sex, there’s no discussion of it and no indication that either party wanted it to be that way. It just happens as though that’s the way everybody does it.

I’ll also restate my position that I hate the way the male orgasm (as engendered in the money shot or facial) is always the “final whistle” in porn. It’s considered to be the ultimate act, the most important thing in a whole scene. And often there’s no female orgasm whatsoever.

Imagine how ground breaking it would be if we got to see the woman come AFTER the guy? Even if that meant bringing in a vibrator. Sure, it would be just as set up as a standard facial but at least there’d be a bit of equality happening.

So, can a facial ever be “feminist”? My answer is yes. As always, context is everything.

There’s a scene in Candida Royalle’s Eyes of Desire when Chloe asks Tom Byron if she can watch him come. It’s one of the few “money shots” in Candida’s films but it works because we the viewer know that Chloe wanted to see it. And I think that’s how a facial can be feminist (and more enjoyable) – when the viewer knows that there’s consent and desire involved.

Audacia and Erika also point out that the intentions and ethics of the filmmaker make all the difference, I do agree with them there, but as a viewer I don’t think it’s enough to make me want to watch it. Let me hear the woman on screen say “Come on my face, I love that” and I’ll find the scenario a whole lot more believeable. I’m still not going to find it sexy, but that’s just personal taste.

And the other thing is this – blowjobs are boring! I’ve been reviewing so many porn movies lately and the one thing I’m guaranteed to fast forward is the blowjob scenes. Of which there are many.

Again, this is personal taste. I don’t doubt there are plenty of women who love watching blowjobs, but I’m not one of them. Give me clit licking any day.

I’ve been pondering why I find porn BJs to be dull. It may well be because I’m a woman and I want to see the woman pleasured, not the guy.

It may also be due to the excessive screentime given to blowjobs as compared to pussy licking. Sucking dick always seems to get more airtime in most mainstream porn. Look at the recently released “Oral themed” category nominations at the AVN awards and all but one of the films are about blowjobs.

Or it may be due to porn’s insistence of focusing only on the woman as she’s going down. From a female point of view, that’s not what’s hot about blowjobs. Fact is, when you’ve got a mouth full of cock you don’t look so great. What IS hot is knowing that you’ve got a guy right where you want him, squirming and under your control. And it’s hot to see his face as he gets lost in that pleasure. Porn steadfastly refuses to show the guy’s face.

I did enjoy watching Mr Marcus receive a blowjob in Tristan Taormino’s Chemistry, mainly because the camera stood back and showed us both Marcus and Dana. We could see how much Marcus was into the whole thing, and that was hot.

It doesn’t happen often.

So, is it ever reasonable to dictate what kind of sex acts are “feminist”? Well, no, because then you turn into Andrea Dworkin, and none of us want that.

It is reasonable, however, to think about the way mainstream porn gives priority to certain sex acts and the context in which they’re presented. And it’s OK to stand up and say “No, I don’t think those particular sex acts in that context is female-friendly or feminist.” Choice, consent and desire are what makes the difference and if I’m not seeing that, I will tend to think negatively about certain sex acts in porn.

It’s also OK to say “I want to make feminist porn and my vision of it does not entail certain sex acts or scenarios because I personally find them to be unsatisfactory or degrading.”

Feminist porn is a nebulous concept and it’s worth having a debate about what it is, what it means and what it should entail. We’ve all got different ideas about what we want to see but that’s a good thing because it means that there’s a diversity and energy involved.

And the important thing is that feminist porn – whatever that encompasses – gets out there and starts to overcome the stagnant, sexist, boring offerings that comprise the vast majority of the porn industry. Because that’s something on which we can all agree and strive for.

* Pic is from a site I made ages ago called Penis Karaoke. I had so many photos where it looked like the girls were singing into a dick, I had to make up some funny galleries.

* Update 3rd December: I missed this post when it originally came out, but it’s worth adding here. The Girl With A One Track Mind reveals a disturbing personal experience with a guy who was overly keen on facials. The comments are also worth reading.

This article in the Observer concludes with four quotes by “feminists who have rocked the boat.” The quotes included:

“In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent” – Catherine MacKinnon, feminist author (attributed)

“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticising her own oppression.” – Sheila Jeffreys, lesbian feminist

I read those and felt quite offended by them (even though, as it turns out, the first one was never actually uttered by McKinnon). I then started musing about how the anti-sex stance taken by many radical feminists resulted in feminism coming to equal man-hating in many young women’s eyes.

I think it’s fair to say that any woman who loves sex with men would feel offended by those sentiments. The quotes cast all women into the roles of victims without choice and all men into the role of violent aggressor. That’s not how most modern Western women see their lives, or their relationships with men.

I went looking for similar anti sex comments and found a bunch of them on this page – which is run by an aggreived father’s group – and here. Both sites are distinctly anti-feminist.

Now, given the sources, I can’t claim that these are authentic, but that’s not my point here. I wanted to gather them together as evidence of why so many people have an ingrained bias against the idea of feminism. These quotes exist in the public consciousness as prime examples of the what’s wrong with feminism.

These quotes are why so many women will say “I’m not a feminist, but…”.

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” – Marilyn French, The Women’s Room

“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” – Robin Morgan

“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” – Andrea Dworkin

“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” – Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime

“The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist” – Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (p. 86)

“The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.” – National NOW Times, Jan.1988

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students.

“Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women’s own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, ‘even if she does not feel forced.’” – Judith Levine

To end this post on a positive note, here’s a whole bunch of interesting feminist quotes that aren’t quite so radical or man-hating.

It includes this one:

“During the feminist revolution, the battle lines were again simple. It was easy to tell the enemy, he was the one with the penis. This is no longer strictly true. Some men are okay now. We’re allowed to like them again. We still have to keep them in line, of course, but we no longer have to shoot them on sight.” – Cynthia Heimel, Sex Tips for Girls, 1983

Pic is from Feminist Ezine.